Few authors have captured my imagination, and no director has ever reached that same level of inspiration.. until Peter Jackson took on the Lord of The Rings Trilogy. Now, he continues to amaze with his production of The Hobbit. I cannot wait until next Christmas!

Until then, enjoy the trailer above. I am Sorry about the 30-second commercial, but hey, it’s a free trailer! AND poster below!

DOJ’s conclusion, however, is the exact opposite of ICE’s findings after it’s own lengthy investigation. As a matter of fact, in 2009, ICE said that Arpaio’s officers were highly professional and that the cases they referred to the federal immigration authorities were of “high quality.”

So when the facts on the found did not fit the progressive template of Eric Holder and his pet Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, they kept extending their investigation of Sheriff Joe. After three years of interviews, inspections, and dumpster-diving, the list of complaints comes off like a Politically Correct script:

The not-unexpected Justice Department report said investigators documented discriminatory policing practices including unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Hispanics; unlawful retaliation against people exercising their First Amendment right to criticize the agency’s policies or practices, including its discriminatory treatment of Hispanics; and discriminatory jail practices against inmates with limited English proficiency by punishing them and denying them critical services.”

It would be interesting to read the specifics of these claims, and the corroborating proof. Any activist can make a claim of discrimination, but is showing proof and presenting accurate witnesses with matching testimony too much to ask?

This is the same DOJ that prosecuted and incarcerated Border Patrol agent Jesus Diaz for jerking a drug smugglers cuffs and pinning him to the ground when he tried to resist. This is the same DOJ that informed Officer Diaz that when he is released on probation he cannot go home because his wife is also an armed officer and he can’t be around weapons.

This is the same Justice Department that oversaw the Fast And Furious gun-running operation designed to create a flow of illegal guns from US gun stores to criminals in Mexico. Why would a federal agency create a system to arm Mexican drug cartels? To justify stricter gun control in the USA. All they got was two dead federal agents and a backlash in Congress.

The politicization of the DOJ is worse today than it was even under Janet Reno & Bill Clinton, and it is time for Congress to move to force out Eric Holder & Janet Napolitano, and hold their boss, Barak Obama, accountable for his failed oversight if his own appointees.

The Gall of Eric Holder to go after Joe Arpaio when Mr. Holder’s corrupt department is coming unravelled only shows how politically-driven he and his department are. If facts ever mattered in any investigation, then they should matter here. Joe Arpaio has been open and up-front about his policies, tactics, training, and enforcement of the laws on the books in his jurisdiction. He has never shied away from the truth of what he is doing because the federal government is derelict in its duties.

If the DOJ would have spent the last three years fighting illegal immigration instead of generating poo about Joe, then maybe a stupid idea like Operation Gunrunner wouldn’t have had the oxygen to survive the first meeting where it was discussed.

Arizona needs to support and back up Sheriff Arpaio or it will be running from federal mandates for the foreseeable future. It’s time to cut federal power back down to size in America, and a big part of that will be reigning in the Holders, Napolitanos, and the departments that they use as a club against their political opponents.

I’ve been wrestling with this question lately, and not because I’m a pot smoker. I’m not, and I have no intention or desire to start smoking marijuana. But I’m struggling with how to justify that alcohol can be legal in the “freest” nation on earth, while cannabis is a federal crime. There is some logical flaw there somewhere.

We experimented with prohibition in the first part of the last century, and it was a disaster! Americans rebelled against being treated like children, and organized crime became wildly successful and enriched as they were willing to flout the law to sell booze to willing customers. Many politicians, law enforcement officers, judges, and other community leaders partook in hidden speakeasies or moonshine operations.

The courts and prison system were overwhelmed with cases from raids of illegal bars and lounges, filled with “criminals” with no other record of crimes but drinking illegal alcohol. The criminals who were invested in the illegal booze trade became violent about defending or expanding their territory, as it was so lucrative and the customer base was so large.

After three years of this disaster, America came to its senses and repealed the 18th amendment to the Constitution with the 22nd Amendment. The ONLY Constitutional Amendment to ever be repealed, because it was so harmful to American society.

