Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘opinion contributors’

This is Almost Madness


Posted by  The Right Scoop on May 13th, 2013 in Politics | 80 Comments
Sha
6
Tit
1

Newt says that Obamacare is going to have big problems over this scandal because of its heavy reliance on the IRS. He said Obama will have to force people in the IRS to testify before Congress and fire who he can over this scandal in order to clearly back away from it. Because, as he reminds us, this is an administration that won’t profile terrorists, but they will profile patriots? He says it’s almost madness.

Watch:

Why Violate The Language to Engineer Our Society


Equality: “I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means…”

By http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/equality-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

inigo-montoya-650-75 (1)Tolerance. Diversity. Poverty. The Rainbow. Leftists are exceptional at taking concepts, stripping out the entrails, stuffing it like a sausage with their own utopian brain-farts, and then beating us over the head with it until the concept loses all vestige of original meaning. It’s like that game you used to play as a kid on road trips where you’d repeat the same word over and over until it sounded unrecognizable to your own ears and everyone else in the car was ready to give you a wood shampoo.

They demonstrate Tolerance and Diversity by chastising and ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them. They agitate for more wealth confiscation from the rich so that Americans on welfare don’t have to choose between keeping their cable and getting a new cell phone. A new cell phone, by the way, manufactured in Chinese factories where the working conditions are deemed so terrible that people are committing suicide in order to bring attention to the plight of their fellow workers, in other words made by folks who are actually poor(1).

How pervasive is American poverty when 92% of poor households (as described by the Census Bureau) have a microwave? 31% have 2 or more automobiles. Nearly 2/3rds of them have cable TV or satellite and 1/3rd have LCD televisions.

This is poverty? Our poor would be considered wealthy in half the countries around the world. On a side note, why do we only compare ourselves to the rest of the world in hand-picked situations? If we have to hear about how much better Costa Rica is because of their eco-tourism and commitment to green initiatives, why don’t we talk about the fact that their GDP is ranked #82 in the world, behind countries like Myanmar and Sudan?

Let’s not forget the most popular banner under which the Left marches today: the Rainbow. Its original purpose was to serve as a covenantal reminder between mankind and God that He would never send torrential rains to wipe out the entire human population, as He nearly did during Noah’s time. In a twist of biting irony, the rainbow now serves as a battle standard for the very forces which led to the flooding of the earth in the first place. One can almost see the former residents of Sodom and Gomorrah gleefully marching in today’s Pride Parades under the banner signifying God’s eternal forbearance.

But why stop there? Why not continue the adoption of ironic symbols, so as to stick the thumb further into God’s eye? Forget the Ground Zero Mosque, we should build the Ground Zero Tower of Babel.

Let’s design mobiles for infant cribs. Instead of falling asleep to gently rotating stars and a moon, your baby can drift off to slumber while sleepily watching plush cut-outs of fire and brimstone circling above her head, signifying how proud and tolerant Dad and Dad are.

How about an awards show, called The Salties where salt-pillar trophies are given to the members of the Christian community who made the most difference on behalf of the LGBTQWFNXAIR community over the past year. It sure would be a nice way to say thank you to the hapless Christians who know better than God and can’t be troubled to turn their Bibles to Romans 1.

But there are few concepts which have suffered a worse drubbing than Equality. It is almost Orwellian how gruesomely the Left has twisted the concept of Equality. No one has described it more aptly than LBJ: “[F]reedom is not enough… [T]he next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights is not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result… To this end, equal opportunity is essential, but not enough.” – President Lyndon B Johnson, Howard University 1965

Apparently, the Founding Fathers were slack-jawed idjits. “Equality as a right is so-so”, is what he’s saying. But what he’d really like to see is equality as a result and a fact. So what he and his fellow Progressives have been doing ever since is trying to reverse-engineer our society to arrive at the desired result. This is their playbook. They pick a goal and then twist the existing framework to try to artificially manufacture their desired goal.

They did this with our housing market by punishing banks which refused to lend to sub-prime borrowers. Why? Because that’s how they planned to reach their goal of increasing home ownership amongst the poor. They did this with our currency when they created the Federal Reserve system, which allows them to tinker with interest rates and money supply to achieve their ideological goals. Time and again, they have refused to let natural forces operate and have forced us to suffer through the inevitable course corrections.

There is no way to achieve “equality is a fact” or a “result” without abandoning equality to get there. And what good is achieving something you have to violate to obtain? The first mistake is expecting Leftists to adhere to the laws of logic. The second is expecting them to see beyond their myopic, Machiavellian machinations. In their brilliance, our Founding Fathers realized that no man-made government could achieve equality of results and so they crafted a system that recognized the equal value of each American citizen and offered them an equal opportunity at success and happiness.

The American Dream is not wealth, success, and happiness. Many are born with that in this country or exert little effort to obtain it. No, the American Dream is found in the space between that equal opportunity and achieved success. It is the ability to make the journey, not the destination itself.

