Words evolve. They take on new meaning over the years. Social and political movements appropriate certain words, redefine them, and then use them to shape the ideological battlefield. The classic example of that, of course, is “bolshevik” and “menshevik.” The Bolsheviks were, in fact, the Mensheviks and vice-versa. The word bolshevik, derived from the word meaning “majority,” was appropriated by the radicals who were in reality the minority of the old Social Democratic party. The minority labeled the majority the minority and got away with it. Clever. There are many other examples of this in history such as the insistence on calling nazis and fascists right-wing when they are clearly left-wing products.
In our once great, still beloved, but evermore daft United States, precisely those who are not liberal, as in broad minded and generous, in their attitudes towards others have appropriated “liberal” as theirs. The political philosophy of this “liberalism” is one which portrays life as a series of problems that needs addressing by the state–the state guided and run, mind you, by the “well-educated liberal elite” produced by our increasingly decrepit “liberal” universities and informed by “liberal” Hollywood and “liberal” Big Media. Modern U.S. liberals are a variant of European social democrats who believe in a big state and mistrust the individual; the big difference being that US liberals have much more power in the world than their European co-religionists ever could hope. They advocate the “positivist” attitude so aptly summed up in the motto emblazoned on the national flag of Brazil, “Ordem e Progresso,” so long, of course, as they are in charge of imposing the order and defining the progress. They take positivism’s emphasis on rational thought and logic, and its opposition to superstition and fantasy, and turn it on its head into a “science-based” fantasy that somehow just so happens to lead to more power for them and their state. Global climate change is one stirling example of how liberals have taken a legitimate scientific-based concern over pollution, and turned it into a monumental hoax, known as Manmade Climate Change. That hoax somehow, just somehow ends up demanding more money and power for–guess who?–the liberals and their state. As we will discuss, this philosophy comprises followers who proclaim a great love for humanity while in practice exhibiting a great hatred for people. […]
Here is a list of the 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in America. I am going out on a limb here, but I’m betting most (if not all) have been liberal democrat strongholds for generations.
Kevin D. Williamson @ NRO explains this stark fact in great detail…
The United States does not suffer from an inflated rate of homicides perpetrated with guns; it suffers from an inflated rate of homicides. The argument about gun control is at its root a way to put conservatives on the defensive about liberal failures, from schools that do not teach to police departments that do not police and criminal-justice systems that do not bring criminals to justice. The gun-control debate is an exercise in changing the subject.
The Left, of course, very strongly desires not to discuss those reasons, because those reasons often point to the failure of progressive policies. For this reason, statistical and logical legerdemain is the order of the day when it comes to the gun debate.
But talking about what is actually wrong with Detroit, Chicago, or Philadelphia forces liberals to think about things they’d rather not think about, for instance the abject failure of the schools they run to do much other than transfer money from homeowners to union bosses. Liberals love to talk about the “root causes” of crime and social dysfunction, except when the root cause is liberalism, in which case it’s, “Oh, look! A scary-looking squirrel gun!”
But the gun-control debate proceeds as though suicide and violent crime were part of a unitary phenomenon rather than separate issues with separate causes. The entire debate serves to obfuscate what ails our country rather than to clarify it.
MSNBC – Matthews: “It’s the guy, mostly the guy, the white guy, mostly, who is gun absorbed…” and
So we got all that going for us.
Perhaps they are right. Perhaps history will eventually be kind to Pres. George W. Bush. It is extremely hard to govern properly and successfully when you believe you are writing your own favorable history by trying not to get dirt on yourself.
The other day I pointed out a colum Peggy Noonan wrote on “Obama fatigue” and how, because of it, Pres. George W. Bush is now seeing a growing affection and popularity, mostly because of the two men’s personality differences. Two friends have shown me a couple more interesting pieces related to staunch democrats that are having their own change of heart about the former president.
Given how last year’s Hurricane Sandy along the nation’s northern east coast has been poorly handled (to date) by the Obama administration, The Washington Times highlights a bit of a recent Donna Brazile column praising Pres. George W. Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and destroying the liberals’/demorcats’ narrative myths. Yeah, you heard that right…
“Every member of my family was displaced by Katrina. Last year, I lost both my father and sister. But I had them with me that much longer because they were rescued from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
“Bush understood the need for civility. I joined him despite my frustration because the need was too great for finger-pointing and blame-making. He flew to New Orleans and addressed the nation.
“George W. Bush was good as his word. He visited the Gulf states 17 times; went 13 times to New Orleans. Laura Bush made 24 trips. Bush saw that $126 billion in aid was sent to the Gulf’s residents, as some members of his own party in Congress balked.”
“Bush put a special emphasis on rebuilding schools and universities. He didn’t forget African-Americans: Bush provided $400 million to the historically black colleges, now integrated, that remain a pride, and magnet for African-American students. Laura Bush, a librarian, saw to it that thousands of books ruined by the floods were replaced.”
“Our recovery can be credited to the civility and tireless efforts of President Bush and other Americans…”
Joseph Curl also offers a one-on-one experience with a female, democrat, White House beat reporter…
DALLAS — Shortly after Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a fellow reporter who’d covered President George W. Bush all eight years told me she’d had enough of the travel and stress and strain of the White House beat, that she was moving on.
We reminisced about all the places we’d been, all the crazy days and wild nights, all the history we’d seen — first hand. Just before we said our goodbyes, I asked her if she’d miss covering President Obama.
“Not at all. He’s an inch deep. Bush is a bottomless chasm, a deep, mysterious, emotional, profound man. Obama is all surface — shallow, obvious, robotic, and, frankly, not nearly as smart as he thinks. Bush was the one.”
Her words, so succinct, have stuck with me ever since. By the way, she’s a hardcore Democrat.
But she was right. And that contrast was apparent to all who watched Thursday’s ceremonial event to open W’s new presidential library in Dallas. The class and grace and depth of America’s last president completely outshined that of his successor (who, coincidentally, or perhaps not, was the only one seated in the shade on a sunny Texas day).
In fact, the day gave America a chance to measure the men who have served it as commander-in-chief for 28 of the last 36 years. Five of the last six presidents were on stage, the first time the quintet has appeared together in public. And what a study in character it was.
Yes, we all know Pres. Bush had his failings, not the least of which was in order to get along after the GOP defeat in the 2006 second mid-term elections he pretty much allowed the democrat-led Congress runaway spending that would begin the economic downfall that would continually be dumped in his lap these last five years. But the man was approachable. His lighthearted self-deprecation came at his own expense, unlike Obama who self-deprecates with a side-handed swipe at those he blames for his perceived failings (usually the GOP or FOX News). And here is something else… Pres. George W. Bush has done more for Africa (and continues to) than any other U.S. president did, or has since … and he doesn’t even have any family living in Africa. (Not to mention Laura Bush’s continuing work for the women and children of Afghanistan.)
In this superb essay titled “Taqiyya and the Father of Lies,” Gates of Vienna takes us on a tour of how Taqiyya has become the norm in the West among, you guessed it, the left…
[…] In 1966 I flew from London to Singapore. I walked to the barrier with my parents, showed the tickets, walked out onto the tarmac and up the steps to the airplane. But it was In Singapore that I had my first experience of bombs. The Indonesians mounted a campaign of terror in the Singapore at the time, aimed at increasing racial tension. Behind this strategy was a Jihad aimed as a protest against the formation of Malaysia as a multiracial/multicultural community. We were not officially informed of this, but rather we were told to be very careful of the Malays (Moslem) as being hypersensitive.
Later that year, Singapore broke away from Malaysia, the demands of the ethnic Malays being incompatible with the relative racial harmony achieved in Singapore.
That this was all about Jihad was covered up, but not long after, in 1968, Leila Khaled and the Marxist PFLP struck, first of Palestinian terrorist attacker to use lethal hijacking as a publicity stunt.
In 1970 they hijacked two large airliners (plus a 747 that was too big for the airstrip) and took them to Dawson’s Field, an abandoned airstrip in Jordan, where all but the Jewish passengers were released.
Leila Khaled was captured when she tried to hijack an El Al jet, she was handed over to the British, who exchanged her for the passengers. The Singaporean bombers were hanged in 1968; I don’t think Singapore has had any more problems. Britain, on the other hand has had a continuous stream of them.
From that time on, hassle-free air travel became a thing of the past. The Palestinians have cost us dear, but somehow, it is to the Palestinian Authority that part of our Jizya is paid. In the days of Al Capone this used to be called a ‘protection racket’. Now it is called ‘International Aid’. Thus are the lies perpetuated.
The impact of Islam on our lives is enormous, but it is obscured by a huge web of deceit and lies. Every time you go to an airport or other public place, and are subjected to searches and the invasion of personal space, it is because the ‘Religion of Peace’ wants you dead, and by association, one must assume that Socialists also want you dead, or at least somewhere where you cannot attack them with the truth of their perfidy. […]
Read the entire essay.
From The American Spectator, if you read one thing today, read “Jihad Blows Up the Liberal Utopia.”
Jihad has blown up The Liberal Utopia.
The visionary liberal land of political and social perfection.
President Obama is not happy — and he isn’t alone.
You know the place.
- The Liberal Utopia is a land where gun background checks prevent mass murder.
- The Liberal Utopia is a land where Islamic fundamentalists have changed their perception of America because the President travels to Muslim nations to give lovely speeches, believes that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere is a wonderful sign of an Arab Spring, and refuses to use the word “terrorist” whether his administration is investigating Ft. Hood, Boston, or Benghazi.
- The Liberal Utopia is a land where a 2009 presidential video proclaiming a “new beginning” in American relations with Iran will halt the effort to build a nuclear bomb.
- The Liberal Utopia is a land where the good intentions of Social Security will never bankrupt the Social Security Trust Fund.
- The Liberal Utopia is a land where the good intentions of Medicare could not possibility result in trillions of unfunded liability.
- The Liberal Utopia is a land where the War on Poverty was supposed to end poverty — and instead winds up sending violent crime skyrocketing, and, in the words of Thomas Sowell, setting up the American black family for rapid disintegration in the liberal welfare state “that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”
One could go on …and on and on….spotting those will-o-the-wisp glimpses of The Liberal Utopia (Obamacare here, the Obama stimulus over there, the promise to close Guantanamo way back there) with example after example of this miserably failed attempt to find or create a Liberal Utopia.
Or what our friend Mark Levin deftly calls Ameritopia.
The search for this Liberal Utopia has been going on in this country since at least 1932 and in fact before that when one keeps going on back to Woodrow Wilson’s progressives and beyond to the late 19th century when the progressive movement began to gain political steam with the likes of William Jennings Bryan and a whole host of other if lesser known figures.
The idea is always the same. To quote Levin: “Utopianism is the ideological and doctrinal foundation for statism.”
Or, to simplify: if only Americans are made to do X, The Perfect Society will manifest. […]
The rush to judgement by the mainstream media and leftist pundits on who the Boston Marathon bombers was just the latest in a long sick tradition. The left, incapable of rational and logical thought, and lacking even the slightest bit of deductive reasoning, continues to make the same mistake over and over again, proving they are, of course, insane.
[…] The Sparkman accusations were based on nothing more than a desire to demonize the newly formed and rapidly growing Tea Party movement as terrorists and un-American. It was as if they were hoping for an act of Tea Party violence.
Yet there was a theory behind the madness, the Eliminationist Narrative created by Dave Neiwart of Crooks and Liars about an “eliminationist” radical right seeking to dehumanize and eliminate political opposition. It was a play on the over-used narrative of Richard Hofstadter’s “paranoid style” in American politics.
The Eliminationist Narrative was aided and abetted by an abuse of the term “right-wing” to include groups who are the opposite of conservatism and the Tea Party movement.
In the case of Sparkman, the accusations were just Another Failed Eliminationist Narrative. And the Eliminationist Narrative would fail time and time again […]
For a more detailed picture of this sick state of mind, read “10 Depressing, Morally Confused Reactions to 4/15/13, the Boston Jihad” in the PJ Tatler.
And the liberals/democrats dare insist “big money” from republicans (Bloomberg is not a republican, and never was) tries to influence politics?
Note to Bloomberg and propaganda company, and democrats and RINOs: The criminals and ‘mentally ill’ have always gotten guns without background checks, and will continue to until the end of time. Why don’t you head to Chicago and ask the nightly shooters how THEY passed a background check to purchase the gun(s) they use on a daily basis to make one of the strictest gun control cities in the nation one of the highest murder rate cities in the nation. Hell, ask the criminals in NYC, where you’re supposed to be spending your time and energy, how they passed background checks. Besides, according to the FBI, “During Barack Obama’s presidency there have been 32 background checks for gun purchases every minute.” That says two things: More background checks are being done because that many guns are being purchased every minute.
I’m really sick and tired of this whole false premise and smoke and mirrors to cover the fact these people are aiming ALL of this gun control legislation at law-abiding, responsible, background check clearing gun owners. By the way, have you seen this (via Doug Ross)? Probably not because the MSM will never carry the truth…
A March 2013 survey of 15,000 police officers covering proposed gun control legislation and attitudes about concealed carry laws had some surprising results:
The survey, which was conducted in early March 2013, received 15,000 responses from law enforcement professionals. It found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights, with the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime. […]
And there is this: Washington Times: “37 of 62 Colorado sheriffs to sue over new gun laws”
But then, very few if any actual physicians/medical professionals were consulted in the writing, crafting, promoting and passing of ObamaCare, which is why nearly 50% of existing physicians are contemplating/planning on quitting once it’s fully implemented … So why would these eager gun-grabbing democrats bother consulting with our on-duty law enforcement?
Very good essay from a blog called “The Hispanic Conservative”:
[…] The liberals will court you by feigning empathy. Their hearts will apparently bleed for you. They will tell you that the lot of Hispanics is unfair and that you and they share a common threat- conservatives. They will say that they care so much about you, that if you give them your votes, they will selflessly work in your interest. All the while they will be selling you the philosophy of liberalism in tiny pieces.
They will promise not to judge you, no matter how high your teenage dropout rate is or how high the illegitimacy or illiteracy rates get; they will tell you it’s not your fault, it’s because of white racism. They will not judge you because staying on your good side is in their self-interest, not because it is in your best interest.
They will say that you don’t have the right to discipline your children as you see fit, they will say that neither do the schools because your children have rights. This will result in unruly children and later unruly young adults which will result in unruly neighborhoods. People and businesses who can afford to will leave.
Like a Casanova who can never live up to his heat of the moment promises of love and fidelity, it is not in the nature of liberalism to deliver on its promises. The pillars of liberalism- collectivism, relativism, socialism, humanism, and class envy, unavoidably lead to the same end: crime, poverty, over-reaching government, weak families, substandard schools, and suppressed commerce.
If you doubt me look at the Black community. Liberals have been smooth talking us for decades, and we’ve been handing them election victories like clockwork. They promise the moon every election cycle, but look at what it’s gotten us. They have not delivered on a single promise they made to us; we’re worse off by the year.
They will do the same to Hispanics. […]
President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.
The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.
The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”
Under the plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement – or right around $3 million this year. […]
They will not rest until everything that is ours is theirs.
George Will has written a scathing column on the nation’s failed public schools that from K-12, and into “higher learning”, have become factories of propaganda. Sounds like someplace else we are very familiar with, no?
The real vocation of some people entrusted with delivering primary and secondary education is to validate this proposition: The three R’s — formerly reading, ’riting and ’rithmetic — now are racism, reproduction and recycling. Especially racism. Consider Wisconsin’s Department of Public Instruction. It evidently considers “instruction” synonymous with “propaganda,” which in the patois of progressivism is called “consciousness-raising.”
And Americans wonder why their generous K-12 financing (higher per pupil than all but three of the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations) has done so little to improve reading, math and science scores. Read in full…
Now, in a network promo touting the Maoist mentality of Lean “Forward”, Mz. Harris-Perry insists children/kids (they are only given personhood when the left needs them to be more than “things” in their heart-tugging “It’s for the children” propaganda) belong to the community, and not so much to their parents and family.
Given MSNBC’s proclivity for deeming any-given word as a racist dog-whistle, I contend “community” = “collective” = “State” … and I am not the only one reading such propaganda into this.
From what I can see on her Wiki page she has atleast one child (daughter). I’m sure Mz. Harris-Perry would be perfectly willing and welcoming to give up her parental rights and just allow the “community” (see: ‘state’) assume total control and dictates over her child.
And ‘word’ to Mz. H-P … We have (and continue to) spent billions and billions and billions on public ‘education’, and much, if not ALL, has been unchecked for legitimacy and efficiency. The public education system in this nation is far, far more “broken” than our healthcare system, financial system, and election system. We have a certain percentage of “teachers” that are from the dumbed-down public education system generation now teaching yet another generation of children who, in some cases, have been relinquished from their parents’ responsibility and involvement, and the “communities” where they roam free are irresponsible and failed as well. See Chicago and Detroit, or any inner city where democrat “progressive” leadership has been deeply rooted for generations, and where federal taxpayer dollars have been endlessly dumped. And as with the “collective” mentality, the whole is judged on the few failures, and action taken accordingly on everyone.
“The personal life is dead … The private life is dead…”
What could go wrong?
Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.
Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.
Stunning. This woman should be filled with shame, but I imagine the concept is foreign to her. After all, her big boss at Planned Parenthood views seeing a fetus as human is extremism.
Friday night Mark Levin demanded a Congressional hearing on Planned Parenthood’s ‘procedure’ when the botched abortion ‘aborted’ baby is born alive on the table. This is in response to this video and shocking testimony that is going viral. I agree with Levin. Our tax dollars are going to federal and state funded PP, who continually deny their primary role and service in “women’s health” IS abortion.
More at PJM’s PJ Tatler: “Shock Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues In Favor of Post-Birth Abortion”
Earlier this week while reporting from the murder trial of abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell the AP’s Maryclaire Dale observed Gosnell as ‘An Elegant Man’ Who ‘Smiled Softly’ in Court.
FLASHBACK: Then Illinois state senator Barack Obama’s views on botched abortions resulting in living aborted infants…
Obama repeated the gun-control meme about his intended gun control laws once again yesterday while flanked by the families of gun violence victims (and with bobble-head “Shotgun Joe Biden” by his side), “If it saves just one life…” … One? Just “one life“?
How incredibly absurd that reasoning is. Honestly, are thinking people in this country listening to this juvenile narrative? Are they hearing it, taking it all in and realizing the other side’s logic and reasoning on pushing for more gun control is asinine at best? After yesterday’s hissy-fit and shaming of the American people who value their Constitutional Second Amendment rights, Obama is using his “executive powers”, yet again, to bypass Congress and the people to get what he wants while his White House flunkies carry the lies as political extortion by top level donors is used on squeamish democrats, and Obama has the nanny troll’s $12 million dollars working his PR for him. Sen. Rand Paul was on FOX last night and he posed the challenge to Obama to point out to him exactly which, if any, of the new proposed gun control legislation would have saved just one life in the Sandy Hook elementary school, anymore than the existing gun laws did (or didn’t). It’s a fair and logical proposition, I say.
Another filibuster is coming alright, and I suspect it will be bigger, longer and louder than the last filibuster. The TEA Party groups and NRA members, and any law-abiding gun owner that can make it to Washington D.C., should gather and rally outside the U.S. Capitol during that filibuster when it happens. A stack of new laws (in the face of thousands of existing laws already being broken) imposed on law-abiding, gun-owning American citizens, just to save one life? I think that unrealistic premise has got to be right up at the top of “Most Idiotic Statements Obama Has Ever Made”. The twisted logic and reasoning is bad enough, but the fact that the man feels comfortable saying it, more than once, to the American public is just astonishing. But then, he is the one who five years ago insisted his daughters would never be “punished with a baby”. And yet, mouth-watering dolts, like those over at MSNBC for example, swear this man, Barack Hussein Obama, is the most eloquent communicator ever to walk in unison with Earth’s gravity.
Dana Loesch BOLDLY stood up and stood her ground last night on CNN against foreign, interloping, bastion of objectivity Piers Morgan and avowed communist Van Jones about the left’s/liberal narrative and premise on gun control that is currently being shoved down the throats of the American people. Listen to the tail end of this CNN debate. If Piers Morgan is on Obama’s side in demanding even more gun control laws he must be in agreement with Obama’s idea of trying to save “just one life” out of the dozens lost at Sandy Hook school.
Oh, and “assault” is an action a PERSON does, not an object. “Assault” is usually accompanied by “battery”. Shoving somebody down to the ground. Punching/Slapping somebody. YES, a stabbing committed with a spoon or an ice pick or a 12 inch ruler or a Lincoln Log, or smothering with a pillow, or wrapping a child’s jump rope around somebody’s neck and trying to strangle them, or a cream pie to the face (ask Ann Coulter) IS “ASSAULT” … and battery!!! Whether it is a one-shot front-loading musket circa the American Revolution or a fully automatic military rifle (“machine gun”) it is an inanimate and unthinking object until a person intentionally takes it in hand and operates it. Be it hunting, target-shooting, or murder, the “assault” responsibility is solely on the person who picks up the gun … or the spoon or the Lincoln Log or the pie, and not on the gun. The willful and intentional infliction of ignorance on the American people by those in the government and the American people is nauseating.
ABC News slams gun owners as the “black helicopter” crowd:
[…] Unfortunately, history is on the side of those “paranoid” civilians who don’t trust their own government. We don’t trust them to protect our Constitutional rights. We don’t trust them to make sure our 2nd Amendment rights are not infringed upon. They’re already infringing on all our Constitutional rights, and yet, even many conservatives trust them with the universal background check issue. The government’s ideal is for no civilian to have any gun or self-defense weapon except for maybe a pair of scissors or a Swingline stapler. Yet, people will trust our government to decide who shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.
We shouldn’t trust them with background checks and defining mental illness. They are going to impose stricter and stricter rules and regulations on background checks that will continually expand the criteria for those that will not be allowed to purchase a firearm. Until no one owns a gun anymore. And even by that time, they will have convinced most people that no one’s rights were infringed upon; that they were just preventing crimes by making sure guns didn’t end up in the wrong hands. […]
America’s gun owners are under siege on virtually all fronts. Congress is after us, and so are governors such as New York’s Andrew Cuomo and Maryland’s Martin O’Malley. They must think that when they run for the Democratic presidential nomination, a strong anti-gun stance will help them with left-wing primary voters.
It doesn’t stop there, however, as the media, liberal legislators and both federal and state regulators are looking for new and often unique ways to please their liberal bosses by harassing gun owners, dealers and manufacturers.
One major national firearms retailer, for example, has been under fire for more than two years from the Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It seems the company won’t hire convicted felons, which the commission claims amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The federal government these days argues that policies that have what government lawyers call a “disparate impact” on racial minorities amount to impermissible discrimination – even when the policies themselves were not put in place for discriminatory reasons. Thus, the government argues that a higher percentage of minorities within the felony population than in the population at large means that any policy that discriminates against felons as a class is discriminatory because its impact falls disparately on minorities.
Company officials pointed out to commission investigators threatening to charge the company with discrimination that they couldn’t hire felons even if they wanted to, because federal law prohibits federal firearms licensees from hiring felons. The investigator’s response was, according to a company official I talked to: “That’s your problem, not ours.” These are investigators and regulators who can read between the lines, know their bosses are anti-gun and will do anything they can to please them. […]
The longer this lopsided debate (I say ‘lopsided’ because those who can immediately, wrongly and unconstitutionally end it with one executive order are in near total power) the more the pro-Constitution voices state perfectly and eloquently the truth that keeps us free in the face of those voices that intend to make us less free and less safe. This Connecticut man is the latest to make complete sense as he addresses Connecticut lawmakers on their gun control intentions…
Meet Robert Steed, a resident of Vernon, Conn. who took three days straight off work to attend several gun control hearings in Connecticut. On March 14, Steed was more “aggravated” than usual with lawmakers and he let them know it in his fiery testimony, telling them that they were “coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters.”
“This is the third day I’ve taken off of work to come here to, like so many of the rest of us, to plead with you for us to keep our guns because of some wing-nut in Newtown, Connecticut,” he said. “If that isn’t inherently wrong, I don’t know what is. That these bills are even in proposed form is scary enough. That any of you could possibly be undecided is scary enough. What are you looking at?”
He went on: “I can’t for the life of me understand how this state can have as many gun laws on the books as it does and have members of its Legislature need to take firearms 101. And as far as what I felt were potshots taken at the NRA, they’ve done more for gun safety– they’ll do more for gun safety this weekend than this committee will do in your careers.”
Last week, Steed told lawmakers who believe legislation will prevent tragedies that “evil exists” and “sometimes things are beyond your control.”
“Adam Lanza commits a crime, and I’m here to gr0vel and plead for my rights and explain to you that my firearms are kept safely?” he asked rhetorically. “I keep hearing the word “solution”… you’re not going to find a solution, it doesn’t exist. You can’t find a broad brush solution to evil.”
This is the cold hard truth and reality the knee-jerk lawmakers on state and federal levels refuse to see and understand. And when it is blindingly pointed out to them, they become condescending and patronizing … to their employers who are pointing out these arrogant employees are failing at their (sworn oath) jobs…
Connecticut state Rep. Steve Mikutel (D) refuted Steed and said lawmakers can craft a solution to gun violence. “We can solve this,” he said.
Mikutel admitted that “we live in an open free democratic society,” therefore lawmakers won’t be able to address all violence in society. If the U.S. was a “dictatorship” Congress would have a better chance of dealing with violence, but that’s not the way they want to go, the Democrat added.
“You’ll get a better handle on it maybe in a dictatorship where they just go in and take all your guns and lock-down, and they’ve got big brother watching all over you everywhere, they’ve got cameras on every corner, cameras in every neighborhood,” the Democrat continued.
Mikutel explained that Connecticut doesn’t want to go down that route and so it makes lawmakers’ job more “difficult.”
Yes, the democrat lawmaker went there, obviously ignorant, in total denial or lying about the privacy invasive situation(s) we currently live under in the United States, with more to follow. My question to Rep. Steve Mikutel is, “Was that a threat or a promise?” Listen to the whole exchange here (George posted it earlier), then make this video and story go viral. By the way, something else you will not hear in the MSM: “Connecticut wooed gunmaker Bushmaster’s parent company days before Sandy Hook massacre – Freedom Group was offered a low-interest, $1 million loan for a Stamford headquarters, but after the Bushmaster AR-15 was used in Newtown, the proposal was canceled.” … Connecticut poll: “Most oppose more gun control measures”
Meanwhile, New York Gov. Cuomo shows us a prime example of what governing and legislating from “feelings”, instead of from the guidelines outlined within the U.S. Constitution, looks like…