There is ample evidence available to support the notion that leftism destroys everything it touches. One only needs to look at Europe to see the results of one of the sacraments of the Left, multi-culturalism. This holy of all holies to the Left has turned nations with vibrant cultures into simply geographical locales. Combined with another of the Lefts sacraments, equality, Europe has been transformed into an economic and social basket case.
And now a new dark ages has been ushered in by the destructive policies which are advanced by an agenda driven by Leftism. Even the "Last best hope of man on earth", America, has fallen victim to a world religion like no other that has come before it. It is a religion whose greatest sins are hard work, self-reliance, independence and success and whose virtues consist of sloth, victim hood, dependence and class envy. Leftism despoils a previously virtuous idea like equality by aiming to impose it without regard for fairness, morality or common sense. What could be more immoral than redistributing the fruits of one man's labor to another man who didn't earn it, all in the name of equality? The Lefts idea of equality insures that everyone is equally poor, equally miserable and equally without hope.
The new dark ages of the Left is further defined by a complete lack of any value placed on life, whether it is in the womb or wandering the desperate streets of the crime-ridden inner cities of this nation. The Left worships barbaric ancient cultures like the Mayans because they share the same proclivity towards infanticide. Calling it a medical procedure that solves the problem of an unwanted pregnancy, makes it no less barbaric than the ritualistic infanticide practiced by the Mayans and other ancient cultures. And the constant decay and moral breakdown of the inner city as a result of Leftist policies aimed at getting Democrat politicians re-elected, is reminiscent of the social disorder that defined the original Dark Ages.
The Lefts energy policy is also designed to limit economic growth and prosperity, thus contributing to the new dark ages. The advocacy by a big statist government of automobiles that have a limited range, combined with higher and higher fuel costs, is the way in which the Left limits the movement of free people. A prosperous and thriving economy needs fuel, which the Left limits through policies ostensibly for the sake of the environment that they have put themselves in charge of protecting. This is why the Left seeks to destroy energy production by using the environment to stop the miracle of Hydraulic Fracturing, which is used to secure more natural gas at a cheaper price and with less damage to the environment. The Left use to be in favor of natural gas when they were waging war against nuclear energy. Now that they have seriously crippled that industry through massive regulation and permitting processes that last as long as spent fuel rods, they have turned their sights on the natural gas industry.
The new dark ages of the Left is borne of policies that seek to destroy the morality of Capitalism and replace it with the immorality of Socialism. The Lefts idea of a Utopian society is one in which there is less wealth, less freedom, less innovation, less health care and, in a word, less civilization. And this, my friends, is the coming dark ages brought to you by the practitioners of Leftism and the soulless ideology of Utopianism.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Your weather report for stormy political seas.(Please support my sponsors by clicking their ads)
Monday, December 31, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Gun-Free Zones Are Common Sense Free Zones
In the wake of recent mass shootings, there has been much talk about gun control and mental health issues. Some of the potential solutions have been constructive and some have been driven by ideological hysteria. It is a terrible thing when innocent life is taken senselessly, but we must remember that in most areas of our society violent crime, and especially gun violence, has been reduced in recent years. Except of course in gun-free zones.
Gun-free zones were established by law in 1995, and since then there has been a spike in violent incidences in these areas. Those on the left are enamoured with gun-free zones because they are the quintessential leftist solution to a problem. A deviant behavior in individuals is somehow solved by passing a law or regulation which aims to criminalize the vehicle of the deviancy. From the moment the gun-free zone law was passed, I thought it was a feel good measure which only served to replace common sense with political rhetoric. The whole idea that government can simply eliminate the potential for violent acts to be committed by evil men by simply telling them they aren't allowed in certain places, is ridiculous. If the gun-free zone idea was effective at keeping bad guys from harming innocent people, then we ought to declare the entire country a gun-free zone and dismantle our military and law enforcement agencies. We would no longer need them because we would be protected by the magic of the gun-free zone.
The reason that the Left chooses an irrational solution like gun-free zones to real solutions that involve stricter criminal penalties and more involuntary commitment of the mentally ill, is because of ideology. And ideology is the same reason they oppose protecting innocent life from bad guys with guns by placing good guys with guns between the innocent and the evil. Their real goal is not to protect innocent life, but to shred the second amendment by using their intellectual superiority to create what they think is a better society. At the core of that better society is less choice for individuals and more for an ever-expanding centralized government.
The Lefts support for gun-free zones is completely consistent with their support for abortion. In both cases the lives of the innocent are not as valuable as their political agenda. It is an agenda which makes us all less safe by transferring responsibility from the guilty to the innocent for the greater good of leftism.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Gun-free zones were established by law in 1995, and since then there has been a spike in violent incidences in these areas. Those on the left are enamoured with gun-free zones because they are the quintessential leftist solution to a problem. A deviant behavior in individuals is somehow solved by passing a law or regulation which aims to criminalize the vehicle of the deviancy. From the moment the gun-free zone law was passed, I thought it was a feel good measure which only served to replace common sense with political rhetoric. The whole idea that government can simply eliminate the potential for violent acts to be committed by evil men by simply telling them they aren't allowed in certain places, is ridiculous. If the gun-free zone idea was effective at keeping bad guys from harming innocent people, then we ought to declare the entire country a gun-free zone and dismantle our military and law enforcement agencies. We would no longer need them because we would be protected by the magic of the gun-free zone.
The reason that the Left chooses an irrational solution like gun-free zones to real solutions that involve stricter criminal penalties and more involuntary commitment of the mentally ill, is because of ideology. And ideology is the same reason they oppose protecting innocent life from bad guys with guns by placing good guys with guns between the innocent and the evil. Their real goal is not to protect innocent life, but to shred the second amendment by using their intellectual superiority to create what they think is a better society. At the core of that better society is less choice for individuals and more for an ever-expanding centralized government.
The Lefts support for gun-free zones is completely consistent with their support for abortion. In both cases the lives of the innocent are not as valuable as their political agenda. It is an agenda which makes us all less safe by transferring responsibility from the guilty to the innocent for the greater good of leftism.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Who Has Compromised And Who Has Not?
Yesterday on the floor of the Senate Mitch McConnell, the Republican Minority Leader of that body, made the case that it has been Republicans who have compromised in an effort to craft a deal with the President to avoid the fiscal cliff. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, of course tried in vain to make the opposite case.
The problem with Senator Reid's position is that it has no standing in fact and reality. The Democrat-controlled Senate has refused to pass a budget in almost four years. The Republican-controlled House has passed a budget every year since being made the majority by the voters in the 2010 mid-term elections. But the Republican budget, which would have imposed some fiscal sanity on the Federal government and gone a long way to reducing the deficit and debt, was not even brought to the floor for a vote in the Senate. The Republican house has passed 31 jobs bills, which Harry Reid killed as soon as they were sent to the Senate. In fact, Majority Leader Reid bragged about House Republican bills being, "Dead On Arrival" in the Senate that he controls. Finally, the Republican House has sent legislation to the Senate that would solve the current fiscal cliff crisis, but once again Harry Reid has not even allowed debate on this legislation, let alone a vote.
So what have the President and the Democrat majority in the Senate been doing while the Republicans have been advancing legislation to repair the nation's problems? Nothing. The President nor the Democrat-controlled Senate have yet to put forth an official plan for solving the fiscal cliff problem. Senate Majority Leader Reid talked about a Senate bill that House Republicans have yet to pass, but the bill is vapor. As of yesterday, December 27, 2012, no bill has been sent to the House from the Senate regarding the fiscal cliff. The existence of a Senate bill on the fiscal cliff is a moot point anyway since Constitutionally all spending and revenue bills must originate in the House. They are then sent to the Senate for debate, amending, voting on and then sent back to the House to be approved by that body.
In the final analysis, the Republicans have moved their position from being dead set against tax increases on anyone, to agreeing to a raise on those making over a million dollars a year. This is a huge compromise that has gotten them in hot water with many Conservatives. But it is to no avail since the President has refused to give in on any meaningful spending cuts, which comprise over 90% of the nation's fiscal problems. In fact, the President has suggested increased spending that would actually add another 9 trillion dollars to the debt in the next 10 years. The Republicans must stand firm on meaningful spending cuts and entitlement reforms, otherwise there is no point in avoiding the fiscal cliff only to fall into the bottomless fiscal abyss that will surely come as a result of out-of-control spending.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
The problem with Senator Reid's position is that it has no standing in fact and reality. The Democrat-controlled Senate has refused to pass a budget in almost four years. The Republican-controlled House has passed a budget every year since being made the majority by the voters in the 2010 mid-term elections. But the Republican budget, which would have imposed some fiscal sanity on the Federal government and gone a long way to reducing the deficit and debt, was not even brought to the floor for a vote in the Senate. The Republican house has passed 31 jobs bills, which Harry Reid killed as soon as they were sent to the Senate. In fact, Majority Leader Reid bragged about House Republican bills being, "Dead On Arrival" in the Senate that he controls. Finally, the Republican House has sent legislation to the Senate that would solve the current fiscal cliff crisis, but once again Harry Reid has not even allowed debate on this legislation, let alone a vote.
So what have the President and the Democrat majority in the Senate been doing while the Republicans have been advancing legislation to repair the nation's problems? Nothing. The President nor the Democrat-controlled Senate have yet to put forth an official plan for solving the fiscal cliff problem. Senate Majority Leader Reid talked about a Senate bill that House Republicans have yet to pass, but the bill is vapor. As of yesterday, December 27, 2012, no bill has been sent to the House from the Senate regarding the fiscal cliff. The existence of a Senate bill on the fiscal cliff is a moot point anyway since Constitutionally all spending and revenue bills must originate in the House. They are then sent to the Senate for debate, amending, voting on and then sent back to the House to be approved by that body.
In the final analysis, the Republicans have moved their position from being dead set against tax increases on anyone, to agreeing to a raise on those making over a million dollars a year. This is a huge compromise that has gotten them in hot water with many Conservatives. But it is to no avail since the President has refused to give in on any meaningful spending cuts, which comprise over 90% of the nation's fiscal problems. In fact, the President has suggested increased spending that would actually add another 9 trillion dollars to the debt in the next 10 years. The Republicans must stand firm on meaningful spending cuts and entitlement reforms, otherwise there is no point in avoiding the fiscal cliff only to fall into the bottomless fiscal abyss that will surely come as a result of out-of-control spending.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
The Oppression Of A Thousand Cuts
Amidst all the debates on gun control, the fiscal cliff and why Hillary Clinton's concussion seemingly only effects her ability to answer questions about Benghazi, was the release of a data point that went virtually unnoticed. It was reported that the Federal government now has its long and expansive fingers into 9 out of every 10 mortgages in this country. This means that with Federal authorities now controlling education through student loans, the banking industry through the massively burdensome Dodd/Frank law and health care, we are officially a Socialist country.
It's not just that government control of housing is a bit authoritarian, but aren't we still suffering the effects of a financial crisis caused in large part to government interference in the housing market? And for those who believe that the Federal government's manipulation of the housing market through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was not responsible for creating the sub-prime mortgage debacle which lead to the collapse, look at our neighbors to the north in Canada. The Canadian housing market has remained strong and thriving these last 4 years exactly because they did not have government-created sub-prime mortgages for the expressed purpose of allowing lower income people to buy houses they couldn't afford. Canadian housing did not suffer a setback, nor did their economy as a result of an artificial market driven by Liberal government policy.
Illustrative of the unnecessary level of government involvement in the housing market is the Federal regulation which requires a filing with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, even in home sales which require no mortgage. This means that a buyer who is paying cash for their new home, must still allow the Federal government to poke their big old Pinocchio nose into their private business. With this much government involvement, it will be a miracle if we ever have anything resembling a normal housing market again, let alone a thriving one like our Canadian neighbors have. The next logical progression for this government intrusion into the private sector is edicts which aim to control where and how people live. The Federal government's control of health care, its control of food through food stamps and school breakfast, lunch and dinner programs and now its control of the housing industry is Orwellian in nature.
Not only does government control rear its ugly head in the mortgage end of the housing market, but now the Environmental Protection Agency has exerted even more government control through an ever increasing repertoire of regulations aimed at reducing lead levels. Lead is the latest boogie man created by the left for the expressed purpose of growing government. A homeowner can spend thousands of dollars to rid their home of unacceptable levels of lead to pass the government requirements, only to fail again in 6 months or a year. This is because that lead is in the soil and on the sidewalks in levels that are unacceptable, especially in areas where there is or has been industry. That lead gets carried or blown into the home and can cause the home to fail a lead test days after it has passed. At present the lead Nazis are only terrorizing rental and other commercial properties, but it won't be long before they will inspect every home on a regular basis.
I have always wondered how people of a nation could readily accept oppression. But my mistake was in thinking that it came all at once, it doesn't. This is the oppression of a thousand cuts which rips at our Constitution, bleeds dry our wealth and ultimately takes the soul of a once great nation.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
It's not just that government control of housing is a bit authoritarian, but aren't we still suffering the effects of a financial crisis caused in large part to government interference in the housing market? And for those who believe that the Federal government's manipulation of the housing market through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was not responsible for creating the sub-prime mortgage debacle which lead to the collapse, look at our neighbors to the north in Canada. The Canadian housing market has remained strong and thriving these last 4 years exactly because they did not have government-created sub-prime mortgages for the expressed purpose of allowing lower income people to buy houses they couldn't afford. Canadian housing did not suffer a setback, nor did their economy as a result of an artificial market driven by Liberal government policy.
Illustrative of the unnecessary level of government involvement in the housing market is the Federal regulation which requires a filing with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, even in home sales which require no mortgage. This means that a buyer who is paying cash for their new home, must still allow the Federal government to poke their big old Pinocchio nose into their private business. With this much government involvement, it will be a miracle if we ever have anything resembling a normal housing market again, let alone a thriving one like our Canadian neighbors have. The next logical progression for this government intrusion into the private sector is edicts which aim to control where and how people live. The Federal government's control of health care, its control of food through food stamps and school breakfast, lunch and dinner programs and now its control of the housing industry is Orwellian in nature.
Not only does government control rear its ugly head in the mortgage end of the housing market, but now the Environmental Protection Agency has exerted even more government control through an ever increasing repertoire of regulations aimed at reducing lead levels. Lead is the latest boogie man created by the left for the expressed purpose of growing government. A homeowner can spend thousands of dollars to rid their home of unacceptable levels of lead to pass the government requirements, only to fail again in 6 months or a year. This is because that lead is in the soil and on the sidewalks in levels that are unacceptable, especially in areas where there is or has been industry. That lead gets carried or blown into the home and can cause the home to fail a lead test days after it has passed. At present the lead Nazis are only terrorizing rental and other commercial properties, but it won't be long before they will inspect every home on a regular basis.
I have always wondered how people of a nation could readily accept oppression. But my mistake was in thinking that it came all at once, it doesn't. This is the oppression of a thousand cuts which rips at our Constitution, bleeds dry our wealth and ultimately takes the soul of a once great nation.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Ridiculous Is As Ridiculous Does
With Christmas over and the New Year fast approaching, so is the fiscal cliff that will see automatic spending cuts and an across the board tax increase. This nation waits with baited breath to see if Speaker Boehner and President Obama craft a grand deal that is going to save us all from the pain of falling off the cliff. The reality is that the terms of a deal really don't matter, or even if there is a deal at all. This nation's fiscal problems that have resulted from the Obama policies, have only just begun. And any hope of a solution was lost with the election in November.
Tax revenue to the Federal government is to the level it was before the recession. Rick Santelli from CNBC said recently that all the focus of the fiscal cliff debate is on taxes which are 7% of the problem, too much spending is the other 93% of the problem, and it is not being addressed. Federal spending since the end of World War Two has averaged 18-20% of Gross Domestic Product, Barack Obama's policies have increased Federal spending to over 24% of GDP. If you combine the increased spending with the fact that 40% of that money is being borrowed, and 70% of the borrowed money is being lent to the Federal government by the Federal Reserve whose printing machines haven't stopped spitting out ever-decreasing-in-value dollars since Obama took office, you have a cliff that looms much larger than any we are facing now.
In the midst of this financial malaise caused by over-spending, President Obama and the Democrats want to institute a discriminatory tax increase on the very people who can create jobs and economic prosperity. As ridiculous as this sounds, it is even more ridiculous for the President to suggest that raising taxes on the so-called wealthy is not going to deliver a gut shot to an economy that is already stumbling.
This is why my suggestion for the Republican leadership in the House is to illustrate the ridiculous by being ridiculous. They should propose a 100% tax rate on anyone making over 250 thousand dollars a year and let the Democrats defend the Conservative position of why raising taxes on job creators during a failing economy is a bad idea. Because even if the Federal government took every dollar from this group of taxpayers, they would only be able to run the government for a couple of weeks. The real problem is that politicians in Washington will continue to spend more money than is paid in taxes, and those in the private sector who burden the cost will have less and less with which to create future wealth and shore up the economic health of this country. The real solution is to limit the amount the Federal government can spend by requiring it to balance its budget and limiting it to 18% of GDP. But accomplishing this solution is a little like the proverbial fox limiting his visits to the hen house.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Tax revenue to the Federal government is to the level it was before the recession. Rick Santelli from CNBC said recently that all the focus of the fiscal cliff debate is on taxes which are 7% of the problem, too much spending is the other 93% of the problem, and it is not being addressed. Federal spending since the end of World War Two has averaged 18-20% of Gross Domestic Product, Barack Obama's policies have increased Federal spending to over 24% of GDP. If you combine the increased spending with the fact that 40% of that money is being borrowed, and 70% of the borrowed money is being lent to the Federal government by the Federal Reserve whose printing machines haven't stopped spitting out ever-decreasing-in-value dollars since Obama took office, you have a cliff that looms much larger than any we are facing now.
In the midst of this financial malaise caused by over-spending, President Obama and the Democrats want to institute a discriminatory tax increase on the very people who can create jobs and economic prosperity. As ridiculous as this sounds, it is even more ridiculous for the President to suggest that raising taxes on the so-called wealthy is not going to deliver a gut shot to an economy that is already stumbling.
This is why my suggestion for the Republican leadership in the House is to illustrate the ridiculous by being ridiculous. They should propose a 100% tax rate on anyone making over 250 thousand dollars a year and let the Democrats defend the Conservative position of why raising taxes on job creators during a failing economy is a bad idea. Because even if the Federal government took every dollar from this group of taxpayers, they would only be able to run the government for a couple of weeks. The real problem is that politicians in Washington will continue to spend more money than is paid in taxes, and those in the private sector who burden the cost will have less and less with which to create future wealth and shore up the economic health of this country. The real solution is to limit the amount the Federal government can spend by requiring it to balance its budget and limiting it to 18% of GDP. But accomplishing this solution is a little like the proverbial fox limiting his visits to the hen house.
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
A Christmas Message
As I sit in the darkness before the sun's illumination blankets the day, on this Christmas morning, I can't help but to think of a similar morning half a world away and separated from the present by two thousand years. And in the solitude of my thoughts with the gentle sounds of the morning awakening, I am led to feel joy, hope and a sense of the blessing that comes from knowing something more than this ephemeral world. If you are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist, the peace, joy and love of this season is for you. It does not discriminate based on belief, but it is available to all who will claim it.
When I was a child, Christmas meant time off school and the receiving of gifts. The anticipation of weeks and months was washed away in one felled swoop on Christmas morning. And even though I knew the impetus for this yearly holiday, my appreciation for it was undeveloped and immature. I was, after all, just a child. As I grew into adulthood and fathered my own child, I was blessed to experience Christmas from a different perspective. I felt the joy of my child on Christmas morning, which was at the same time similar to my own as a child, and yet it was somehow more meaningful to this grown man. The anticipation I felt was the anticipation of giving, and the joy of the unwrapping was borne of bringing joy to my child. In recent years with the appearance of grand-children, Christmas has taken on an even deeper meaning than anticipation and gifts, there is still the joy that comes from those things, but there is something more. There is the realization that the larger meaning of Christmas somehow transcends childhood and even adulthood to a place where the attributes of Christmas like peace, love and joy are fully realized and exist outside the bounds of human frailty.
So on this Christmas morning, and always, may the blessings of the child born long ago and whom ultimately sacrificed his earthly life for all mankind, be with you in your heart. And for those who may not believe in that child, I wish the joy, peace and love which has created this very special day. These are the things which that child beckons us to believe and burn into our hearts as a guide as we make our way through this world and into the greater one that follows.
Merry Christmas Everyone !
When I was a child, Christmas meant time off school and the receiving of gifts. The anticipation of weeks and months was washed away in one felled swoop on Christmas morning. And even though I knew the impetus for this yearly holiday, my appreciation for it was undeveloped and immature. I was, after all, just a child. As I grew into adulthood and fathered my own child, I was blessed to experience Christmas from a different perspective. I felt the joy of my child on Christmas morning, which was at the same time similar to my own as a child, and yet it was somehow more meaningful to this grown man. The anticipation I felt was the anticipation of giving, and the joy of the unwrapping was borne of bringing joy to my child. In recent years with the appearance of grand-children, Christmas has taken on an even deeper meaning than anticipation and gifts, there is still the joy that comes from those things, but there is something more. There is the realization that the larger meaning of Christmas somehow transcends childhood and even adulthood to a place where the attributes of Christmas like peace, love and joy are fully realized and exist outside the bounds of human frailty.
So on this Christmas morning, and always, may the blessings of the child born long ago and whom ultimately sacrificed his earthly life for all mankind, be with you in your heart. And for those who may not believe in that child, I wish the joy, peace and love which has created this very special day. These are the things which that child beckons us to believe and burn into our hearts as a guide as we make our way through this world and into the greater one that follows.
Merry Christmas Everyone !
Monday, December 24, 2012
The Shaded Position Of Liberal Gun Views
Many thousands of words have been written and spoken about guns and gun control in the ten days since mass murderer, Adam Lanza, slaughtered 20 children and 6 adults in an elementary school in Connecticut. Liberals have not only made this a debate on guns and the second amendment, but oddly enough have injected race into it as well. It really is spell-bounding to watch supposedly intelligent people make complete fools of themselves, but that is what those on the Left do on a daily basis in this country and around the world.
Wayne Lapierre, president of the National Rifle Association, was ridiculed by Liberals for suggesting that we place armed security in our schools to protect the children of this country, just as we do banks and their customers. The clarity of Mr. Lapierre's statement, when he said the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, is the kind of clarity that the left abhors. Liberals look at everything in shades of grey, with no right and wrong or good and evil. Every issue is expressed by Liberals in nuanced tones that belie a certain intellectual superiority that convinces people they must agree or suffer the humiliation of being thought of as a rube. So even though restricting the access and use of fire arms by law abiding citizens will only embolden the criminals among us, the Left's goal of tearing down the Constitution and consolidating their power is furthered by more gun-control.
Liberals look at the acts committed by individuals who suffer from isolated mental or emotional issues, not as problems to be solved on an individual basis, but as opportunities to expand government and increase bureaucratic budgets. This can not be accomplished if they accept as truth clarified statements like the one Wayne Lapierre made. That's why it is more supportive of the Lefts agenda to assign an almost drug-like quality to guns. In the minds of Liberals, when people possess a gun, they fall under its spell and do things they would not normally do. This allows the Left to shift blame from the individuals acts, which hold no ability for them to restrict others freedoms, and to lay the blame on the gun. Liberals can thusly make all of society responsible for the acts committed by an individual, and thus the society must bear the brunt of the punishment.
Yes, many thousands of words have been spoken and written recently in the aftermath of mass murder committed by one evil man. But the most important 14 words ever written on the subject were done so over two hundred years ago and they are, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Wayne Lapierre, president of the National Rifle Association, was ridiculed by Liberals for suggesting that we place armed security in our schools to protect the children of this country, just as we do banks and their customers. The clarity of Mr. Lapierre's statement, when he said the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, is the kind of clarity that the left abhors. Liberals look at everything in shades of grey, with no right and wrong or good and evil. Every issue is expressed by Liberals in nuanced tones that belie a certain intellectual superiority that convinces people they must agree or suffer the humiliation of being thought of as a rube. So even though restricting the access and use of fire arms by law abiding citizens will only embolden the criminals among us, the Left's goal of tearing down the Constitution and consolidating their power is furthered by more gun-control.
Liberals look at the acts committed by individuals who suffer from isolated mental or emotional issues, not as problems to be solved on an individual basis, but as opportunities to expand government and increase bureaucratic budgets. This can not be accomplished if they accept as truth clarified statements like the one Wayne Lapierre made. That's why it is more supportive of the Lefts agenda to assign an almost drug-like quality to guns. In the minds of Liberals, when people possess a gun, they fall under its spell and do things they would not normally do. This allows the Left to shift blame from the individuals acts, which hold no ability for them to restrict others freedoms, and to lay the blame on the gun. Liberals can thusly make all of society responsible for the acts committed by an individual, and thus the society must bear the brunt of the punishment.
Yes, many thousands of words have been spoken and written recently in the aftermath of mass murder committed by one evil man. But the most important 14 words ever written on the subject were done so over two hundred years ago and they are, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click here to watch my political song parodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)