(1) The author is well aware that there are Americans who are desperately poor and is sensitive to their plight. He also understands that the number of truly poor Americans is dwarfed by the number of Americans who are perfectly capable of working and perfectly comfortable not working. These are the people who soak up available tax revenues which should be going to those who are truly in need.

Really? More Emotional Blackmail?


Let me get this straight;

  • Jack Lew, part of the Obama White House, came up with the idea of sequestration and President Obama thought it was a great idea, and supported it so much, that he got it passed;
  • President Obama is quoted as saying that with this law, he could force the Republicans to vote for legislation he know the Republicans would not like because they would not want the cuts to defense to happen;
  • He made sure that the cuts would be determined by the President, not the Congress (meaning that all the emotional blackmail is based on his own thinking, not any real plan or proposal);
  • Now he is claiming that IT IS THE REPUBLICANS THAT WANT FIRST RESPONDERS NOT TO GET PAID, MILITARY PERSONNEL NOT GET PAID, POOR CHILDREN NOT FED, AND EVERY BUNNY RABBIT SLAUGHTERED AT SUN DOWN (oops, that last one just slipped out, although it is consistent will all his ridiculous claims).
  • And so on, and so on, and so on.

Can anyone explain to me the psychology of a person who inspired the idea, backed the idea, promoted the idea, got the idea accepted and put into the law, and now blames those that oppose him as the culprits behind it all? Please help me understand.

Symbolism Over Substance


The State of the Union Address last night needed to be preceeded with the following warning; “Caution. You are about to hear from our far Left President who specializes in symbolism over substance. Do not expect any details, facts or provable statements. Expect to be overwhelmed with emotionalism for lack of genuine ideas.”

That is exactly what we got. President Obama delivered a speech full of nice ideas, but short on how to pay for them. Lots of blame assigned to the Republicans, and heavy on emotionalism (“They deserve a vote”). All in all I was not surprised at the content of the speech.

In order to know that we are all reading the same sheet of music, let’s make sure we all understand some of the “SYMBOLISMS” the President used, which is consistent with everyone else on the far Left;

  • “Balanced Approach”: $10 dollars in tax for every $1 we spend.
  • “Compromise with the Republicans”: They need to agree with 100% of everything we say, want and desire. Any exceptions and thee become horrible monsters who want to take food away from poor children, make everyone drink dirt water, return to the days of slavery, make women go into dark alleys to have abortions by coat hangers and generally destroy America as we know it. In summary, ay disagreement with the Left is equal to being Terrorist.
  • “Investment”: SPEND, SPEND, SPEND what we do not have. Continue to borrow money until we are in ruin so President Obama, can become Chancellor Obama under Marshall Law so he can disarm Americans, throw out the Constitution and create a new nation in his image and ideals of Collectivism/Socialism.
  • “Fair Income Reform”: Redistribution of wealth.
  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform”: Let in all people who will vote Democrat and restrict all others. Notice they never address the people who have come here LEGALLY, and obeyed al our laws to become AMERICAN citizens.
  • “GUN CONTROL”: Means, “Citizen Control”. Every time any government disarms the citizenry, executes total control over their lives. The Second Amendment has only one foundational meaning; An armed citizenry is a protection from the rise of tyranny. Having the same or equal weapons to the military means, the citizens can truly maintain a fight for freedom.

The rest is more of the same.

“The Tree of Freedom has to often be watered with the blood of Patriots in order to keep it alive and growing.” I’m ready, how about you?

“Absolutism”


28 January 2013 / 12 Comments

images-2

A nation should be concerned when it seems its leader has tired of the grueling work of democracy.

One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”

They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.

“For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay,” Obama said. “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.”

Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.

Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.

This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.

Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?

The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.

That reporters have been tapped to assist with Obama’s incipient GOP demonization campaign was made clear this week by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, who in the handful of days since the inaugural, has already repeated the “absolutism” charge twice.

Read More:  http://www.politico.com/

Three Gun Control Arguments


ARGUMENT ONE: NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV QUOTE:
Some of you aren’t old enough to remember this – but those of you do may have forgotten about it. I remember it vividly. At the time it was laughed off as impossible. Looks like he knew what he was talking about.
DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN HE APPEARED AT THE U.N. AND BANGED HIS SHOE ON THE TABLE? THIS WAS HIS ENTIRE QUOTE AT THAT TIME.

Nikita Krushive

SECOND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARGUMENT TWO: THE SHOTGUN

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it…
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed yearsbefore, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.. Yours was never registered..
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tellsyou not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. “What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask. “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t findan unkind word to say about them..
Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. the surviving burglarhas become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparingto sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he wasconvictedand is now serving a life term..
How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire ? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm’s still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, The notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.” All of TonyMartin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply.

Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA;THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. “…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds..” –Samuel Adams

ARGUMENT THREE: A BLACK LADY SPEAKS OUT ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

This is a good video clip on guns by a Black woman. Also this is what you get when you research the 2nd AMENDMENT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7bkncf1_E&feature=youtu.be

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?

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: