Primary Elections

“Primary Elections are the selection by a political party of candidates for public office to run for election on the party ticket” The Volume Library.
This article is mainly about the voter’s role. If you want the entire process, check the references at the front of the blog (Principles of Democracy and National center for Constitutional Studies)
This is the first opportunity for you to use your vote for the candidate of your choice. It is assumed you have selected a party based upon your research and frame of reference. You must register with the Registrar of Voters, by whatever name it is in your area. You will be placed into the pool of voters. You will also be placed into the pool of a political party that you have selected. In the year of election (All U.S. Representatives are elected every two years for a two year term; Senators are elected on a rotating schedule. The Founding Fathers believed that there should always be a core element remaining each election that could continue the processes already achieved. Thus, the Senators are elected for a term of six years, with one-third of the Senate seats up for election every two years
Usually the primaries take place just after the start of the new year through March. The political parties use this time to select people they feel will be a good candidate to run against the other party in the “General Election that takes place on the first Tuesday in November. That gives the party time to put all their weight behind the final candidate and have “debates “ with the other party’s candidate.
The “ Primaries” have many views presented and offer good and bad choices. It is up to you to use your intelligence to select a candidate you can “live with” from your party to vote for in the primary. Sometimes, there is no clear choice, so you still need to make a selection, perhaps using the old TV expression, selecting the least Objectionable—the one you can “live with”.
I will continue with the “Primaries” in the next Blog.

WHO IS READING THIS BLOG?

Educated Citizenry is being read world-wide.  The activity "Arab Spring" has spiked interest in other countries who have similar feelings.
The following countries are reading this blog: Russia, USA, U.K., Germany, France, Georgia, Australia, Canada, Romania, Hungry, Poland, Netherlands, Iran, Ukraine, and Latvia.  You might ask; can everyone read English?  There is no need.  The computer translates to the language the reader uses in his country.  One thing I need to mention.  The computer does the translation in reverse also.  If you want to write a comment in the space provided beneath the blog, go ahead, write in your native tongue and I will receive it in English.  Comments are very important, questions stimulate conversation..
A follower.  Please become a follower.  Place your photo in the space provided so we can get acquainted.
Democracy and a democratic-republic may be strange to you perhaps I can answer your questions.
Ed Cit

Obligations of citizenship

Do Citizens have obligations toward one another that they do not have toward other people in the world?

          We consent to be governed by accepting citizenship in the country of birth (Remember, children of dual birth must make a decision when they reach the age of consent). ( An exception might be the American of Jewish decent born in America may be sent in their teens to help become military personnel in Israel, usually attending a pre-training  the summer before actual induction . As long as the citizen complies with the country of origins duties and obligation, they can participate in another country, however loyalty to the mother country must be kept.). 

Yes, they do feel as if they owe loyalty and communalty, however, they also remember the amounts of money they pay towards the protection of the country that provide the peace and serenity of the community.  When that peace and serenity is interrupted by corrupted government, or lack of enforcement the citizen starts to stop the loyalty.  These are the people who start to look to other forms of government or other forms of government or other countries to move to.

If a country is attractive to foreigioners, enough to seek crossing our borders illegally, usually the people of that country “love” the country Patriotically enough to be virutious.  However, if a country treats citizens of other countries the same as said countries own citizens, especially of people coming into said country and not paying the same “taxes” a normal citizen pays, the originating  citizenry will not accept the incoming immigrants because they have not paid their fair share and are not entitled to the same benefits.

Should citizens be treated differently than other people from other countries?  Citizens should be treated differently than other people who live here.  Citizenship means that the people who have that position in their country have participated in making the country what it is.  They have put the hard work into the council meetings, the physical work of knocking on doors, discussing the pros and cons of issues towards passage, taking part in the government as a citizen.  People coming from other countries have been raised in their government’s political contacts, alliances,funding their own political structures and are unfamiliar with the manner in which we solve our political problems and elections.

These people need to be treated differently for many reasons.  They have not participated in our political process, including going through the naturalization process.  They may be receiving benefits from other countries.  They would be bending our citizenship prerequisites  such as receiving emergency medical aid,  which could be conceived as receiving American Citizenship through the backdoor.  Spending the money set aside for American Citizens on illegal migrants could be considered a form of foreign aid without Congressional approval.

The moral answer is the people who take part in the governcy process do not receive the benefits, but outsiders benefit when they are not entitled to it!

Citizens within a country feel a kinship with fellow citizens. They understand that people fall on hard times and sometimes need a hand up. Citizens do not like fellow citizens that “use” the system, like staying on welfare for life, not attempting to find a job, milking hospital emergency rooms, They will the other way when fellow citizens fall on hard times, like a natural disaster, because they are fellow citizens. However, immigrants have another country to fall back on for their emergencies. Why should the current country of their existence pay for discomfort? Usually churches help those people who are in a time of need, however, people who cause the mother country to build expensive fences, provide border guards to help out our country, raise the funds spent by all citizens and make the expenses in the mother country high. Citizens do not appreciate the countries that encourage their citizens to leave their country because they do not have an economy that can assist their own “citizens” with education enough to be able to get jobs that could help their economy. The class system in these countries keeps the uber-rich in charge and keeps most of the remaining citizens mired in an economy that can not be a threat to the uber-rich.

People are more accepting of citizens accepting welfare than providing welfare for non-citizens. America provides foreign aid to other countries world-wide, however, welfare to immigrants become a form of foreign aid for those immigrants. Logically America should be sending a statement of charges spent on each illegal immigrant,plus the cost for giving the funds plus interest. That would have to go through Congress and it would never happen, however, the way it is being handled goes around Congress- takes money from our Treasury and raises taxes on our existing citizens. The taxes our citizens pay for these items are specifically for US Citizens, not for illegal immigrants. The moral significance on resource allocation within national boundaries is those funds belong to the citizens who have paid for the assistance, it is not foreign aid.

This distinction is morally defensible and is not a prejudice of our own kind. No other country allocates foreign aid to our Country- if we do not stick to our policies, our own citizens would not receive needed assistance. Our government has seen the need for assistance and our citizens support that decision both with paying taxes and voting for those people who submitted the legislation.

Who should we care about “our own”? People in America live in the one country where opportunity is a key word. Anyone can work hard enough in America to become a rich-person. All areas of America keep that “opportunity” word at the forefront of their duties – People take pride in helping others, as evident in most endeavors with America.  

Factcheck , your source for the truth

Do you ever wonder if what a politician is saying in is speech, or in his proposed legislation is truth or fiction?  Well, the Annenberg Foundation has provided the answer.

http://www.annenbergfoundation.org “  The Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993.”  Its’ main purpose sought to increase the impact of the scholarship produced at Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication. “By conducting and releasing research, staging conferences and hosting policy discussions, its scholars have addressed the role of communication in politics, and other major fields.”  The discussion  always meet the high road of neutrality and have searched out the main facts that are true to the issues discussed.

If you want to know if your candidate is speaking the truth, go to http://www.factcheck.org/ the next day and find out what the Annenberg people have to say.

Remember, your job as an educated citizen is to seek out the truth about what is happening in politics and add it to your frame of reference.

"and all the advantages of cool deliberation"

“and all the advantages of cool deliberation”

                                Thomas Paine, December 1778

                  A Serious Address to the People of Pennsylvania

            In a response to a letter from Conrad Alexander Gerard, French Prime Minister to the United States, Thomas Paine included material about how the particular form of our” new constitution had not then been made a matter of controversy; so that the members meet unbiased, unprejudiced, and unawed by party influence, and all the advantages of cool deliberation.”

I bring this up because you as an educated citizen, need to strive for your vote in an “unbiased, unprejudiced and unawed…and all the advantages of cool deliberation. 

Because you as a citizen need to make an educated decision upon the votes placed before you, being objective about the material is an obligation.  Try not to go into any vote carrying the burden of your entire friend’s opinions, TV ads, signs, opinion polls, etc.  You need to gather the evidence listening to all the evidence with an open-mind, not a mind that has been charged with political rhetoric, but with facts, hardened with evidence.  This takes time.  Research is the key element.  You must trust your resources, commentators, political news, then weigh the evidence so you feel comfortable about your decision.  This is what gives you “all the advantages of cool deliberation”.

