Posts Tagged ‘Conservative’

CNN, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

There was a time that CNN lived up to its name as a “Cable News Network”.  These days, it seems it’s anything but the news.  It’s opinion and even then, poorly formed and ignorant opinion.  (I’ll discuss the pit bull, Chris Cuomo, another time!)

As I often do during the day, I’m reading through CNN.com/US and there’s an article about gun control.  The author, Jeff Yang, suggests that an answer to the “epidemic” of gun violence is to make owners of guns get insurance.  The article is stupid enough on its own but simply the fact that CNN would publish it is amazing!

Let’s walk through a few counter-thoughts for a moment:

  1. Requiring doctors to have insurance doesn’t stop malpractice from happening.  It only provides a means for the survivors or victims’ families to carry on, at least financially.  The patient is still injured, suffering, or dead.
  2. Requiring drivers to have insurance hasn’t stopped car accidents from happening.  It only provides a means for financial recovering in the wake of a crash.  The damage is still done, injuries still happened, and in some cases, the dead are still dead.

There is no case I can think of where requiring insurance has prevented a potentially negative event from occurring.  In fact, “requiring” insurance is not always enforced even in cases (such as driving) until or unless an event occurs that brings it to light.  The fallacy of those who think like Mr Yang is the thought process that believes a law will prevent something from happening.  Obviously Not!  Even with all of the thousands of laws on the books today–if not millions–crimes and law violations occur on a regular basis.

Insurance may cause a law-abiding citizen to reconsider gun ownership if the cost of that insurance is too great.  For the criminal, die hard, or mentally ill?  Not necessarily.  And even if a person has insurance for a legally obtained firearm, there is no guarantee that in the heat of the moment, someone will not end up dead.

CNN’s Andre Spicer has an equally ineffective idea:  Let’s convince retailers that selling guns isn’t in their best commercial interest!  Great!  So that takes care of Walmart and introduces more shops that are “gun free” like Starbucks.  It doesn’t get guns off of the streets.  It also does nothing to stop a destructive person from walking into an elementary school with a gun and killing people.  How much more gun-free can you get than an elementary school???

Well, those signs in the windows or at the curbs that says “Gun-Free Zone” were REALLY effective, weren’t they!?!?!?!!!

The only answer to gun violence in this country–or anywhere in the world–is a complete revocation of any rights regarding gun ownership with full surrender, then confiscation, and then extreme punishment for anyone found to own a gun.  At that point, there would almost have to be immediate incarceration on a felony charge with the possibility of life in prison or the death penalty before things would change significantly.

I don’t advocate any of this, by the way!  I don’t advocate anything mentioned up to this point!!!

HOWEVER, I do agree that doing nothing is not the right answer, but there needs to be an unemotional, logical, reasoned out approach, hammered out by liberals and conservatives, and then simply implemented.  Doing SOMETHING and doing the RIGHT THING are not one and the same though.  A change may mean that the Constitution is amended–it has been before and likely will be again.  Not an easy path or a likely one at that.  But if and when it does occur, be prepared to either live by the new rules or to move into the criminal class when you don’t.

And be prepared in that day to live with a lot of other changes that will leave the United States of America less great, less free, and less united!


Read Full Post »

A friend shared the following with me and I found these points to be funny and relevant.  Feel free to share them in your own circles:  (Or send me the referrals!) 

Liberals will vehemently disagree with these points but then the ability for us to have different opinions while working together to achieve greatness was a foundation of the nation.

Listen up America!

5 Cogent Sentences

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out of the prosperous.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Read Full Post »

Tell me this:  Why is it acceptable for the gay community to salivate over the day that conservatives don’t make the decisions?  Why is it OK for people to push for liberal judges who will serve their agendas?

America, wake up!

The day you have judges who are willing to give blank-check approval to the agenda of the liberals—gay or not—that will be the day that you no longer have a judiciary with ANY integrity left at all.

matchesthmThat’s not to say there’s a lot of integrity there today, but at least there is some balance and a modicum of objectivity in the decisions that are issued.  And thank goodness for that or we would have descended into full-fledged decadence a long, long time ago.

Consider this America:  It is the job of conservatives—much like parents of a six-year-old—to save you from yourselves while allowing you to make some mistakes so that you learn.

You want liberal judges?  You want a liberal Supreme Court?  Might as well give that six-year-old some matches, alcohol, and condoms while you’re at it!!!


Oh, wait!  That’s right, you’re already handing condoms out in schools, aren’t you?




(CNN:  A great source for all the things you never wanted to know about Barney Frank!)


Read Full Post »

When it comes to liberals in Washington, there are some who are worse than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  By worse, maybe I should say more boisterous in their liberal opinions.

A shining example of how liberal Washington can be (and how far we have gone down the tubes as a nation) is Rep. Barney Frank—a Democrat of course—from Massachusetts.  OK, he’s originally from New Jersey, but there are enough gay politicians there already.

“Barn” is in the news today because he doesn’t want the US Supreme Court—its current members—to consider the legality of same-sex marriage.  Seems he feels Justice Antonin Scalia is a “homophobe” who may not support Frank’s position.  It would be inconvenient for the current court to have to decide this issue.

I guess therein are two of my problems with the LGBT community.  First, anyone who is not willing to accept their perversion as normal is a homophobe.  Anyone who cannot accept what is unnatural as natural must be deficient in some way and in need of diversity and sensitivity training.  Careers can be put at risk and unless you apologize and go to therapy, you are a villain.

Let me be a villain then.

One of my closest and dearest friends ever is gay.  He does not support a marriage amendment or same-sex union protection.  He just wants to live his life and be happy.  He wants to be loved by someone he loves as well.  Those desires are natural and normal and while he may not be directing them in the direction intended by God and nature, he is absolutely right in not asking for equivocation with the heterosexual community.

The second issue I have with Mr Frank and his ilk is that the label “homophobe” is so easily thrown around and despite the lack of diversity and sensitivity used in doling out this label, no-one has yet acknowledged that it is a slur against those of us who follow natural and normal sexual tendencies.

Let Justice Scalia respond by calling Frank a “fag”, “faggot”, “bender”, or some other term of endearment for the gay community and there will be wild, raucous, and flamboyant protests in the streets of every light-in-the-loafer community in Nancy Pelosi’s beloved land of depravity!

Oops!  Perhaps I went too far on that one—someone will be calling me a homophobe next!  Well, if I worried about all the names I’ve ever been called or will be called before I die, I’d have no time to live my life.  Call me what you want. 

200px-barney_frankRep Barney Frank is an absolute waste of taxpayer money, an embarrassment to the halls of Congress, should have been booted out back when he was sleeping with male pages and fixing deals for Steve Gobie, and… well, let’s be “frank”:

He’s a “heterophobe”!





Read Full Post »

25obama2_spanAs President-Elect Obama continues to form his economic team and names individuals to various posts in his upcoming administration, I am impressed with his purpose, focus, and clarity around what needs to be done.  And despite the rhetoric which would suggest otherwise, I am looking forward to the reversal of fortune I expect to come about as a result of his intentions once in office.  It caused me to stop and think this morning as I listened to the news that we (I) could have been wrong about the man.

Well, OK, I can admit that he may not be the three-headed monster many made him out to be, but at the same time, he is far more liberal than I would prefer to see in a president.  The country is evolving as seems inevitable, and change will come to us–dragging conservatives kicking and screaming down the road while liberals dance and shake timbrels under gaily decorated banners!

Ultimately, just as Mr Obama said, we have only one president at a time.  The corollary to that is that whoever the president is, that is who it is.  With all due respect, he (or she eventually) is the leader of the country and must be accepted and respected as such.

For all of my protestations over Californians and their attempt to overturn the results of the referendum on Gay Marriage—the point being that the vox populi had been heard through the exercise of the democratic process—the people have spoken loudly and clearly for Mr Obama to take the reins of this nation for at least the next four years. 

For better or for worse, the marriage will be consumated on January 20, 2009—five days after the Martin Luther King Birthday holiday.  A momentous corneringoccasion in this country and an event that will have the eyes of the world looking to the United States with anticipation rather than animosity. 

We are turning the corner and like it or not, the future is ahead of us—in the middle of the road and there is no way around it!

Read Full Post »