So… how much different is the issue of cannabis? The reason I struggle is that the two are so similar, and if alcohol is legal for adults, why is pot a major no-no? Again, I’m not advocating because I want it, I’m asking a question because I don’t have a good answer.

I see how much we spend on enforcement, prosecution, mandatory sentencing, and prisons, and I wonder why we are expending such a huge amount of capital and manpower on such a ridiculous double-standard. I see how violent street gangs and international drug rings are enriched by trade in a substance that has similar characteristics and effects as legal alcohol and I wonder why we are pouring money into the criminal world?

Just today, another tunnel was found under the US border with 30 tons of pot being transported when it was discovered. How much had gone through each day before it was found? Who was profiting from it, and who is purchasing it?

Now, I don’t like alcoholism or drug addiction, and I don’t personally know anyone who I am aware is addicted to any sort of drugs, but I do know dozens of people who drink alcohol occasionally and never get drunk or drive impaired. There are millions of people who can take a drink and not spend the rent money away. Conversely , there are horrible abuses out there as well. But do we hold individuals responsible for their behavior, or do we just ban anything with the potential for abuse?

Then we shouldn’t have paint, guns, cars, heavy machinery, glass, cooking knives, transfats (oh, that’s right, we already banned that one), cholesterol, pizza or twinkies. I had a heart attack two years ago from eating a fatty diet and choosing not to exercise for 20 years of my adult life. Is it my fault, or is it the food makers? I knew somewhere in the back of my head that I was eating things that were not the best, but I wasn’t disciplined enough to change my habits. And I had to pay the consequences.

See, the thought of banning dangerous substances is like a parent trying to put his child in a bubble so nothing bad will ever happen. It doesn’t teach them responsibility or awareness. God didn’t even do that at the beginning of creation!!! In the perfect environment of the Garden of Eden, God puts the most dangerous substance available right in there with all the good stuff He made.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a radioactive, nuclear bomb just waiting to explode all over Adam and Eve. All they had to do was reach out and take it. It was readily available and worse, it was FREE! (No, I am not advocating free pot or booze.)

If God in His infinite wisdom and goodness gave mankind that kind of choice, is government any wiser to try to make illegal anything potentially harmful? I think some safety guidelines are wise, building codes are probably a good idea so our homes and workplaces don’t fall in on us and kill us. I appreciate the yellow line on the road that tells the other driver to stay on their side and not drive into me. I guess I am just wrestling with where the line should be drawn.

As my kids get older, I am more and more allowing them to make their own choices and enjoy the rewards or suffer the consequences of their decisions. As a loving father, I want them to learn individual responsibility, by letting them experience life. I give them counsel and direction, but more and more I am letting go of control. If I don’t, I will stunt their growth as adults and they will be worse off in the long run.

Where should government draw the line in regulating the populace? In Europe, they monitor your garbage and fine you for not recycling! Is that too far? But, on the same continent, heroine is legal!

At the very least, the federal government should return decisions on regulating marijuana to the states, as suggested by, of all places, National Review Online.

I am not taking a black and white position on the issue of legalization for marijuana, I’m just sharing with you the logical wrestling match that I go through more and more as I look at our current policy and it’s effects on individuals, law enforcement, border issues, prison reform, and tax policy.

It just gnaws at my mind and heart that there has got to be a better way…..

More to come as I do more research, but in the meantime, check out the teaser video on the right.

"Peaceful Protest"

Overheard at work the other day: “My daughter sent me a picture from the occupy Wall Street protest. She’s down there in the middle of it.” ,”Really? Wow, that’s cool! That’s just so cool that she’s a part of it!”

This from the sales force where I work. They work on commission. They would LOVE to sell enough to break the 1% barrier and be filthy stinkin rich. But it’s “cool” that socialists and communists are calling for an end to the capitalist system that would do away with their livelihood.

Not enough people are listening to what the protesters are actually calling for in the streets. We can’t take the media or the politicians word for what the protests are all about. We have to listen carefully to the recurring themes that are coming out of the crowds of drugged-up, unemployed college malcontents that like to ruin public spaces.

