Blog

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

WILL THE REAL MAYOR GYSBERTS PLEASE SIT DOWN?

"Hagerstown Mayor David S. Gysberts said Monday night that he is open to other projects at the downtown site, and that he would consider using eminent domain to acquire or speed up negotiations for any properties needed for redevelopment. Those projects could include other athletic facilities or a community or convention center, Gysberts said."

 
The Herald Mail
September 23, 2013
 
It turns out that all is not what it seemed with this candidate-now-mayor.
 
   I have supported Mayor Gysberts since he began campaigning for mayor in the last election. I know that a referendum was passed during that election to run non-partisan city elections in the future. In a perfect world that sounds like a good and noble idea, but voters will probably still tend to lean toward the candidate who leans towards their political ideals, and the candidates will probably still discreetly tow their party line. So with that said, I am an unlikely supporter of Mayor Gysberts, myself being a true blue Republican for most of my adult life (although not so much now), and having been very involved in the TEA Party movement. Why? Well he seemed so...non-partisan back then. He also seemed to be against building a stadium at the downtown site. He seemed to be against the use of tax payer money without at least equal private funds. It turns out that all is not what it seemed with this candidate-now-mayor. 
    
Skillfully played!

    Candidate Gysberts attended a meeting led by those in opposition to the downtown site. Those hosting the meeting said that the then-current mayor and council had refused to meet with them (although they had not been invited to this particular meeting). Candidate Gysberts skillfully appeared to be in agreement with this group without ever making a definitive statement about it. At least that is what he said after the election when those at the meeting were stunned to find out that he indeed was for the downtown site. Of course there were no audio or video recordings of the meeting. I was there and I can not without a doubt remember if he made a statement against it, but I do remember without a doubt that he did not make a statement for it. I do remember that the implication was that he was against it. It was implied by his very presence, by there not being any definite statement for it, by his commiseration about the incumbents and their lack of consideration for the citizens that were against it, and for his statements against the process. I have to give it to him. It was skillfully played. 
     
Disappointing

     I got over that disappointment pretty quickly because I still considered him to be a thoughtful man who would care about the will of the voters. Even the most liberal of the city council, Council Member Metzner, said that "the voters have spoken and they do not want a stadium at the downtown site." I hate to even have to mention that Council Member Munson, who has since reneged on his promise to oppose the site, claimed to have personally talked to thousands and that no more than 45 people were for that stadium site. So there was no question that the citizens of this town did not and do not want it. Certainly a thoughtful young man like Mayor Gysberts would represent the voters. Not so. Instead, he came out strongly for the site and promised to vote for it if there should be a tied vote. He was quoted many times in the newspaper in support of it, and even wrote a letter to the governor asking for taxpayer funds. Disappointing. 
   
Incredulous!

    Disappointing went to incredulous upon reading that not only would this mayor continue to consider other athletic facilities for that site, but he went so far as to say that he would also consider using eminent domain! In short, eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use, against the will of the property owner, with payment of compensation. He is willing to steal private property away from an individual or business to build a ridiculous baseball field at a site that the voters overwhelmingly do not want. This seemingly non-partisan candidate just revealed himself to be a  Progressive Liberal politician. 

   
So the mayor of this town, in essence, publicly threatens to take the property of a successful business for a venture that no respectable investor would touch?
    
    He made this statement about eminent domain just as a the Zoning Appeals Board voted unanimously to allow a private investor to expand and improve a property that would have been needed for the stadium or a similar project. The stadium project was unable to get the private investment needed to proceed. So the mayor of this town, in essence, threatens to take the property of a successful business for a venture that no respectable investor would touch? In the newspaper? How many would-be small business owners would locate in a town where the mayor publicly makes such a statement? 

     
He was against the process! Right...I mean Left!
 
     There is a closed-door city council meeting scheduled for October 1st. Council Member Alshire has stated that he would prefer the discussion to be held publicly. Candidate Gysberts raked ex-Mayor Bruchey over the coals for his lack of transparency during the deliberation and planning process concerning the proposed stadium. I don't hear him asking for a public meeting. Why doesn't he govern as openly as he expected and demanded from Mayor Bruchey? It appears that he is quite agreeable to closed doors now that he is at the helm of the process. 
 
Lets not be naive or dishonest about our expectations for non-partisan politics 
in city elections. 
   
     It also turns out that Mayor Gysberts is not as non-partisan as Candidate Gysberts seemed. He has been active in Democratic politics since being elected. For instance, he has endorsed Democratic candidate for governor Anthony Brown and he belongs to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. MAIG claim to be non-partisan, but one of the stated principles of this group is to "Keep lethal, military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines off our streets." That is the kind of Liberal lingo that was used to pass a mostly Democratic supported, some would say Unconstitutional, gun control law (SB-281) in the last legislative session. He is free to do so, but lets not be naive or dishonest about our expectations for non-partisan politics in city elections. Although I voted non-partisan, actually voting for the mayor and three Democrats for council members, I fully expect that politicians will be partisan no matter how they seem during campaign mode. 
 
KNOW YOUR CANDIDATE!
 
    I admit it. I was played like a piano. Nothing about Candidate Gysberts was at it seemed. He may be a very nice man, but he is clearly a politician. I learned a valuable lesson. I will be more diligent about getting to know the person and his/her politics before voting for them. I will not go along to get along. I will be more aware of what the candidate did not say, not only what they said. I will ask more direct questions in order to get direct answers. I hope every voter that is reading this vows to do the same. And Hagerstown, for God's sake please don't let this mayor run amok promoting projects and acting against the will of the voters...even to the point of taking private property to do so. This mayor isn't what he seemed. You need to keep you eye on this one. 
 




1 reaction Share

SGP Is Progressive PC for the Divine Right of Kings? Part 3 of 3

Is “Progressive” the Politically Correct way of saying the “Divine Right of Kings”?

PROLOGUE TO PART 3 - CONCLUSIONS


This is part three of a three part series. As many of the facts and premises for part two were laid out in the first two parts, it will likely be helpful to read and/or review them. You can go to Part 1 by clicking here http://goo.gl/ZWoC6C You can go to Part 2 by click here http://goo.gl/joiJCm

As a quick refresher, we are evaluating 3 different governance doctrines in manner similar to purchasing a car. These 3 governance doctrines are:

  1. Divine Right of Kings;
  2. Consent of the Governed (Natural law);
  3. Progressivism.

To the best of his ability, the writer has attempted to frame these analyses in a manner that creates unity and constructive dialogue rather than emotional, political party-centric division. Further, the writer is attempting to have you, the reader, use your own powers of observation and reason to reach your own conclusions. This writer has encouraged you to use Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) as a necessary component of your thought process. This as opposed to managing and manipulating you in the manner of our current major media and the one and only one ruling class pretending to be two major political parties. In this writer’s humble opinion, the road to take back our country, restore Natural Law, the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, begins here.

We have already discussed and evaluated the governance doctrines of the Divine Right of Kings and Consent of the Governed. We have mentioned Karl Marx and Marxism as the governance doctrine behind Socialism and Communism. We have discussed the Populists movement, and pointed out that the conflicting sources indicate it ended during the Spanish-American war or morphed into the Progressive Era/Movement. We have discussed that the Populist Movement’s primary inspiration was the corruption of government and corporations with particular ire caused by the shenanigans of the “powers that be” involving our country’s money and the valuation of that money. Those shenanigans created hardship for rank and file Americans by enriching the “powers that be” at the expense of the poor and the middle class. As all value is created (earned) by Labor; Ergo, any enrichment of those to do not labor comes from the value created by those that do labor. (After the writer finished the first part of this article, another physical source was made available to this writer by the library. It appears as the last item in the list of sources at the end of part 2 of this article. )

With that, this writer will explain his conclusions and attempt to explain his “thought process” and his “perspective of reality” in a non-partisan manner. And in a manner intended to promote mutual understanding, constructive conversation and unity, rather than division. (The writer encourages all who share his perspective of reality to engage in the exercise of expressing themselves constructive ways, rather than the destructive ways the one ruling class pretending to be two major political parties have conditioned us to interact. It can be a difficult exercise)

CONCLUSION


In keeping with his desire to cause the reader to think for themselves and not allow themselves to be manipulated, before writer discloses his conclusions and thought process, this writer asks you to select which mode of governance doctrine you would purchase:

  1. The Divine Right of Kings Jalopy;
  2. The stylish and reliable Consent of the Governed standard automobile, or;
  3. The Progressive Sports car - new and improved German engineering -- bright, shiny and full of vigor and vitality.

At the same time, before making your free-will choice it is important that you not only know and understand history, but that you also consider the likely future outcomes of those choices.

No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.
Isaac Asimov


This writer urges you to please make your selection with the passion and attentiveness that Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) requires. Your opinion matters and may affect the course of human history. With those caveats, please make your selection from the 3 governance doctrines above now.

Having made your selection, this writer respectfully requests the reader to please view this writer’s conclusions as a constructive dialogue exchange in the free market of ideas. If we disagree, please resist the conditioning of the one ruling class pretending to be 2 major political parties. In the current discussion, that conditioning:

  1. limits your ability to establish the truth for yourself by causing you to think in artificial and parasitic, “false left/right, two party paradigm” terms, and;
  1. has taught you to respond to ideas different from your own by not listening and/or responding with destructive, emotional drama ; rather than rational thought and constructive dialogue.

This ruling class conditioning prevents you from fully thinking for yourself. The point of this ruling class conditioning is to divide, conquer and distract the masses.

In the arena of politics and government, you must TRUST NO ONE. Think for yourself. Vigorously guard your own perception of reality. These are the first steps in breaking the one and only one ruling class’s control over you and, of the masses. All Politics is War (with less overt violence). The absence of overt violence should not lull you into complacency.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

 

George Washington


As part of his conclusion, this writer would like to express his genuine belief that some idealistic, rank and file Progressives are sincere in believing that the ideal implementation of Progressivism will heal the unfairness and injustices that exist in modern day America. This writer empathizes, agrees and enthusiastically embraces that desire to right said injustice and unfairness.

Government Corruption Sucks. The rise of a plutocracy sucks. Unfair labor practices suck. Couples having to work 100+ hour weeks to be able to afford to raise children, sucks. Campaign Contributions, Bribes and/or other consideration used to cause elected officials and government officials to not act in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE sucks. Racism sucks .Sexism sucks. “Might makes Right” justice is an illegitimate abdication of the Rule of Law by Judges. The growing disparate income and wealth between the Wealthy and the Middle/Lower classes through illegitimate schemes, sucks. And, finally, as the world no longer appears as one of endless open space and unlimited resources, policies of the past may no longer be appropriate policies for the future.

This writer can even relate to the desire of some individuals to immerse their selves in, and embrace the emotions of, community, team work, natural simplicity and mutual benefactorial relationship that Progressivism promises. However, Progressives and this writer will disagree as to the manner in which to remedy the evils that the Populist Movement and Progressivism were catalyzed by.

The enlightened reader will look upon this article as an exercise in establishing the Truth for themselves. This writer has referred to Critical Thinking many times in this article. If you seek the Truth and you have exercised Critical Thinking in establishing your Truth, you will view read and understand opposing perceptions of the Truth with confidence and not trepidation. For the purposes of this article, this writer has chosen to defend his selection of his preferred governance doctrine universal beliefs which do not rely upon political party affiliation. In this way, each reader can rely upon their own instincts and beliefs in determining the truthfulness or falseness of each premise this writer asserts, rather than having to rely upon handlers from their political party for the answers.

At this point, this writer wants to more even closer to putting this discussion into less esoteric and more common layman’s terms. This writer submits to the reader, that the four most important elements for assessing the legitimacy of any government and/or governance doctrine are:

  1. Legitimate Governance Doctrines maximizes the liberty of the individual;
  1. The individual establishes truth using their own observation and reason, rather than the Government Establishing Truth for the Individual;
  1. Legitimate Governance Doctrines strive to have Government adapt to the Nature of the Individual, rather than having the expectation that the individual should adapt to the nature of government;
  1. Legitimate Government is founded on a true and correct understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State;
  1. Legitimate Governance Doctrine embraces a social contract containing at least the following points:
  • The individual consents to be governed of their own free will;
  • The individual has certain unalienable rights which legitimate government protects;
  • The individual has the right to peacefully dissent without fear of reprisal or punishment,
  • The governed have the right to amend the governance doctrine in furtherance of its legitimate goals, and;
  • The governed, when all else fails, and as a last resort, have the right to cast off the governance doctrine when it acts in a manner not consistent with the unalienable Rights of Individuals(except as punishment of crimes pursuant to the Rule of Law) and/or the social contract, through peaceful and/or violent revolution.
  1. The actual outcome of the governance doctrine as it is practiced in the real, physical world fulfills the terms expressed in the Social Contract(Void for Fraudulent Representations);

To test whether you the reader agree with this writer’s most important, non-political elements of a legitimate government/governance doctrine, ask yourself these questions. Please respond with the first answer that comes to mind:

  1. Should you have the right to determine truth for yourself or should you have to accept truth as established by your government?
  2. Should your government be created as a reflection of your nature or should government be designed and implemented with the expectation that they can force you to conform to government’s expectations of you?
  3. Should the individual have certain rights that the government cannot take away (except for punishment of criminal acts)?
  4. Should you be forced to accept any form of governance or should you have a choice to accept or refuse any particular form of governance?
  5. Should you and a majority of the governed be able to alter, abolish and/or amend any form of governance that you originally accepted?
  6. If your government represented a set of terms in the social contract to induce your acceptance of that form of governance, and its implementation in reality, whether deliberate and/or accidental, does not deliver the promised results, does that government lose its legitimacy?

Now, before we even get to your answers, did those questions seem like legitimate points you yourself would use to analyze any government and/or government doctrine? If you said yes to the just previous question, then you concur with this writer’s method of analysis of these 3 governance doctrines of Divine Right of Kings, Consent of the Governed (Natural Law) and Progressivism.

Next, did you have to rely on political party dogma, a political party‘s platform and/or call a political party representative in order to answer those questions. If you did not, then I submit to you that these points of analysis are non-political and your answers are your own. Therefore, the writer's 4 points of analyses are based in establishing the Truth rather than mere regurgitation of political party dogma.

How you actually answered the questions is of less importance than whether you found them legitimate points of analysis and the thought process you underwent in reaching you answers. The exercise was intended to cause you to honestly assess for yourself the writer’s assertion that these four points are legitimate, non-political points of analyses of government doctrines.

This conclusion continues on the premise that you found these 4 points to be legitimate points of analyses for government doctrines.

  1. LEGITIMATE GOVERNANCE DOCTRINES MAXIMIZES THE LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL;

Of the 3 governance doctrines we are analyzing, only....

To continue reading for free, please click here http://t.co/jqiIWYjbIt


Those were my thoughts.

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

If what is written here rings true to you, perhaps another helpful exercise would be to ponder why you have not heard about this in your local paper or in the major media. [You may find articles about issues from this writer's local area posted in your area and wonder why. The reason is this: Remember those travel junkets taxpayers pay for (the ones the bureaucrats skip to go to the beach or the casino) but allegedly used for training? Well some government apparatchiks actually attend those training seminars. And learn nationally en-mass techniques to "manage" WE THE PEOPLE. Since they all receive similar training in oppression, it is likely the problems you are experiencing with government in your area are similar to the problems in your area (unless you live outside the USA). With that commonality in mind, it is this writer's intent that insight garnered from this writer articles about his local issues can be used by the reader to understand and applied to their local issues.]

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence http://bit.ly/ruPE7z ]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
http://Facebook/Don.Mashak
Don Mashak Google Plus http://goo.gl/1AUrE

The Conundrum: While our #Government works full time with compensation and funded with our money for the cause of #Tyranny; WE THE PEOPLE are forced to work part time without compensation for the cause of #liberty with what is left over of our time, money and energy,

WE THE PEOPLE TAR #WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://facebook.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR

End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National http://bit.ly/ta3Rju Minneapolis http://bit.ly/tjZJKF

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
http://BringHomethePoliticians.com

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
http://LawlessAmerica.com

Term Limits #TermLimit
http://TermLimits.org

Justice in Minnesota #JIM
http://JusticeinMN.com

Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective

PHYSICAL SOURCES

The Progressive Mind 1890-1917 David W. Noble (1981)
America Enters the World – A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I – Page Smith (1985)
The Annals of America 1895-1904 Volume 12 Populism, Imperialism and Reform Britannica (1965)
The Annals of America 1905-1915 Volume 13 The Progressive Era Britannica 1965
Rebirth of a Nation – The Making of a Nation 1877 – 1920 Jackson Lears 2009
The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins 1976
A People’s History of the United States 1492 to Present – Howard Zinn 1980, 2003

Special thanks to Monticello and Elk River Minnesota Public Libraries

And many internet and/or other sources too fluid and/or non-credible to cite as references

3 reactions Share

SGP Is Progressive PC for the Divine Right of Kings? Part 2 of 3

Is “Progressive” the Politically Correct way of saying the “Divine Right of Kings”?

PROLOGUE TO PART 2

 

Progressive & Occupy Together

This is part two of a three part series. As many of the facts and premises for part two were laid out in part one, it will likely be helpful to read and/or review part one. You can go to Part 1 by clicking here http://goo.gl/ZWoC6C

As a quick refresher, we are evaluating 3 different governance doctrines in manner similar to purchasing a car. These 3 governance doctrines are:

  1. Divine Right of Kings;
  2. Consent of the Governed (Natural law);
  3. Progressivism.

To the best of his ability, the writer is attempting to frame these analyses in a manner that creates unity and constructive dialogue rather than emotional, political party-centric division. Whether you are a Progressive, an Occupy person, 99%er, a 1%er or a TEA Party person, this article should give you a great foundation to have constructive discussions. Further, the writer is attempting to have you, the reader, use your own powers of observation and reason to reach your own conclusions. This as opposed to managing and manipulating you in the manner of our current major media and the one and only one ruling class pretending to be two major political parties. In this writer’s humble opinion, the road to take back our country, restore the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, begins here.

We have already discussed and evaluated the governance doctrines of the Divine Right of Kings and Consent of the Governed. We have discussed the Populists movement, and pointed out that the conflicting sources indicate it ended during the Spanish-American war or morphed into the Progressive Era/Movement. We have discussed that the Populist Movement’s primary inspiration was the corruption of government and corporations with particular ire at the shenanigans of the “powers that be” involving our country’s money and the valuation of that money. Those shenanigans created hardship for rank and file Americans by enriching the “powers that be” at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
(After the writer finished the first part of this article, another physical source was made available to this writer by the library. It appears as the last item in the list of sources at the end of part 2 of this article. )
With that, let us discuss and evaluate our remaining governance doctrine of Progressivism.

KICKING THE TIRES CONTINUED
PROGRESSIVISM


Before going farther, reminds the reader that the credible sources are in dispute as to at least two major points:

  1. Did Populist Movement just fade away or did it morph into Progressivism;
  2. Whether there was a Progressive Movement, a Progressive Era and/or whether there were just various people and/or factions of people acting independently on different social, political, religious and/or economic projects that came to be considered “Progressive”.

As a further aside, this writer advises the reader that sometimes various elements and tenants of Progressivism are at odds with each other. This writer suggests to the reader a more organic feel for Progressivism and a better understanding of its nuances and the thought process they must engage in, may be had by taking the time to read this writer’s referenced physical sources. (Critical Thinking)
Let us begin our evaluation of Progressivism with this simple statement: Progressivism purports to protect labor (factory workers, farmers and small entrepreneurs) from exploitation by and the corruption of the trusts, big business and government itself.

Upon first impression, this new improved sporty, German engineered governance doctrine appears to be better than the reliable yet stylish perspective of reality that comes with the Consent of the Governed governance doctrine. Bright, shiny and full of vigor, vitality and new improvements, this 100+ year old governance doctrine of Progressivism certainly appears flashier and more user friendly for the average American than 300+ year old Consent of the Governed.
But the devil is in the details; as we have learned in our lifetime of vehicle purchases; before we decide to purchase this governance doctrine (which could be used to govern us for eternity) we better kick the tires, check under the hood and read the fine print in its particular social contract.
In keeping with his intent to create unity rather than division, this writer believes that the following 7 points allow the unbiased reader to evaluate Progressivism in a non-partisan manner.

  1. Progressivism’s Nature of Man Premise and Foundation;
  2. Religion;
  3. The Influence of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution on Progressivism;
  4. The Role and Authority for Government under Progressivism;
  5. Progressive Education;
  6. Administrative Governance Vs Progressive Managerial Governance;
  7. Examples of some early Progressive Legislation.
  1. PROGRESSIVISM’S NATURE OF MAN PREMISE AND FOUNDATION

Let us start with the foundation of Progressivism. Dewey and Cooley assert the characterization of Natural Man in the Natural State is as a social and altruistic animal. Do you find this to be true?
This, as opposed to John Locke’s Consent of the Governed (Natural Law) premise that individual people are social animals, with tendencies toward “reason and tolerance”, but who can be selfish. Or do you take the position of Hobbes (Divine Right of Kings), who believed man tends to be selfish, may sometimes be altruistic and is not by nature NOT a social animal. Which of these premises as to the Nature of mankind do you believe is most correct?

Again, we are referring to the Nature of Man in the State of Nature; that is, before there were governments. You ponder, “How can you observe the Nature of Man in the Natural State and from those observations, use your reasoning to select which characterization of the Nature of Man is most correct?”
Perhaps somewhere in the world there exist a people living in the Natural State? However, do you have the time and the money to go observe them?

Perhaps we could conceive of the Natural Man in the Natural State to be similar to....

To continue reading for free, please click here http://goo.gl/joiJCm


Those were my thoughts.

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.
If what is written here rings true to you, perhaps another helpful exercise would be to ponder why you have not heard about this in your local paper or in the major media. [You may find articles about issues from this writer's local area posted in your area and wonder why. The reason is this: Remember those travel junkets taxpayers pay for (the ones the bureaucrats skip to go to the beach or the casino) but allegedly used for training? Well some government apparatchiks actually attend those training seminars. And learn nationally en-mass techniques to "manage" WE THE PEOPLE. Since they all receive similar training in oppression, it is likely the problems you are experiencing with government in your area are similar to the problems in your area (unless you live outside the USA). With that commonality in mind, it is this writer's intent that insight garnered from this writer articles about his local issues can be used by the reader to understand and applied to their local issues.]

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence http://bit.ly/ruPE7z ]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
http://Facebook/Don.Mashak
Don Mashak Google Plus http://goo.gl/1AUrE

The Conundrum: While our #Government works full time with compensation and funded with our money for the cause of #Tyranny; WE THE PEOPLE are forced to work part time without compensation for the cause of #liberty with what is left over of our time, money and energy,

WE THE PEOPLE TAR #WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://facebook.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR

End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National http://bit.ly/ta3Rju Minneapolis http://bit.ly/tjZJKF

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
http://BringHomethePoliticians.com

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
http://LawlessAmerica.com

Term Limits #TermLimit
http://TermLimits.org

Justice in Minnesota #JIM
http://JusticeinMN.com

Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective

TAGS [Progressive, Progressivism, 99%, 1%, Occupy, Conservative, Liberal, TEA Party, Movie, Republican, Democrat, Natural Law, John Locke, Consent of the Governed, Divine Right of Kings, Hobbes]

PHYSICAL SOURCES

The Progressive Mind 1890-1917 David W. Noble (1981)

America Enters the World – A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I – Page Smith (1985)

The Annals of America 1895-1904 Volume 12 Populism, Imperialism and Reform Britannica (1965)