What about political affiliation?  Yes, people stand behind their party’s convictions, however, by keeping an open mind; you should be able to weigh those convictions against facts and your hypothesis about the issue.  It is at that point that you make your decision.  The conviction should be strong enough so you feel “all the advantages of cool deliberation”
 

Build up instead of tearing down!

I see many articles in the periodicals tearing down existing laws, court cases, items to consider: What I don't see in these articles is something to replace what they want to tear down with workable material.
Somewhere beforehand, elected officials, bosses, whomever, saw a need for such an action.  Perhaps after using the action for several years there are flaws apparent.  Most of the pundits give reasons to do away with the item all together.
What they should be writting about is the flaws they see, and possible SOLUTIONS to those flaws, perhaps with avenues to make the corrections in the fastest way possible. (i.e. word changes, cuts in the budget for obsolete items, etc.)
It is very easy to criticize someone's work, because they have already done the hard work; to research, write, gain passage, help with regulations, etc.  When you add how to correct the flaws, the critics do not want to go through the hard work the original "author" did to gain passage.

Republicans want tax increase!!

In last Friday's Arizona Republic, there was an article about the Republican party desiring a tax increase.  Wouldn't that ruin their "Pledge" ?  In their pledge, they say they will not accept any tax increases.  The tax increase they are espousing is the increase on wages--of course on the common man only!!  This is the kind of material you need to dig up to see which side you want to vote for, be sure of your vote.

Loopholes, not for everyone, just the rich

Loopholes, according to New Webster's Dictionary is: "a textual basis in a document or law for escape or evasion of taxes, legal commitment, or obligation".
For those who would like to read a book about "loopholes" in the Internal Revenue Department, I recommend David Cay Johnston's book" Perfectly Legal--the covert campaign to rig our tax system to benefit the super rich--and cheat everybody else.  This book discusses and explains the various dodges the super-rich and their accountants take to insure they do not pay any taxes.
Perhaps you have heard in the Debt Ceiling discussion, the Democrats saying they want to eliminate the private jet exemption.  What they are talking about is an exemption for the super-rich, that the normal person does not have the option to take.  First, the super-rich can afford a passenger jet, and they get to write off the cost/ maintenance/pilot expense/fuel/ repairs/ you name it, right off their Income.  Second, they get to have many houses in different areas, and get to write it all off because they have to entertain their potential clients, same with athletic tickets. 

Perhaps you or your parents have participated in the mortgage interest deduction, it brings down your gross income down to less of a tax to pay, that one you get to participate in, " however the strategy to broaden home ownership has instead morphed into a vast subsidy for the best-off Americans.   The more the house cost, the bigger the tax subsidy.  And the more owners earned, and thus the higher their tax rates, the bigger the subsidies.  Combining these two factors created a huge benefit for highly affluent Americans but only a minuscule one for those most in need of help to buy their home."

The "Recession" we are in today comes as a result of lending to people who desired that tax "subsidy", however, did not have the money to pay for any increases in interest raises, nor the backup funds to cover them if they should be laid off.

Currently the debt ceiling discussion has talked about eliminating the "Mortgage Deduction" from the tax code.  President Obama mentioned to Boehner that it could be put on the table.  That would really hurt the lower 90% of the population, but not the affluent.  That looks dead now, because the Republicans would not budge on tax increases.

I won't go into all the loopholes discussed in the book.  He has another one out that is newer, I have to get a copy.  I would recommend reading this book as a minimum, then get the next one if you want.