The gentleman in the video above that believes we need to collapse the US government is Roger Fraser, a retired public school teacher that pulls in almost $8K a month on his pension. I wonder if this genius teacher understands that when the capitalist American system collapses, he no longer gets his public school union pension?

Or Russell Simmons who is a multi-millionaire, who claims he is suffering right along with the protesters. Does he realize that his money is worth crap once they collapse the economy? Don’t the protesters realize that he is absolutely in the 1% that they are railing against?

Just like the top ten celebrity millionaires that The Blaze reported on that celebrate Occupy Wall St, and are welcomed with open arms. How can some 1% citizens be demonized while others are embraced? Oh, that’s right. If you are a liberal progressive you can be as rich as you want because you think all the right things. The difference is, most of the 1% that the protesters are going after actually employ people and contribute to the economy.

The truth is, this is not about the economy. It is absolutely about worldview and belief system. Socialists, communists, anarchists, & Islamists are taking their best shot to tear apart the Western way of life and destroy our democratic republic. It is fueled by those who do not believe in the genius of the Constitution, and resent the free market approach to economics. There is no future for peace or prosperity in the Occupy Wall street movement, only a repeat of countless revolutions around the world that ended in bloodshed and dictatorship.

Even the protestors in the end won’t get what they really want, because a majority of them don’t know what they really want, or if they do, they don’t have the intellectual foresight to see what it will lead to. Our founders did, that’s what they placed protections in our founding documents against both tyranny AND mob rule. That is why we have a representative form of government, democratically based, but the rights of the individual are protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Occupy Wall St. doesn’t protect individual rights, it suppresses them. Whichever direction the crowd is swayed to, the mob runs in that direction and individuals who resist are run over. That’s the whole point of the protests, to make them so big that they are irresistible.

Remember when the Tea Party was protesting and there were clashes with police, defecations on police cars, rapes in the parks, and human waste and trash strewn all over the protest grounds? Oh, that’s right. There were NO arrests, rapes, robberies or littering reported at any Tea Party even since their inception in 2008. Most venues were left cleaner than before the rally, such as the 9/12 March on Washington, where I witnessed tea partiers picking up trash in the streets as they marched toward the Capitol. That’s the difference between the American belief in the rule of law and respecting the rights of others and the idiots in the streets currently.

These people aren’t so much occupying Wall Street as they are occupying stupid. Now, if we just had a media that would show the disengaged in America the truth of what is happening…..

Hey, I can dream can’t I?

This nation was founded by non-politicians and Revolutionaries, and by their heavy reliance on their Judeo-Christian heritage have given us the most free and prosperous society in human history. It’s when politicians get involved that we lose the freedoms and the heritage of every US citizen.

The latest target of the politicians-rule cult is GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain. They say a businessman cannot run the executive office of the US government. They claim that executive experience in business is not enough to prepare a person for the highest office in America. They could not be more wrong.

Barack Obama’s greatest credential was his government service with NO executive experience, and he was overwhelmingly unprepared to lead the free world. Add to that his socialist, progressive agenda, and his administration has been an unmitigated disaster not just for America, but for the world.

A Herman Cain Presidency might be just the thing we need. We don’t need a politician to try to change government by degrees, but we need an executive that is willing to make some hard decisions to preserve the Constitutional powers of government, while rolling back the unconstitutional encroachment of government. We need someone who is not invested in the growth and expansion of government, but who is invested in the strength of the private sector. For those of you who don’t know, the private sector is where all of us who don’t work for the government live and work.

Cain may not be politically polished, but he is a common-sense man with a sense of integrity. He is sold on the free market, but with a morality that keeps the powerful from preying on the weak. His 999 tax plan is extremely attractive in it’s simplicity. The tax code survives because it is enigmatic, and any threats to revise it cause dire prophecies of the crash of society because there will be no roads or policemen. It also allows punitive tax rates on the producers while giving a pass to a majority of consumers.

All the things a polished pol would know not to do, a guy like Herman Cain could press through. He would be a populist bull in the government china shop and could save us alot of grief. The qualities his opponents want to use to disqualify him are exactly the ones we love about him. No wonder his star is rising in South Carolina and elsewhere during the GOP Primary season.

Zogby tells us that in the last two weeks, Cain has rocketed to the top spot among the GOP contenders. He has risen from 12% on Sept 12, to 28% on Sept 26. Perry and Romney came in at 18% & 17%, respectively.This Zogby poll came two days after the Florida straw poll was taken, in which Cain walked away with 35% while Perry and Romney hit 15% & 14%.

It may not last until November of 2012, but this event in Florida has become Cain’s breakout moment. While most of the media tends to dismiss Cain as the ‘pizza guy,’ liberals and progressives have been brutal on his qualifications and motives. The ever-so-wise-and-eloquent Jeanine Garofalo even claimed that Cain was a paid participant to provide cover for the GOP’s ‘inherent’ racism, while not appreciating the racist nature of her own comments. That a black man could be a Republican and a conservative with a decades-long track record of his core beliefs (he opposed Hillarycare in the 90′s) is a foreign concept to her.

But Herman Cain is not the ‘pizza guy’, and he’s not a racist, and he is certainly no one’s pawn. He is a businessman who loves his God, his family, and his country. He wants to find solutions to the problems that America faces, and implement them. His economic and tax plan, the 9-9-9 plan, is garnering fresh attention with all the fights in government over the budget and taxes. He claims in his web ad explaining the plan that “If 10% is good enough for God, then 9% should be good enough for the federal government.”

There do not appear to be any hidden motives or agendas with Cain, and his blunt responses often create quite a stir. Last Sunday, he told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that “A good economic growth plan should not be designed to help more people not pay taxes, Chris.” Cain is running the risk of alienating the 51% of people in this country who pay no income taxes and expect a yearly tax credit for their low income level. Yet, if he can effectively communicate the benefits of his plan to enough Americans, this might just be the economy to push a Herman Cain presidency to reality.

Such arguments show the ignorance of the freedom of faith in America and the history of our founding as a nation and distinct American Culture. When the Pilgrims fled Europe to find religious freedom, it was to the shores of the New World they came… to America. When the Colonists chafed against the monarchy, an equal number of their complaints were religious as well as economic. Yet today, all we hear about are the economic reasons. This is the principle reason the pulpit needs to remain free from taxation.

The American pulpit fanned the flames of Revolution and framed the moral arguments in a faith-based argument. David Barton of Wallbuilders points out:

John Adams himself declared that the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew and the Rev. Dr. Samuel Cooper were two of the individuals “most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential” in the “awakening and revival of American principles and feelings” that led to American independence. Regrettably, God (and His servants) have largely disappeared from the presentation of American history in general and America’s founding in particular.”

It was the Church that facilitated the birth of the United States of America, and the teachings of the pulpit that shaped the thinking of the Revolutionary generation. The Black Robed Regiment was well known in the Revolutionary Army, and fought alongside soldiers and prayed for and encouraged as well in and out of battle. Even the French thinker & politician, Alexis de Toqueville, stated in Democracy in America:

“Religion in American takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion for who can search the human heart?—but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.”

It is interesting to me that an outside observer of American society could see that even fifty years after our independence from Great Britain, that the Church was a prime political mover. If the Church is to be a moral voice in society, then how is it that we can have the government arbitrarily muzzling political speech and remain free? The IRS knows full well that the Johnson Amendment is a violation of the First Amendment, and is unconstitutional. That is why it has never gone to trial.

If the Church calls people to salvation and not to righteousness, then its Gospel message is ineffectual. If I claim to be a Christian, but I can’t be taught the truth about abortion, stem-cell research, humanism, right and wrong, civic duty, and political views from a faith perspective, then my claim of faith is empty, for “faith without works is dead.”  The world claims every area for politics, now even marriage, which is God’s creation, not man’s, and then says the church can’t get political. It is a bait and switch argument, and it is meant to increasingly squeeze the Church out of American society using the threat of government regulation and taxation.

Next week is Pulpit Freedom Sunday, an initiative from the Alliance Defense Fund to reclaim the right of Churches and Clergy to address every area of life, including politics, from the pulpit and in Church literature. The IRS maintains that churches cannot engage in political speech or they cannot be considered nonprofits for exemption from taxation. Every Church in America, regardless of their political views, should participate in this exercise of freedom. It is their God-given right, and it’s freedom from infringement is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The Church in America has never been subject to taxation, regardless of its preaching or teaching. The power to tax is the power to control and destroy. Shackling the Church with the threat of taxation and regulation is a threat to the liberty of all Americans, and should be rejected as government overreach, for that is exactly what it is. It isn’t about the Church getting a free ride, it IS all about the Church being a free moral voice without government threat or interference.

Wake up, America, this is exactly one of the reasons we are a nation. To cast it aside now would invite further deterioration of all our liberties.

UPDATE: Check out Michelle Malkin’s piece on LightSquared…. it gets deeper.

UPDATE 2: Now it’s been discovered that the Obama White House actually reworked the loan to place the private investors (read: George Kaiser) ahead of the American taxpayers for repayment in the event of a default…

In yet another example of the Obama Administration, and particularly, Obama himself’s inability to gauge the business viability of the American economy, ABC News has uncovered emails from the White House and the Energy Department that showed concern for the viability of the solar panel manufacturer. At stake was a 528-million-dollar loan from the stimulus program. The White House wanted to use Solyndra as a shining example of their new approach to energy and the economy, but federal auditors were concerned about the wisdom of investing in this particular company.

It turns out that a major Obama fundraising bundler, George Kaiser, was a majority investor in the company known as Solyndra. No, not ‘personally,’ as his foundation’s statement points out, but then again, what billionaire ’personally’ invests in anything? When Warren Buffet invests, it’s going to be through Berkshire Hathaway or some foundation he has established to handle those things. That doesn’t mean that Kaiser wasn’t in a position to benefit if Solyndra got the stimulus money and did well as a business. He pressed hard to raise money for the company and encourage the Solyndra loans from the Department of Energy.

‘Coincidentally,’ the Obama White House trumpeted this nearly defunct company as a model for the future. So, what drove the decision? Was it the influence of a major political donor? Was it Obama’s rock-solid belief that this company was the wave of the future? Was it an ideological faith-filled belief that this is what America should be doing, regardless of whether it would work or not?

Whatever it was, it certainly wasn’t any kind of business sense. The White House under George W. Bush recommended against the loan for Solyndra because it projected that the company would be out of money in September of 2011. That projection was made back in 2008, and lo, and behold, here we are, in September of 2011, and the Bushies look like prophets. Federal auditors flagged the loan as giving preferential treatment to some of its investors. (cough* George Kaiser!!!* cough)

In his opening statement in today’s hearings in Congress, Rep. Fred Upton pointed out that the Obama White House refused to release the requested documents to his commitee, so they had to subpoena the Office of Management and Budget. Those records then led to the hearings, as they pointed out several irregularities in the loan process.

So what is the takeaway on this whole situation? 1. Obama and his advisors have NO business sense, which is why they are tanking the economy even further.  2. Political donors get things they want, especially if they are personal friends of the President.  3. President Obama is willing to make the wrong decision for his friends or donors, regardless of whether it is good for America or not.

This is a classic example of why you shouldn’t put a progressive, liberal academic in charge of the American government. It’s bad for the economy, it wastes billions of tax dollars, and the Chinese still come out on top. Yeah, that’s right. China is cranking out solar panels and we’re not. Go figure.

Real Clear Politics reports that at an Obama event in Detroit, Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamsters Union President made a specific and direct threat to the Tea Party. Hoffa, using terms such as ‘war,’ ‘fight,’ & ‘take them out,’ said the number one enemy of the unions is the Tea Party. Following that claim to it’s logical conclusion, if the Tea Party is against government spending, and that is anti-union, then doesn’t it follow that the unions are completely dependent on government spending?

Just sayin….