The Annals of America 1905-1915 Volume 13 The Progressive Era Britannica 1965

Rebirth of a Nation – The Making of a Nation 1877 – 1920 Jackson Lears 2009

The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins 1976

A People’s History of the United States 1492 to Present – Howard Zinn 1980, 2003

Special thanks to Monticello and Elk River Minnesota Public Libraries

And many internet and/or other sources too fluid and/or non-credible to cite as references

Progressive, Progressivism, 99%, 1%, Occupy, Conservative, Liberal, TEA Party, Movie, Republican, Democrat

1 reaction Share

RAY GIVENS FOR MARYLAND STATE DELEGATE, DISTRICT 1C

    Ray Givens is the go-to guy in the tri-state area for gun rights activism, or anything about guns for that matter, and I am delighted that he is running for Maryland State Delegate for District 1-C (Williamsport, Hagerstown west of Rt. 63, Clear Spring, Big Pool, Big Spring, Hancock, Flintstone, Little Orleans, Rocky Gap, and Cumberland). Ray does not hesitate to speak out on gun issues and boldly states his position on 2nd Amendment rights in his campaign literature:

 
“I strongly believe that the 2nd Amendment is the protector of all people, property, and individual rights. I also firmly believe, as did our first president, George Washington, that firearms are second only to the U.S. Constitution in importance.”
 

    We could not find a better candidate to represent Maryland gun owners in Annapolis, where they have overstepped their boundaries and passed an unconstitutional bill (SB 281, entitled The Firearms Safety Act of 2013) that infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens. As the Legislative Representative for the Western Maryland Sportsman’s Coalition, an unfunded position, he made the long trip to Annapolis two or more times a week at his own expense during the presentation and debate of SB 281. He testified whenever the public was invited to do so.    

    When the Hagerstown TEA Party hosted a Western Maryland Day of Resistance in opposition to this bill, he was a great support to me when I organized the event, assisting in reaching out and securing credible, knowledgeable speakers regarding all aspects of gun rights and ownership. He also publicly opposed SB 281 at a town hall meeting held at Fox45 TV in Baltimore where he was invited to be a part of a panel for discussion of the bill, specifically speaking out against the banning of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds, stating that time not magazine capacity affects the outcome of a mass shooting.

    That said, Ray Givens is not a one-issue candidate. He has spent a lifetime supporting and promoting core conservative principles of smaller government, lower taxes, less bureaucratic regulations, defense of the U.S. Constitution, and the individual rights and freedoms of all citizens. His background and work experience includes not only a knowledge of firearms and constitutional issues, but also years of legislative experience on behalf of Maryland sportsmen and experience in environmental issues. He retired from both the United States Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) and United States Army Reserve (USAR) programs. He worked as a correctional officer in Montgomery County and as a Sheriff’s Deputy in Prince George’s County. He also has work experience as an Environmental Investigator, particularly in regards to water, equipping him to argue the environmental issues surrounding the clean-up of the bay that led to a septic tax and costly regulations to home owners in Western Maryland.
    Ray Givens is a member of Responsibly Armed and the National Rifle Association. He is a past president of the Washington County Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, and a member of the South Mountain and North American Rod and Gun Club, the Western Maryland Sportsmen’s Club, and the Potomac Fish and Game Club.
    In addition to the organizations related to gun ownership and use, he also belongs to the following community and veteran’s organizations:  
  •  High school coach, JROTC
  • Optimist International, Washington County Sludge Task Force
  •  Member of the American Legion (45 years)
  •  Member of AMVETS
  •  Lifetime member of Marine Corps League
  •  Former Chair and member of Washington County Republican Club   Central Committee
  •  Member Washington County Republican Club 
 
    For more information about Ray Givens for Delegate of District 1C, go to the campaign Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/RayGivensForMarylandHouseOfDelegatesDistrict1c.
 
He will soon have a website available, and I will post a link to it once it becomes available. If you want to volunteer or donate to his campaign, email Ray at raygivensfordelegate1c@yahoo.com.

DO NOT MISS OUT ON THE GUN RAFFLE...ONLY $5.00...TO HELP SUPPORT THIS VERY IMPORTANT CANDIDATE! (email Ray at the above email address)

1 reaction Share