Compromise - settle by mutual agreement

As an educated citizen, you follow the discussions on TV, radio, media.  One of the biggest political problems that is facing America at this date, is raising the deficit limit.  America has a good credit rating to this point, however, if the deficit limit is not raised so America can continue to write checks to pay bills, America could be faced with defaulting on interest payments to the bond holders that have been supporting our economy.  That would be very bad for America.
Currently the Republican Party has a majority in the House of Representatives, the body in Congress that is the only one that can initiate revenues for the government.  The President and the Senate are in the hands of the Democratic Party.  There is an impasse between the two majorities about the deficit limit.  The Republicans are unwilling to have any taxes raised on the wealthy, nor taking away subsidies to corporations, or tax breaks for the wealthy.  The Republicans desire the Democrats to make spending cuts in Medicare and Welfare, of which there is starting to have some movement towards Compromise.
The date for the settlement must be struck by August 2nd.
Both sides of this "battle" seem to be weakening, which is what is necessary to reach a compromise. It is up to you as an educated citizen to search out both sides of the issue, study them and be able to support your position to neighbors, letters to the editor and Congressmen, and friends.  Up to this point the Republicans have been adamant they were not going to compromise in any way.  They are taking a second look, can you find out what they are looking to compromise on?  The Democrats? Once they try to "Compromise" can either side get everything they want?  Both sides will be able to go back to their constituencies and explain that they fought hard for their positions, however the compromise included what was good for the entire population and the economy.  They will have to attempt to get what they were trying to get in their original ideals at some later time.

Best System of Government in the World

Becoming an educated citizen, takes a long time. Your frame of reference must be large. Your beliefs must be well earned, not just latched on to on a whim. In an article in the local paper, Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post writer, explains, "Our huge national pride which often strikes others as arrogance--rests on economic accomplishments and even more on what scholars call the American Creed: the faith in freedom; the rule of law; equal opportunity; and democratic ideas and political institutions. What defines us (and this differs from most societies) is not ethnicity, race or religion but our bedrock beliefs." (AZ Rep Jul 4, 2011, page B7)
Because our society is so vast, well-educated and ever diligent watching over the government activities, people have tended to move in two basic directions.
Conservatives: "those people who respect existing institutions and traditions that anchor the social order, to them, Change--especially radical change is a last resort, not because today's world is perfect, but because efforts to improve it might make it worse."
What has occured in current politics is the Republican party, the Conservatives, have been endowed by their followers with enough money to legislate, to use their weight in select committees to tip the balance of "tax breaks to their followers, thus the wealthy few are making most of the money, while the remainder are slipping further and further behind in economics.
Liberals: (Reactionaries), "those that desire a return to an earlier system, or order." This is the view of the normal citizen. " They have more confidence in a large government to enhance social justice." "They defend virtually all Social Security and Medicare benefits. Everything can be financed, they suggest by cutting defense or increasing taxes on the rich.
I have just touched the surface about politics in America. You need to start thinking about which way you think, do you want to change? Do you want to stay the same? Are you willing to help the side that you have chosen? Will you go door-to-door to help explain those things you advocate? The only way a Democractic-Republic can change or leave things as they are is in the voting booth. Your vote is very important, but can you convince others to vote the way you support? It takes "bedrock beliefs" to convince people to your way of thinking.

Senator Bernie Sanders: Calling for Shared Sacrifice

Senator Bernie Sanders gave a wonderful speech in the Senate. It outlines how the United States got into the mess we are in, George W. Bush, then outlines how we can remedy the situation. It is done in outline form and makes perfect sense, however, everyone needs to work for the common good. Please read,or, if you want to see the video you may click into: http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/06/27-1
The print copy would be a good one to print off and help guide your representatives in Congress to strive for their corrective legislation:  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/06/27-11
.

Frame of Reference Example

Several blogs ago, Frame of Reference was the topic.  I received an email from a friend about Thomas Jefferson.  It is such a good example of building a frame of reference that I thought it would be good to include it in this blog.
                              Who Was Thomas Jefferson?
Over the years the world has seen many brilliant people-and then there was Thomas Jefferson.  Here is a snapshot of his background.  Brilliant does not begin to describe him.
Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life, and never stopped...

• At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.
• At 9, studied Latin, Greek, and French
• At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
• At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.
• At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
• At 23, started his own law practice.
• At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
• At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America" and retired from his law practice.
• At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
• At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
• At 33 took three years to revise Virginia's legal code and wrote a Public Education Bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
• At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
• At 40, served in Congress for two years.
• At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
• At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
• At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophic Society.
• At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
• At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
• At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
• At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
• At 65, retired to Monticello.
• At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
• At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
• At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.

Thomas Jefferson was the finest mind in the colonies, his "Frame of Reference was extensive.  How did he obtain such a frame of reference?  First, he was fortunate to come from the upper class and had time to read, take part,travel, use his mind, body and senses. When he looked at a situation, because he had worked so hard in his research, his frame of reference engulfed what ever he was receiving and he could weigh the strengths and weaknesses better than anyone, people relied upon his judgement. Jefferson amassed the largest "library" in the colonies( his library would later become the beginning of The Library of Congress)  Remember, books were expensive and hard to obtain.  A person of wealth could spend that kind of money and he had the time to read and strengthen his "Frame of Reference".
He also studied previous failed attempts at government.  He understood actual history, the nature of God,his laws and the nature of man. 
John F. Kennedy said it best:
He held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time.  He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligent people ever to gather at one time in the White House, with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Being a citizen in a democratic republic takes education, constant updating of knowledge, travel--America is beautiful, but it also has physical problems that it's citizens need to engulf, an active curiousity and the ability to get involved in civic events.  Learn to serve as a volunteer, join a service club,  group that helps the homeless , get to see all your neighbors.  There is much more, however this example of Thomas Jefferson shows you what made up his Frame of Reference--it took a great deal of work.  Are people going to rely upon your decisions?

Empty Exercises II

Empty Exercises © was originally phrased in 2005 by John Nichols, then The Nation's Washington D.C. Correspondent in an article called "An Empty Exercise in Deceit" on Friday, January 21, 2005.  The article was about President G.W. Bush's second inaugural address
It discussed the first term of GWB and he suggested that the second term wouldn't be any better.  He discussed Iraq and Bush's deliberate misreading of intelligence information that lead us into that situation, and he thought that there was no indication whatsoever that he had learned from the mistakes and misdeeds of his first term.
Mr. Nichols brought out Empty Exercises by Mr. Bush:  "America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling."  Sounds great doesn't it?  But, "did anyone read that as an abandonment of the doctrine of preemptive war that served as an excuse for the unilateral invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq during the President's first term?  The article goes on to explain several areas where Americans were deceived. 
The article brings forth several areas that we citizens must watch our  politicians and our wallets.
A concept that is common of politicians everywhere:  The Hallow Law.  A politician's constituency is upset about a specific problem in his district.  Let's say, tainted water by a chemical plant that is harming the people down river.  The people organize, an interest group, they do everything correct; they bring their problem to their representative. The politician is concerned about the problem and takes their concerns under advisement and will get back to them as soon as possible.  What the interest group doesn't know is, the owners of the chemical plant gave the Congressman money for his campaign, the Congressman owes them a favor, so, the Congressman calls the owner of the factory and the owner is asked to write a bill for a  law prohibiting the chemical factory from putting chemicals in the river.  The interest group sees the bill move forward and moves smoothly through Congress and is signed by the President.  After the bill is enacted, the interest group people test the water and see that the chemical plant is still putting chemicals into the river.  They are furious--they haven't been active for a while and can't get too many people excited about something they thought they had solved.  When the interest group goes to the representative and asks why they are still putting chemicals into the river, the Representative looks over the signed bill and finds a small paragraph explaining that this bill applies to chemical plants with more than 20,000 square feet of operation, the plant up the river from the people only has 10,000 square feet, thus the bill does not apply to that plant because it falls under the 20,000 sq.ft floor.
The people did everything correct, except having a watchdog go over the bill before it was adopted, having paragraphs ready for insertion into the bill and having the watchdog make sure it was inserted, checking on the size of the plant, and making sure their representative worked for them.
The bill, now a law looked great from the outside, just as a hallow log looks, but the inside of the log was deteriorated by ants, termites small and large animals just as members of "Free Enterprise" eat away at perfectly well-intentioned "bills" so that they are protected from the "rule of the citizens".  The reason they wanted the chemicals dumped into the river was:  1.  It was easy, 2. It was cost effective, 3.  They didn't care for where ever or whomever was damaged, all they cared about was the bottom line profit. 
If you know any "Empty Exercises" that you would like to comment about, please feel free to discuss them in the comment section below.

Empty Exercises

Empty exercises, those exercises of political, economic, religious, whatever, that "fake out" their constitency, but show their efficacy in doing a job that they have been put in place to represent their constituency, team, whomever, and make themselves valuable and stay in their positions.
A prime example is the Republican Party in the majority within the current U.S. House of Representatives.  Another would be the Republican Party in the House that voted to impeach then President William J. Clinton. 
The current Republican Party in the House, has introduced bills that they know will never pass the Senate or the veto process of the President.  They are doing what they were elected to do by their constitutency, and their political party.  What these political people are forgetting is; they were put in their positions to represent the people.  They are supposed to receive the information presented to them in Congress and vote for the greater good instead of taking their preconceived ideas of their constituency and party to vote in a block.  They need to acheive the passage of bills that will actually pass through the House/Senate and President.  It is ideally why they were put into office.  Empty Exercises WASTE TIME! 
When you are thinking about who you want to support for a political party, insure you watch their previous performances, their support for legislature, their language in the public.  There is a Senator who recently made a statement of fact, in a speech, but when shown that he had made a error, he simply said that any of his public speeches are not statement of fact.  I think he needs to re-think that statement, our representation is in those positions to gather in all the data, make a judgement on the issue and state to his constituency what he has found out and why he agrees or disagrees.

Victory does not have to include violence!

Victory, victory, victory!!!  The Egyptian population, led by youth and technology led a non-violent revolution to oust their leader of nearly three decades.  This revolution is setting the example for the Arab world.  It can be done without weapons!! Congratulations to all the people who participated in the win and the clean-up.  Did you see everyone cleaning up after themselves?  EVERYONE pitched in!!  Yahoo!!!!
Now the hard work begins.  With the assistance of the military, the civilian population can now start the very difficult job of organizing political parties, having committees seek out what needs changing within the government/Constitution, organizing fund raising, seeking people to run for office, ensuring safety for all concerned, GETTING THE ECONOMY BACK ON IT'S FEET, putting many of the unemployed college educated people into jobs where they can use their learning as an asset and help get the country back on it's feet.  The effort before them is daunting, it will take every fibre of strength within their bodies to make this all work.  But, if they can make a revolution go off as well as they did this one, WORKING TOGETHER IS ALREADY A GIVEN!!

Tucson Tragedy demands gun control

Common Dreams.org is a wonderful addition to the internet.  One of the latest articles is from Harvey Wasserman, Jan 13, 2011 "The Second Amendment Demands Gun Control."  Mr. Wasserman is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information Resource Service, and writes regularly for http://www.freepress.org/.
The Second Amendment supports the control of guns--not slaughter that compromises our security.
The debate that has occurred during the past few months from Sarah Palin and her "crosshairs" on certain "districts" and the Foxnews opinionists is long overdue.  Perhaps a suggestion that may help both sides of the debate.
Here is what the Second Amndment actually says:
     "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
       the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

According to Mr. Wasserman:  "...the right to bear arms is granted only in the context of a well-regulate militia and thus the security of a free state."
"A National Guard, yes.  Heavily-armed lunatics roaming the streets unregulated?  Never."

There is a country where all males between the ages of 18 and 65 belong to the "Militia". The largest national celebration is the "National Turkey Shoot", where the nation finds out who is the best shot.  To accomplish this Turkey Shoot, all males are issued the latest rifle, army uniforms, helmet, etc.  the militia meets periodically in there own "locale" plus serve a "tour of duty, usually two weeks during the summer--there are no exceptions, when your tour of duty comes up, you must go.  As a militia member you are expected
to know all about your military, including gun safety.  The country is the best defended, best equiped military in the world.  Airplanes are hidden in small hamlets and use streets to take-off and land, artillery positions are within false-fronted mountains, supplies are within false-side walls, all roads and bridges are tank-trapped and have hidden explosive charges that can be exploded from a central command post, the entire population takes part in assisting, and the government has planned for the protection of the population.
In all major cities, there are underground shelters fully stocked with rations, beds, hospitals, sanitation,water, you name it, for the entire city population. 
This nation has a proud heritage in their military.  At one time, their troops were the highest paid mercenaries, because they always won battles.  Currently, their troops are still paid warriors, Paid by the Vatican.  Yes, those young men standing guard in the black and orange pantaloons with a pike for protection(a long stick with a metal point).  These positions are passed from father to son.  Their heritage is Swiss.
Yes, Switzerland is the country referenced here.  They protect there country so well, that when Hitler was looking to move into France in WWII, he had two choices, one was Switzerland, the other was Belgium.  He knew he would never make it through Switzerland because of their preparation, so he chose the other route.  Switzerland is known for it's neutrality, banks, wonderful food, and nice people.
Perhaps, our government could glean some of what the Swiss do and apply it to our 2nd amendment situation.  It would take plenty of work, however, it would take care of our "gun situation" and it would take care of our "men" situation.  All men between the ages of 18-65 would be in the militia.  We could still have a voluntary army such as we currently have, however, the only way you could get into the "voluntary army" would be to have served in the militia and obtained skills that could be used in the "voluntary army".   If you let your imagination run away with yourself, this would eliminate many problems.  For example: Young men would not be allowed to go to college without serving say, 18 months after they graduate from high school in the militia, then they could go to college, say with money from still serving in the militia, or scholarships from the militia for being the best rifleman, the best mechanic, etc. 
Problem youths would be eliminated.  The militia would establish military discipline and the young people would come into the college world invigorated and excited to accomplish their next level.  Oh, you say, no one does that to their youth.  Germany does.  German 18 year-olds are required to do just as I have described above.  Except for those 18 year-olds that have passed the Arbeitur.  That is the exam all German youth's must take to graduate from Gymnasium, or high school.  Those student's have their entire college education paid for by the state. Real incentive to achieve!!
All students would have the opportunity to attend college.  Rich alumni's children would not be the only ones attending college's.   I think you see where this could continue.  You don't have to believe what I have written.  I have placed a link for your viewing about the Swiss Army and it's preparation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEOLonBfaD8
The Swiss have the luxury of being able to trust their government and the government has the luxury of being able to trust their people.

Republicans signal intentions--but, are they going to be productive?

The Republican Party will be assuming control of the House of Representatives soon, but their early messages from newly appointed committee chairmen indicate stall tactics and wasted time.
There has been word from these committee chairmen that they are going to call all the Democratic Administration Cabinet Officers in to their committees to explain why they spent so much money in the past two years. In my opinion, this is a waste of time. The Republicans only want a stage from which to present their particular views against what the Democrats accomplished--but notice, absolutely nothing will be presented to "correct" what the Democrats have accomplished.
They are going to attempt to repeal the Health Care Bill, that has already been signed,sealed and delivered. They might get a repeal measure through the House, but won't get it through the Senate, remember, the Senate has a Democratic majority, plus they won't get it past President Obama's veto and there are not enough votes to override the President's veto in Congress (there must be 60% in each house to override a Presidential veto).
This is the kind of thinking you must develop if you going to be an EDUCATED CITIZEN. The Republicans are doing the same thing they did with former President Bill Clinton and his impeachment. EVERYONE KNEW THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH VOTES TO CONVICT PRESIDENT CLINTON in the Senate, but the Republicans wanted to put a black mark on President Clinton's presidency, so they proceeded with the impeachment and trial. The Republicans are going to have their hands full with the new Tea Party members that were elected this term. The Tea Party members are upset with everyone, including the Republicans. Look at their pledge to America last year, they listed many items they wanted to do, but did not list one single way to correct the situation, they wanted to call for a meeting of constituents and have them find out how to correct the situation. That is not leadership.
One other small point, President Clinton's presidency gave GWB $282 Billion in surplus. After eight years of Bush, Obama was faced with the largest deficit since the Depression, you might ask, where did all the money go? Hummmm, let's see, contracts being let to "friends" without the bidding process, two questionable wars--off budget--filling the pockets of lobbyist and friends, the list goes on and on. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans jump on Obama's spending. The Republicans are going to open the proverbial can of worms.