Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘commentators’

Amen!


New Pope: Same-Sex Marriage ‘A Machination of the Father of Lies’

By Breitbart News 13 Mar 2013

New Pope Francis I is an ardent opponent of same-sex marriage, in coincidence with traditional Catholic belief. In 2010, he wrote, “Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

The media remains aghast at the fact that Francis I is a Catholic. They should get used to it.

Going Back to the Basics of the Second Amendment


The rhetoric of the Right and Left has clouded the basics of the Second Amendment. The emotional hysteria by the Left has further enhanced their determination to disarm citizens so they can begin more of their socialist controls. Those on the Right are making assertions that cannot be supported with fact and all sides have misrepresented various details of crime and guns.

Let us see if we can clear the fog and look at this issue without the emotions, accusations and mischaracterizations of the political and media establishments. I will use the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the actual historical facts of the formation of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html)

The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists’ most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, “What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances.” The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was “what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.”

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such “fundamental maxims of free Government” would be “a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community” against potential oppression and would “counteract the impulses of interest and passion.”

Madison’s support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists’ objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the “Bill of Rights.”

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was “a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it.” When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and “that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government.”

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

 

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendment II

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.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

A lot of reading, however, your advantage is having no one telling you what it says. You are an intelligent person and understand it for yourself.

The creation of the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or the formation of a militia. It does not address the right of an individual to defend themselves, although it covers that in part. The real foundation is protecting the citizens of the United States of America against a tyrannical government controlling every aspect of their lives. It removes the ability to restrict the munitions needed for such a resistance (how much a clip can hold – in order to protect yourself you need the same capacity of your ammo clip to hold the same of those attacking you; federal, criminal, and now terrorist). It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This was the concern of those (Federalist)  that wanted assurance that they would be able to protect themselves against a government taking over their lives.

Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt (FDR) introduced Socialism into our country. The political Left has seized upon that and throughout the last 100 years has made every effort to more us into a complete European style Socialist country. The primary step to seize control is to disarm the citizenry. Once disarmed, they cannot resist the domination of the government because they have no ability to resist. Disarming tax paying citizens puts them at the mercy of those that have no regard for life and property, or the pride of working for a living. 100% of the time when you disarm citizens’ crime increases dramatically.

All you have to do is look at our present Federal Government conduct. We have a President who studied Marxist/Socialist/Collectivist governments in all his schooling, and argued for the same. He has surrounded himself with people who have confessed being Socialist in their ideology. His misuse of Presidential Executive Orders further proves his conviction of being a KING, not a LIMITED PRESIDENT as outlined in our Constitution.

He and the Entire political Left are determined to disarm America although they know they will never be able to disarm the criminal element in our society. I have shared with you the experiences of Australia and England. They want their firearms back. They are warning America against what they are experiencing. When you hear the rhetoric of the Left in coming days remember the warnings of the citizens of Australia and England.

Whenever you meet force with force, you have a better percentage of survival. Education and training is critical and must be enforced with regard to owning any form of firearms. We must also have laws that deal with helping, and securing, those that are mentally challenged. The entertainment industry must take responsibility for what they glorify in film and video entertainment. We need to revive respect for life and liberty and the moral fiber that built this great nation.

Anger and shrill debate is never the answer. Restoring the peace and the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be our only resolve. Anyone want to join me?

Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?


Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed?

King-Obama_croppedThere’s talk that President Obama will ignore Congress and issue Executive Orders to implement new gun regulations over against the clear reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Is an Executive Order a law? Will we be obligated to obey it?

Executive Orders have a long history. Republicans and Democrats have issued them. Only a few of them have been overturned by the courts.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats do much about Executive Orders they don’t like since both parties issue them. This is how the Washington game is played.

Republicans and Democrats like Executive Orders on difficult issues because it stops the legislative process that they’ll have to participate in and eventually vote yes or no. They can always tell the voters back home, “Well, I would have voted against that if the President hadn’t issued an Executive Order. Golly gee willikers, now my hands are tied.” Right.

An Executive Order is only valid if it’s done within the jurisdictional authority of the President’s constitutional authority. To rule against the Second Amendment is not a presidential prerogative. If it is, then the President could turn his attention to the First Amendment and issue an order that newspapers can no longer criticize him. Conservative talk radio would die a quick death if the President issued an Executive Order saying that the freedom of speech had to be limited in several ways, one of which was negative political speech, especially about him.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that President Obama would like to do all these things. He’s mad with power. He has a vendetta against America.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC made a statement about how President Obama should have been treated by presidential challenger Mitt Romney in their second debate. It was the fact that Gov. Romney actually challenged the President that led Matthews to go Gestapo on Romney:

“I don’t think [Mitt Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States… He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Yes you do. President Obama is an elected official. He’s not a king. The king battle was fought a long time ago at Runnymede in 1215.

If the President and other anti-Second Amendment advocates want to limit our freedoms, then they can go through the amendment process. An Executive Order is the chicken’s way out. It’s also unconstitutional.

The Democrats know this. That’s why they’re sending out Vice President Biden to soften the rhetoric:

“The president is going to act. There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”

Did you see it? “Legislative action that we believe is required.” In terms of the Separation of Powers, the President does not have the constitutional authority to legislate. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him or any other president.

Biden went on to say that “this is a moral issue and that ‘it’s critically important that we act.’” Morally, the President can’t ignore an Amendment to the Constitution. How is banning guns for everyone the moral thing to do when only a tiny fraction use guns illegally? How will banning guns to stop immoral people from using whatever they can find to do harm?

Timothy McVeigh used kerosene and fertilizer to kill 169 people. Abortion doctors use medical instruments to kill pre-born babies? A man was poisoned with cyanide before he could cash in his $1 million dollar lottery ticket.

Help Me Understand


I am having a hard time understanding any person who cannot admit, “I am wrong.” Evidently, Fonzie is not the only one who cannot articulate those humbling words. Part of the human experience is learning from our mistakes, failures and ineptness. No one can expect to grow as a human being without acknowledging that what they did, how they did it and the thought processes that produced the action where wrong. You end up with that old proverb, “Doing the same thing over and over without getting the desired results is insanity.”

President Obama stepped in it when during the debate making a big deal about when he admitted it was terrorism that struck the Benghazi, Libya embassy this last September 11. The only explanation any honest observer could give in his remark to check the manuscript is that he was hoping enough people would see his perspective about his last comments saying that no act of terror would go unanswered. And yes, there have been a few, like Katie Couric. For the rest of us “non Kool-Aid drinking” Americans saw the obvious the first time, especially after two weeks of dodging the question, and send out his propaganda chorus to say it was a spontaneous attack from a demonstration fueled by an internet video.

Is it a psychological problem when people can’t simple say, I was wrong”? Is it a vanity thing to not owned up to the truth? Is it failing of an individual’s character, or value system, that prevents them from humbling themselves like regular humans and just say, “I did that wrong”? I know I am not smart enough to speculate about the answer.

Something else I heard during the debate and have heard others  say something similar. It has been obvious to several observers that President Obama has conducted the Office of the President under a set of Collectivist/Socialist theories. Although these theories have proven failures for over 200 years, still there are those that think they can get it right. They are not evil people (I believe that President Obama has been demonized which is wrong to do. No one deserves that).

President Obama several times, “I feel that….”, “I believe that……” as well as other like phrasing. That indicates to me a man with well-meaning motivations TRYING philosophies that are counter to the Founders of our country, and the Representative Republic they designed for us. I do not know the man’s heart, and unlike God, I cannot see his spirit or know his intentions. I know God has commanded that we do not judge one another. Unfortunately, those of us on the Right have stooped to that level, and we have been, and are, wrong. I have repented, and I hope we all do the same.

According to all the reports I have heard today many people who supported President Obama in 2008 have already switched their support. You know that has become serious when the New York Times prints articles pointing out your flaws, thinking, and conduct. Even one of the most liberal of all Senators, Diane Feinstein has come out criticizing the President and the Whitehouse.

If in fact that is the case and President Obama has tried to perfect the philosophies, ideologies and theories of Collectivism/Socialism, than that helps me understand why he is so reluctant to own up to being wrong. I know that I will continue to pray for President Obama as I have for all Presidents I have lived under. I pray you are all doing the same.

Got Racism?


Ann Coulter Letter

Got racism?

Got racism?

Actress Stacey Dash

By: Ann Coulter
10/10/2012 06:04 PM

Liberal racism sightings have become like a lunatic’s version of “Where’s Waldo?” Kevin Baker of Harper’s magazine says Romney’s referring to his “five boys” in last week’s debate was how he “slyly found a way” to call Obama a “boy.” Says Baker: “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that!”MSNBC’s Chris Matthews says the word “apartment” is racist because black people live in apartments. He also says the word “Chicago” is racist because — despite its well-known reputation as the home of Al Capone and the Daley machine — a lot of black people live there, too. (And don’t get him started on “Chicago apartments”!)As we go to press, Matthews is working on an exciting new hypothesis that peanut butter is racist.Meanwhile, my new favorite actress, Stacey Dash, sends an inoffensive little tweet supporting Mitt Romney and is buried in tweets calling her “an indoor slave” and a “jiggaboo,” who was “slutting (herself) to the white man.” (And those were just the tweets from the Obama 2012 Re-election Campaign!)

Could we get an expert opinion from Chris Matthews or Kevin Baker about whether any of that is racist?

It’s a strange thing with liberals. They spend so much time fawning over black nonentities — like Maya Angelou, Eugene Robinson, Barack and Michelle Obama, and Rachel Maddow’s very, very, very special black guest Melissa Harris-Perry — that, every once in awhile, they seem to erupt in racist bile to restore their mental equilibrium.

After President George W. Bush appointed Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, she was maligned in racist cartoons portraying her as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from “Gone With the Wind,” a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches.

Kevin Baker didn’t notice any of that because he was working on his theory that referring to your sons is racist.

When Michael Steele ran for senator from Maryland, he was depicted in blackface and with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Sen. Charles Schumer’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of Steele’s credit report — something done to no other Republican candidate.

Is that more or less racist than Romney mentioning his sons? More or less racist than the word “apartment”?

Mia Love, a black Republican running for Congress in Utah had her Wikipedia page hacked with racist bile, heavy on the N-word. Her campaign headquarters has been bombarded with racist graffiti and slimy mailings with pictures of Klansman next to photos of her family.

Some would say that’s even more racist than Romney talking about his sons.

On less evidence than the birthers have, liberals slandered both Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain with the racist stereotype of black men as sexual predators.

As the preceding short list suggests, liberals usually limit their racist slime to conservative blacks. But not always.

In 2008, Bill Clinton said of Obama “a few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Democratic Sen. Harry Reid praised Obama for not speaking in a “Negro dialect.” Joe Biden complimented Obama for being “clean” and “articulate.”

Did I mention that Kevin Baker thinks that Romney referring to his “five boys” is racist?

Two years ago, liberal newsman Dan Rather said the criticism of Obama was that he “couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” (I immediately called for Rather’s firing for that, and then remembered that he didn’t have a job.)

Last week, Rather won the 2012 Edward R. Murrow Award for Lifetime Achievement from Washington State University. That’s not a joke — or at least not my joke.

Meanwhile, evidence of alleged Republican racism invariably consists of tenuous connections and apocryphal signals normally associated with schizophrenics and sufferers of “Thrilled Leg Syndrome.”

Since February 2008, the primary evidence of racism has been failure to fully support Obama’s election, policies or re-election. As Slate magazine’s Jacob Weisberg put it during the last presidential campaign, only if Obama were elected president would children in America be able to “grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives.”

I wish I had a nickel for every kid who’s come up to me in an airport and said, “What I wouldn’t give to be able to think of prejudice as a non-factor in my life …”

Curiously, liberals weren’t concerned about what children in America would think if Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination had been defeated. No, only electing the most liberal person ever to seek the presidency on a major party ticket would prove that the country could “put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.”

The left’s racial demagoguery worked: In 2008, Obama received a larger proportion of the white vote than any Democrat running for president in nearly 40 years. (Though he tied Clinton’s 1996 white vote record.)

And look how well that turned out! We haven’t heard another peep about racism since then.

To read more about what a smashing success the left’s utterly self-serving racial bullying has been, read my new book, “Mugged: Racial Demagoguery From the Seventies to Obama.”

The Militant Party


I heard someone refer to the Political Left as “The Militant Party”. At first I thought that was unfair, however, after giving it much thought I have come to agree. The synonyms for Militant are;

  • Confrontational
  • Aggressive
  • Radical
  • Revolutionary
  • Combative
  • Rebellious
  • Belligerent
  • Bellicose: ready or inclined to quarrel, fight, or go to war.

Let’s review the recent past of the Democrat Party and the actions of their members;

  • Today it was revealed that a young black actress Tweeted that she wanted people to vote for Mitt Romney. The Left pounced on her calling names like “Turn-coat”. Several Tweets came back to her threatening her life. Here is another example of the Left wanting Free Speech ONLY if it agrees with THEIR speech.
  • Mitt Romney is declared the winner of the last debate, even by the Main Stream Media machine. Instead of admitting the President may have had a bad night, they sent out their “Talking-Head-Chorus” proclaiming Mitt Romney a liar. However, not one of them can articulate what he lied about.
  • Contrast the difference between the Occupied Movement and the Tea Party. Can anyone point to a time when the Tea Party ever;
    • Burned a Police Car?
    • Set fire to anything?
    • Broke any windows?
    • Defecated on a Police Car or urinated in public?
    • Set up tents on private property?
    • Took over an area and demanded that local people feed them?
    • Raped anyone?
    • Assaulted anyone?
    • Trashed any area?
    • Leave an area they demonstrated in cleaner than they found it?
    • Throw rocks at Police and cause a total disruption of local business, community travel, or normal conducting of activity?
  • The rhetoric coming from the White House and the Democrat Party for years has been;
    • Social warfare
    • Racial warfare
    • Economic warfare
    • Religious warfare
      • Their “Talking-Head-Chorus” has been so good at keeping the racial strife pot stirring over the years with no determination to put out the fire and encourage healing. All they do is stir the pot higher and higher. I believe they want the pot to boil over producing violence and a race, social, economic and religious war in America.
  • Any disagreement with what they say, or opinions they hold dear or policy difference is met with character assassinations. Can anyone remember back a few years ago with it was Senator Clinton screaming into a microphone her displeasure with the inference that she and her colleagues were accused of being unpatriotic because they didn’t agree with the Bush Administration’s policies?
  • Notice the times when they are questioned about their decision process over events like “Fast and Furious”, “Libyan Embassy Attack” or details about President Obama’s past you are called a racist, hater and any other demonizing label they come with?
  • Listen to the rhetoric of the Professional Pot Stirrers associated with the Left. All of their words are filled with anger, rage, malice and hatred. Only one conclusion can be made; they want to stir up anger, rage, malice and hatred. That produces more separation of the American people and cause groups pitting them against each other, instead of producing harmony, acceptance and true tolerance.
  • They claim to be the “Tolerant” party, unless you disagree with them in any way. Violent intolerance is the reality of the party.

What would happen if they succeeded in their efforts to cause a race, economic, class war to break out? Do you think they would admit any connection to it or would they sell their followers that Republicans/Conservatives caused the war? Do you think President Obama would declare Marshall Law and name himself as the Ultimate Leader of the New Social American Nation?

Possible? Probable?

“Told You So”


The Main Stream Media is all a tweeter about a video of Mitt Romney talking to people at a private fund raiser. In fact, every thing he said is true, but the press has him hating everything and everybody.

FACT: Starting with President Johnson the Democratic Party has successfully created a DEPENDENT UNDERCLASS of people consisting of certain racial groups, people in poverty, and their heirs. So successful has their efforts been, that now 47% of the American people depend on the United States government for part or all of their subsistence. They also do not pay any Federal Income Taxes. These people have developed a number of different labels identifying them as being a part of this Dependent Underclass. Recently a new label has been created; “Bitter Clingers”. I’m sure that does not require any expounding.

FACT: Unless all this spending on Entitlements Spending is brought under control, our country will be bankrupt. For those of you who have done such studies, you know that at the point of a nations bankrupt monetary system is when a dictator steps up, proclaiming he has the solution, and all the freedoms we’ve enjoyed, and taken for granted will be gone. There is abundant evidence proving President Obama has been deliberately driving our country to that point.

FACT: Anyone who will not own up to responsibility for disaster cannot be trusted to fix that disaster and lead the way to prosperity.

FACT: Those that do NOT Believe in personal prosperity, corporate prosperity and rewarding individual achievement cannot be trusted to lead a nation into financial independence.

FACT: You cannot trust a President who issues illegal Executive Orders when he doesn’t get his way through Congress. Such conduct is DICTATOR in origin, and practice.

FACT: You cannot trust an individual to lead when all their life they have not had ANY LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE. A Majority of American hired such a man. How’s it working for you?

FACT: You cannot continue to write bad checks knowingly to be NSF and hope the situation will get better. At some point you have to stop, eliminate all the excess, and get your financial house in order.

FACT: Blaming failure on someone else gets old. At some point, those that gave you a vote will go away and look for another leader.

FACT: The American People ARE NOT as stupid as you think President Obama and the DNC.

FACT: We have to vote them OUT.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: