OK, I’m getting sick of this. There’s a ton of people passing around the following picture that are about to get a slappin’ by ye olde Annoyed Elephant:
Seriously… what’s wrong with you people? Christians are among the most generous people on the planet. They give and give and give to food banks, homeless shelters, and individuals in need on a near-constant basis, giving billions of dollars every year out of their own pockets to combat poverty and hunger, not only in America, but around the world. On top of that, Chick-Fil-A mandates that its franchises also give to local charities and people in need.
And yet, socially-minded folks are lining up to point out how evil some Christians were for spending $7 at Chick-Fil-A to support a man who shares their family values. As if it’s an either-or scenario where we either help the poor or support Chick-Fil-A, and ne’er the twain shall meet. As if, somehow, because of all the people who ate at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday to support Truett Cathy’s freedom of conscience regarding his Biblical morals will somehow erase decades of “success” in the war on poverty.
Get off your high horse, people. Eat your damned chicken sandwich.
If a business does something I don’t approve of, I simply stop shopping there. For instance, Citgo is owned by Hugo Chavez, communist dictator of Venezuela, and because I consider Hugo to be a gigantic douche, I don’t get gas as Ctigo. Ever. If my friends ask me, I’ll tell them why I avoid Citgo. They may agree and stop shopping there, they may not. It’s all good because we’re all individuals capable of making adult decisions and I don’t pick my friends and colleagues based on politics – and those friends I have who do disagree with me tend to be adult enough to realize this.
So, this leads to the question: why the war on Chick-Fil-A?
First, let’s get this clear: Chick-Fil-A the company was founded by a Christian man whose values have driven his business model. The employees are typically extremely friendly to customers, the restaurants are very considerate towards families in both design and menu offerings, and they’re closed on Sunday (a point which has annoyed me often when I’ve had a mis-timed craving). The founder of Chick-Fil-A, S. Truett Cathy, continues to promote his personal values. So what’s the problem?
I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
Well, shockingly to some, this man – who’s fostered over 200 kids, attends church every Sunday, and continues to teach Sunday School classes in his 90′s, doesn’t like gay marriage. His business doesn’t discriminate against gays, they don’t refuse to serve gay people, they don’t put pictures of the Chick-Fil-A cows holding signs that say “God Hats Homoos” on their marquees. It’s simply that Truett doesn’t think gay behavior is right and doesn’t support gay marriage. Now, what would an adult do about this shocking revelation?
Option 1: Realize that we’re talking about a 91 year old Christian man and get on with life, applauding his works you agree with, and occasionally stopping by Chick-Fil-A for their delicious sandwiches.
Option 2: Disagree with Mr. Cathy and send the company a letter expressing your discontent with his position, but accepting the fact that Chick-Fil-A probably isn’t going to be putting out an Anti-Gay Kids Meal any time soon.
Option 3: Perform a personal boycott of Mr. Cathy’s businesses. Be content in your personal sacrifice, but sad that you’re missing out on their delicious chicken.
Option 4: Perform same boycott, but mention to friends that they may want to join you. Send a letter to the company stating your reasons for boycotting.
Option 5: Demonize a 91-year-old man whose values you never agreed with and use the force of government to exert the force of your will, not only upon the business whose founder has beliefs you don’t agree with, but on the potential employees of said business. Plus, hold gay kiss-in events at Chick-Fil-A so that the people who eat their lunch there will feel totally weird about it and not eat there, forcing Chick-Fil-A to serve people who held their kiss-ins, except that they already totally do serve gay people at Chick-Fil-A, which means you’re just doing it for show. Besides, people who don’t agree with your political views don’t deserve the same freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment that good progressives do.
Normal people would choose 1-4. Sadly, a ton of retards are choosing 5, getting the likes of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor and Obama associate Rahm Emanuel to try to push Chick-Fil-A out of their respective cities, a fascistic move that’s even set off the free expression alarm at the incredibly liberal Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and NPR.
The ultimate in irony is that while Rahm Emanuel was pushing against Chick-Fil-A for Cathy’s support of traditional marriage, he was also welcoming Louis Farrakhan to Chicago, who not only opposes gay marriage, but also openly and proudly hates Jewish people like… Rahm Emanuel.
The pro-family groups have organized today, August 1, as a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, and have encouraged people to go by and grab a sammich. Personally, I disagree with this. I think that a better approach is simply to eat mor chikin. Don’t limit it to a single day – go support the businesses who support your values on a regular basis. Show them your support by becoming a regular customer. Go buy a sammich today… and then another tomorrow… and then another a few days from now. Sure, you’ll get fat, but it’ll be delicious and you’ll be giving your support to a business whose values are the same values found in Scripture.
So the court says Obamacare is a-OK. That’s right: the right of the government to force you to spend your money how they see fit is covered under “taxation authority”. And, as expected, there’s a lot of blame to be passed around, most of it resting on the back of Chief Justice John Roberts.
But I don’t blame Roberts. Honestly, looking at the ruling, I see the direction he was heading in: Congress has the power to tax you, and forcing you to buy health insurance is no different. It’s not an argument I agree with 100%, but it’s a logical one. It also throws the role of healthcare back into the legislature. No, I don’t blame Roberts or even the left side of the court.
I blame you.
That’s right, America – I blame you. You’re the one who elected these idiots. You’re the one who voted for “hope” and “change” instead of thinking things through. You’re the ones who voted retards into Congress assuring us that they were nowhere near as socialist and liberal as we said they were. You, and only you, are the ones that I hold responsible for wiping your ass with our constitution, our economy, and our future and flushing it down the toilet. You were stupid.
You don’t like that, do you? You don’t like me calling you a bunch of retards? Well, then, you shouldn’t have voted for retards.
Want to change my mind about you? Then freaking vote right this time. Stop sticking your fingers in your ears when someone tells you that Obama and his radical left are lying to you. Stop feeling bad about your own racism, thinking you can cure it by voting for a black guy who hangs out with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers. Stop not thinking things through.
And you Republicans? Don’t you DARE back down on this. Take hold of the reins that the people are screaming at you to take hold of and show us some leadership. Defund this piece of garbage and send it back to hell where it belongs. Be conservative, not stupid.
School in the… wait for it… liberal Democrat-leaning state of New York… censored an art student’s contribution to a mural. They had tons of religious imagery on the wall, but the minute a student who believed that Jesus was the Way, the Truth, and the Life decided to paint a cross and a few song lyrics, the school felt that she’d crossed the line.
Scary!
Painting a mosque? Fine. A demonic creature? A-OK. The Taj Mahal? 10-4. A Native American totem pole? Yee-hah. A cross? BLACKLIST THE TWIT!!!
Look, I’m all for not pushing religion on people. I am a dedicated, strong, stubborn Christian, but I know that there are people who neither share my faith nor want to share my faith. And while I do believe I am called to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to let you know the Good News that He can save you from your sins and the penalty to come if you only repent and believe in Him… but I’m also well aware that the best way to communicate the Gospel is to build a personal relationship with people and to meet them where they are so that you can point them to the Cross. An ineffective method would be sticking students in a classroom and indoctrinating them via a state-approved religious curriculum.
Having said that, there seems to be a mistake made by the anti-religious crowd and bureaucrats, that our precious little angels – and by extension, our precious little public – must be freed from any expression of religious (read: Christian) belief in the public circle. They crow about the separation of church and state and point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that prayer isn’t allowed in any classroom, ever! Ha ha ha!
Silly people. Silly, evil people.
Let’s take a quick look at the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There’s a lot of meat in there, but it’s meat that’s easily identified and served up. Let’s stick with just the stuff that sticks with this case.
1. Congress shall make no law. This is pretty simple: the first amendment is a restriction on the actions of Congress, not the people. Much like the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms, the First Amendment protects the rights of the people.
2. An establishment of religion. Again, pretty simple: Congress is not allowed to declare an official religion of the United States. This was because many of the American colonies were founded by Christian people for religious purposes, and those Christian groups sometimes didn’t get along, sometimes even with themselves. By avoiding the establishment of a national religion, those debates were rendered moot at the Federal level, even though every single colony still acknowledged Almighty God in their charters. Today, this has been extended to other religions.
3. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Federal Government cannot keep you from practicing your religion. If you want to practice Voodoo, that’s your business (so long as you’re not breaking any laws in doing so).
4. Or abridging the freedom of speech. Again, while there are reasonable limits placed on this right (you can’t yell fire in a theater, you can’t threaten someone’s life, etc.), it’s typically accepted that the government is not allowed to tell you what you can and cannot say. Simple? Sure.
So where did we get lost? In my ever-loving opinion, it started in the 1980′s, when the Supreme Court ruled in Abington Township v. Schempp , where they introduced the “secular vs. religious” test. Later, in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, the court went full retard, ruling that having the words “Gloria in Exelcis Deo” was illegal because that was totally religious, but it was OK to have a Menorah, because that’s totally secular. By entertaining a micromanagement approach towards the free exercise of religion, the Court empowered those who want to push a secularist religion like atheism.
This leads to incidents like this, where the same people who thought it was evil, wrong, super-evil censorship to ban the sale of 2 Live Crew albums in Florida think it’s perfectly OK to paint over a student’s artistic expression of admiration for her God because, Lord knows someone might see her picture and get magically forced by the school board to join the Baptists. They’re so busy enforcing point #2 of the amendment that they miss #3 and #4. They’re taking a very liberal view of the constitution, where one can change the plain meaning of the constitution as it suits the situation (hence why I join Alonzo Rachel in rejecting “progressive” as a label for people who are more accurately described as “liberal”). This liberal view means that the freedom of those who should be protected by the constitution is subject to the whims of a government bureaucrat.
We’ve gone over why we should own guns and the various gun law issues. So the question arises: is the 2nd Amendment absolute? Should we be allowed to have nuclear weapons, RPG’s, and other instruments of death that are restricted to the military? How far should these restrictions extend?
There are extremists on both sides. One side, of course, denies that the 2nd Amendment means what it clearly says. These people should be ignored and mocked. The other side, of course, says that no citizen should be denied a weapon that the government can’t get its hands on. These people… are actually pretty close to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment: namely, the right to defend yourself against government tyranny.
Exercising My 2nd Amendment Rights
Having said that… there are reasonable restrictions on guns that reasonable people should agree with. In deference to the gun supporters, no, I don’t think that citizens have a right to carry an RPG around in public. While we have the right to repel government tyranny, there has to be a reasonable limit on what a potentially untrained citizen can do with weapons that do more than put a bullet in a bad guy. During the revolution, there were limited numbers of citizens who owned such devices, but they were limited mostly to rich people who needed to protect goods. However, I doubt the framers ever considered the concept of a private citizen owning a nuclear weapon that could destroy a city. Frankly, it was just too foreign of an idea to consider.
And that leads us to restrictions. Over time, the legislatures and courts around this land have worked to define exactly which “arms” are protected under the 2nd Amendment. Recently, the Supreme Court (in DC v. Heller) agreed that handguns are protected as “arms” under that Amendment and that Federal enclaves like DC (later extended to states in McDonald v. Chicago). However, the SCOTUS has also ruled that there are reasonable restrictions that the government can apply to gun ownership in the interest of public safety. While traditional purposes for guns like self-defense and hunting are protected, weapons that kill indiscriminately (like RPGs and nukes) are not protected – and this is an example of a reasonable restriction.
So… what about restricting the places guns can exist? Is it a reasonable restriction, for instance, to restrict guns on school campuses? Well, it may be reasonable to restrict access to guns by children, but it’s also a big, fat joke. “Gun Free Zones” are some of the most dangerous places to be in America because if I’m a criminal who wants to kill a bunch of people, I’m not going to go somewhere where people can shoot back. Think about it this way: some of the deadliest shootings in American history have occurred at places that were “gun-free zones”.
Virginia Tech Massacre, VA: Walking Evil walks onto campus armed to the teeth and systematically murders 32 people and injures 17 before putting a bullet in his own head.
Luby’s Cafeteria, TX: during a time when you couldn’t legally carry a gun in public in Texas, a jerkwad of a human being walked into a cafeteria and killed 23 people and injured 20 before killing himself.
Columbine High School, CO: 2 douchebag high school students illegally acquire weapons and illegally enter their gun-free high school where they kill 13 and injure 21 before finally finishing themselves off.
All gun-free zones. All used as target galleries by people who didn’t care about the law. The Luby’s Cafeteria shooting was interesting because one of the results of that event was that one of the survivors ended up running for the Texas Legislature and worked to get concealed carry laws passed in Texas, meaning that the next time some asshat walks into a restaurant in the Lone Star State and pulls a gun, he’s likely to be facing down a dozen citizens ready to return the favor.
OK, since gun-free zones are a joke, are there other reasonable restrictions? Surely no one needs clips that hold 30 rounds, do they? Or automatic weapons? Or what about those “cop-killer” bullets? Those are all scary things and normal people wouldn’t ever want those, would they?
Well… see, that’s just window dressing. Restricting the number of bullets in clips didn’t keep the Columbine shooters from doing their evil, did they? It just means that if you want to fire off a bunch of rounds, you need to buy more clips. Cop-killer bullets? Any bullet can kill. The idea that one bullet is more special than another bullet is an absolute joke. Over the years, gun control advocates have waged war against magic bullets that could supposedly pierce cops’ body armor or could somehow do so much damage that the world would somehow come to an end. The actual studies on these bullets showed that the fears were unfounded.
Automatic weapons? Let’s be honest: most people have no idea what an automatic weapon is. Heck – even the cheesy little NRA video that I had to watch to get my CCW license used “automatic” and “semi-automatic” interchangeably. Honestly, tho, when it comes to fully automatic weapons, I’m ambivalent. I can understand the allure and the usefulness of these weapons under the Founders’ standards, but can also understand how dangerous they can be in the wrong hands. Maybe requiring an additional level of training would be in order.
And this leads me to the one big area that I support that I’m not sure others will: I believe in training. I believe that good training makes for good gun owners, so much so that I believe that every gun owner should be required to undergo training in matters of use and law before they’re allowed to carry their guns. HOWEVER… once they’re trained, I fully believe that everyone who’s not a violent felon or adjudicated mentally unfit should have the right to carry open or concealed without restriction. And if you think this will lead to a “Wild West” scenario, then you’ve been watching too much TV and not paying attention to places that have looser gun laws where crime rates go down when these freedoms are enacted.
So what kind of weapon should you carry? Well… we’re going to cover that tomorrow.
First – I updated yesterday’s post because I forgot one big point about why you should own a gun: hunting.
Now, on to guns! Or more accurately: gun laws.
If there’s anything that the Trayvon Marin case has taught us, it’s that the average citizen – and occasionally, gun owner – knows about as much about gun laws as they do about quantum physics. On the one hand, you have puppet masters and their marionettes screaming about the evils of “stand your ground” laws.
Again, as The Great Ayoob says in the above video, you have a right to defend yourself with deadly force in the United States. No state in the union can take that right away from you. They can, however, restrict that right using laws like the “duty to retreat” and “concealed carry”. We’ll talk about reasonable restrictions tomorrow, but for today, let’s reiterate some basic points.
First, let’s talk basic self defense. Again, you have the right to defend your life and the lives of those around you if you, as a reasonable person, believe that you are presented with a real and present danger to your life, serious bodily injury, or serious sexual assault. If a bad guy is coming after you with a knife, you have the right to pull a gun to defend yourself.
Where you live, however, defines how you can use that gun. A few states require you to at least attempt to retreat, even in your own home (“officer, he was coming to kill me and I tried to get away, but couldn’t”). Other states have a castle doctrine or stand-your-ground law that removes this duty to retreat, so long as you are in your home or, depending on the state, in your car or your place of business. Other states have a variety of the stand-your-ground law, where you have no duty to retreat at any time in any situation, and you have a near-absolute right to defend your life without retreating an inch.
As I’ve said before, I am not a lawyer. You should consult your state’s laws if you have any questions.
Posted Here for Totally Non-Gratuitous Reasons
Second, let’s talk about carrying your gun. Again, this depends on where you live (hence why you should call on your Senators to back the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which will protect your rights to carry your weapons if you cross state lines into any state that allows you to carry your weapons (Illinois and DC being the only notable anti-freedom locales in the US). The House has already passed the bill, and now it’s in the hands of Harry Reid’s Senate.
God help us all.
It’s important to know how you can carry your gun. Most states have some sort of concealed carry license that requires you to receive some level of training and maybe do a background check so that you can carry your gun in a way that it can’t be easily seen by the public – and that shares that rights to some degree with other states. Some states allow you to carry your gun on your hip in full view of the public. Some of those states have restrictions on open carry that are, well…. Interesting. North Carolina, for instance, protects the right to open carry in the state constitution, but the right is whittled down by a restriction that doesn’t allow you to cause terror to the public. In other words, you have a constitutional right to carry your sidearm in a holster in full public view… right up until someone gets nervous. As soon as that happens, you may be found to be “armed to the terror of the populace” and you may find yourself in trouble. Again, check your state’s laws (and the laws of states you visit) for more information.
Having said that – I’ve got some opinions here. Surprise, surprise. My take is this: if you haven’t been convicted of a violent felony or adjudicated by the courts to be mentally deficient or found to have an intelligence quotient that would qualify you as mentally disabled (below 80), you should have the right to open or concealed carry without a license. If you’ve been convicted of a non-violent felony or a misdemeanor, you’ve served your full time including probation and parole, and you’ve gone 10 years without having another conviction, then I believe your full gun rights should be restored.
While I’m dreaming, I’d also like a pony and 100 bajillion dollars.
I guess the simplest point to all of the law questions is: be educated. 20 years ago, it was more difficult and sometimes you could slide on simply not knowing things. Heck, 20 years ago, a woman carrying a gun in her purse often wouldn’t have a moment’s worth of trouble from the police who figured that an armed woman was better than a dead one. Now the laws have changed, concealed carry is a state law (meaning that the state has a financially vested interest in you following the law that criminals aren’t going to follow anyway), and the cops presume that you’ve Googled all state laws regarding weapons carrying. There’s a bit more freedom, but far less leeway. Hunting laws are similar: there’s much less flexibility in their enforcement than there was in previous times, so you need to keep up to date on the laws, limits, and licensing.
Today, we open up Gun Week here at PachydermsBlog, and we’re going to do so with a doozy. We’re going to talk about the 2nd Amendment, that controversial piece of legislation that keeps Americans armed and Gun Control advocates frightened and scrambling to redefine exactly what the Constitution clearly says.
So, I’m going to let Penn Jillette explain it to you:
He explains it masterfully, much more quickly than I’m about to. First, he takes the text of the amendment, which reads thusly:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
For years, the debate has raged over the exact interpretation of this amendment. Gun rights groups have tended to focus on the 2nd half (shall not be infringed) while gun control groups have focused on the first half (a well-regulated militia). The typical GC interpretation of this amendment is that since there’s a qualifier in the passage about a militia, then the 2nd Amendment only applies to the states’ right to call up a militia, and since the national guard has replaced the militia, there is no need for common citizens to bear arms.
Jillette, however, disagrees – as do gun rights groups. Their claim is that the qualifier in the Amendment was never designed to restrict access to guns, but instead provides historical context as to why the right of the people should not be infringed. They argue that since the state has the right to arm itself, the people should be able to preserve the right to rebellion by taking up arms against it.
So… the truth? Honestly – a little bit of both.
First – the early nation did rely on the state-risen militia for regional defense. It didn’t have the money to fully fund a full-time military and so the people, as they had under the English crown, could expect, at times, to be called up to serve as a part of their state’s militia, to act as a supplement to the national military. However, we also have to understand the historical context as well. The people writing this amendment had just fought a war for freedom against the British Empire using citizen soldiers and militia.
It’s also important to understand that the early legal theorists who studied the amendment shortly after its inception did so in direct contrast to the English Bill of Rights that allowed the right to bear arms on one hand, and then restricted that right to the very wealthy on the other, by allowing Parliament to pass laws that restricted gun ownership under the guise of protection of wild game. At the same time, they also recognized that the right to bear arms was conditional: that there were circumstances where the government had the right to restrict the bearing of arms – however, they were very clear in their belief that the ultimate purpose of the second amendment was to allow the people a path to rebellion against tyranny. And what’s the best way to repel tyranny enforced by military might? Guns.
Keep in mind: fighting tyranny is exactly what the Bill of Rights is about. James Madison stated that he supported the idea that “the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.” The first 10 Amendments are built around this concept: protecting the citizenry and restricting Congress (1st, 9th, 10th, and the later 27th – along with the unratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment), the military (2nd, 3rd), and the courts (4th-8th). None of these amendments are designed, in any way, to restrict the right of the people.
In fact, as Jillette and Teller point out in the video above, the idea that there’s some sort of “breath” in the amendment doesn’t jive with the simple statement that the 2nd half of the amendment clearly states: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Usually this is where the discussion turns to the gun control advocates crying like children about how if the 2nd Amendment allows guns, then it should allow common citizens to carry nuclear weapons, and common sense would dictate that this is a bad idea, right? RIGHT?
Well, we’ll get to that later this week. In the meantime, be calm and content with the fact that the framers distrusted the human greed for power enough to stick an amendment in the Constitution that forces the government to remember that its citizens are armed.
Recently, a friend of mine pointed out this chick:
For those of you who’ve been paying attention for a while, you can guess what the liberal response was. Here’s a few choice quotes:
Hey, you really seem like one stupid c*nt. That being said, I’d still let you wrap yours lips around my c*ck.”
“This b*tch is Psycho!”
“A hate mongering bigot, she probably supports modern day slavery as well.”
“The Palin legacy, people…..*sigh*”
“She’s bats*it crazy!!”
Yep. That’s liberals at their best for you! There’s nothing that says “classy” like Internet-published rape fantasies about a 16-year-old girl who has opinions that you don’t agree with. That puts her square into, at the very least, stage 2 of the stages of conservative female abuse. She’s in good company.
I know what you’re saying… “Mr. Elephant,” because that’s my name, “you called liberalism dumb! And a religion! You can’t do that! It’s just a political philosophy that’s different from yours! Aren’t you giving in to the same hate you’re criticizing those responders in that video for?”
Silly person. Let me educate you. And before we get started – no, I’m not giving in to the hate. While I despise the philosophy of liberalism, I’m not (and I don’t know a single conservative who is) sexualizing and demonizing a 16-year-old girl who disagrees with me… because I am an adult and choose to act like it. I also stand by what I say: Liberalism is a dumb religion.
Liberalism is a religion. That’s why whenever anyone starts quoting from the Bible as the basis for their beliefs, they tend to go ballistic. Simply put: a Biblical worldview stands in direct contrast to a modern American liberal/socialist worldview. Their belief in the state as the supreme deity stands in contrast to Christ’s claim that HE was the way, the truth, and the life. Ann Coulter spent an entire, excellent book pointing out exactly how liberalism is, in fact, a secularist state-based religion, and while I disagree with her conclusions regarding Darwinism (don’t get me started on that stupid debate), her conclusions regarding the cult-like devotion to liberalism by liberals is spot-on.
A Complete and Utter Retard.
Liberals are dumb. I hate to put it that simply, but when you have a group of people who think you can tax a nation into success and that penalizing success is a good idea (instead of recognizing that success breeds more success) and that catering to the lowest common denominator is a bad idea, then you have to conclude that those who believe this are dumb. Are you asking me if I actually believe that Karl Marx and all of his derivative socioeconomic systems were dumb? Yes. Yes, I do. Every single last aspect of them.
“But Mr. Elephant,” you cry like an infant, “what about when someone’s poor, out of work, and lying at home in bed because they got hit by a truck full of the Ebola virus? Doesn’t the fact that the government can step in and help those poor souls prove that you’re wrong?”
No, it does not. No reasonable person would disagree that there is a great benefit to a small group of needy people being assisted in a way that allows them to reach for the maximum amount of their contribution to society, say by assisting them when they are out of work, providing for their medical needs when they are in desperate circumstances, providing them with food, shelter, and the basic needs. However, where we disagree is in both the source of that assistance and in the quantity of that assistance. A smart person recognizes that whether the assistance comes from the state or private charity, that ultimately, the source of that assistance (besides God) are human beings who pay for that assistance. Welfare does not allow you to create assistance out of thin air – the money has to come from somewhere. A smart person also recognizes that if you give a mouse a cookie, they’re going to want a lifetime of comfortable living on the public dole, with steak and lobster dinners, a nice house, digital cable TV, top-notch medical care, 4 cell phones with unlimited texting, and a partridge in a pear tree.
A dumb person thinks that the money just appears out of the unlimited government coffers and that helping people forever who don’t contribute to society is a sustainable model. They scream that, sure, while socialism failed in the USSR, the Eastern Bloc, and Africa, and where it hasn’t failed it keeps people in abject poverty, that it’s just because we haven’t tried the perfect system yet. If we would just try TROOOOOOO Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, etc., it would work perfectly! They’re ignorant of the fact that as long as there are people (who are by nature territorial, greedy, and in need of boundaries), socialism is doomed to failure.
Liberals are hypocrites. Liberals hold others to standards that they are unwilling to hold themselves to. They scream about the separation of church and state, and then treat Obama like a messianic figure when he goes into or sends others into black churches to raise money for their campaigns. They whine about how voting against gay marriage is based in hate and ignorance – and then ignorantly spew their hate on 16-year-old girls who can’t vote and whose personal politics offend them. They cry about how women should be able to have taxpayer-funded abortion on demand, but work to block the executions of admitted, tried, and convicted cop-killers because killing is wrong.
The Traditional Family Terrifies Liberals
Let’s talk about sex. There is no issue that liberals think is more important in the world than the right to government-funded consequence-free sex, to the point where it’s the cornerstone of their religion. That’s why they parade idiots like Sandra Fluke (30-year-old activists masquerading as 23-year-old college coeds) around to try to get the government to force Catholic institutions to distribute free birth control against the Catholic faith, because they see their own religion’s cornerstone as being far more important than that of thousands of years of Catholic traditions. Liberals believe that any and all sex should be free of any kind of government interference, unless it’s interfering with the rights of fathers. To liberals, moms possess a magical device called a “vagina” that magically tells them when it’s OK to murder their unborn infants. If dad wants to raise the child, it doesn’t matter, because he lacks the magical vaginal ability to determine if a child should be murdered due to its giving mommy stretch marks. But if mommy wants to bring the child to term, that’s her business (unless she’s Sarah Palin), and the government will be there to lessen the consequence of that decision by ensuring that dad, who had no say in whether the child should be carried to term or not, is forced to give up half his salary so that mom can live more comfortably, and if that means weekends in jail for dad when he can’t afford his payments, well, he should’ve thought about that!
The irony of this being that if liberals weren’t so dead-set opposed to the traditional family, there would already be a method in place to ensure that sex between 2 consenting adults is an enjoyable process, that there’d be a mom and a dad available to rear their child, and both parents would actively contribute to the family’s needs.
As I said in the title, Liberalism is a dumb, hypocritical, sex-based religion. And if you disagree with me, I won’t say you’re worse than Hitler… you’re just wrong.
Now, am I saying that liberals can’t have an occasional smart moment, or that all conservatives are always smart all the time? No. I am not talking about incidents – I am talking about consistent patterns of behavior that demonstrate, conclusively, that liberals are members of a dumb, hypocritical sex cult. Which is perfect, because whenever I think of liberals, I keep thinking “screw you”.
There’s nothing like watching a Union thug beat a Nikki Haley piñata to make you ask a simple question: why is it OK? Or, to be a bit more direct: would it be OK if someone made a Barack Obama piñata and beat it with a stick?
I’m not saying that the right has been innocent in their treatment of liberals, but… well, we are. Seriously. There’s no comparison. Between the union thugs assaulting people who disagree with them to the Occupiers who attack cops and destroy private property, the left seems to have trouble containing the most violent of their ranks.
In comparison, the Tea Party events were peaceful, well-organized, and cooperative with law enforcement. I’ve been able to come across a couple of stories of TPers getting arrested (most notably when a group decided to Occupy the Hart Office Building in Washington DC), but most of the events have been peaceful. Sure, there’ve been accusations of people spitting on Congressmen and calling them names, and one CNN producer totally heard a Tea Partier use the F-word once, maybe, possibly…. but in comparison to the Occupy Twits? They’re freakin’ boy scouts.
The point being that equivocation only serves its purpose when there’s something to equivocate, and there’s nothing here to equivocate. I’ll go ahead and say it: the AFL/CIO idiot who made a Nikki Haley piñata was just as wrong as someone who’d make a Barack Obama piñata. They’re both idiots and should both be treated accordingly.
For years, the debate has raged over the exact interpretation of this amendment. Gun rights groups have tended to focus on the 2nd half (shall not be infringed) while gun control groups have focused on the first half (a well-regulated militia). The typical GC interpretation of this amendment is that since there’s a qualifier in the passage about a militia, then the 2nd Amendment only applies to the states’ right to call up a militia, and since the national guard has replaced the militia, there is no need for common citizens to bear arms.
1jason1
The Annoyed Elephant
ncmike72
