Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Liberal’


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!

Advertisements

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 »


Pelosi-ReaganYes, Nancy Pelosi is a State Representative. 

She is not a doctor or a scientist.

And yes, Nancy Pelosi is wrong!

In her comments to Nancy Reagan this week on the occasion of the unveiling of a Ronald Reagan statue in the Capitol, the Speaker of the House attempted to say something poignant.  And then she opened her mouth—and said something irresponsible and stupid:

Your support for stem cell research has made a significant difference in the lives of many American people. It has saved lives, it has found cures, it has given hope to people.”

No, Ms Pelosi, stem cell research has not saved any lives nor has it found any cures.  It has given hope to some, but in general, it is not all you tout it to be.  Quite the opposite, it is much more likely that stem cell research and specifically embryonic stem cell research has cost lives.  With the Left’s agenda regarding abortion rights and stem cell research, it is open season on embryos—life—for the sake of hope.

Afraid of his mortality for lack of hope beyond it, man fumbles for and grasps at anything that offers a longer life.  It could be a fountain of youth or the Holy Grail, or it could be a miracle cure.  In this case, it is the life of an unborn child sacrificed on the altar of man’s arrogance.  For this, Nancy Pelosis thanks Nancy Reagan—a woman who still sees and talks to her deceased husband.

Read Full Post »


We expected Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to provide President Obama the opportunity to reshape the supreme court when she fell ill earlier this year.  The opportunity to replace her on the US Supreme Court may still come but in the meantime, Obama must be in liberal ecstasy on the news of Justice David Souter’s retirement!

Justice Souter is seated at far right.

Justice Souter is seated at far right.

Following the news of Senator Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party, can anyone doubt the liberalization of Washington?  As soon as the Minnesota Senatorial race is decided—likely in favor of Al Franken—the president will have the control he needs at the Capitol to effect the changes he wants in the Supreme Court.

Souter will remain on the bench through the end of the current session (late-June/early-July) and we can be sure there will be a confirmed appointee in time for the new session beginning in October.

MORE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/657587.html

Great Post: http://johnltdo5455.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/obamas-justice-isnt-blind-shes-empathetic/

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?

MORE:

https://trebord.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/lets-be-frank/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/frank.qanda/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

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

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/frank.qanda/index.html?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCText

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”!

 

MORE:

http://news.aol.com/article/frank-scalia-homophobe/394158?icid=webmail|wbml-aol|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Ffrank-scalia-homophobe%2F394158

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

Read Full Post »


Another "Foreign" President???

Another "Foreign" President???

I was tempted to say “There goes the neighborhood”, but felt that using it as a title would be a bit misleading.  You see, the sentiment behind the phrase is too racially charged and in light of who our next president is, perhaps a bit insensitive.  However, in reading a news story yesterday, I couldn’t help but think that if you let one in, more will follow.

OK… Let’s be clear here.  I’m talking about presidential candidates who are not native-born Americans.

For some reason, the naturalized-but-Austrian-born Governor of California (The Governator) would like to be able to run for the land’s highest office.  The caveat—if the Constitution could be changed to allow it.

Well, maybe in California, where new and more liberal laws and interpretations of laws occur with regular frequency, this might fly.  But for the rest of us?  I don’t think so.  Besides, Governor Schwarzenegger cannot effectively manage that state’s budget—imagine his managing of the nation’s budget!

No, I think it’s time the Constitution stay the way it is (and was) for as long as possible.  Of course, with a liberal in the White House, liberals in Congress, and a Supreme Court that seems left-leaning more and more, who knows?  It could be that “Change is Coming”.

It could happen.
MORE:

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »