It's been well over a year since four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, and not a single person has been held accountable. Moreover, the folks running the show - President Obama and his minions - refuse to allow any answers to come forth in regard to the important questions. Questions like:
What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi when his place was in Tripoli?
Why were numerous pleas for beefing up security ignored?
Moreover, why was security actually reduced?
And why did Obama not even make any attempt to aid our people?
And, of course, why did the administration put so much effort into the lie about a video being responsible?
A 4-star General by the name of Lyons stated last year that there are reasons for all of the above. He claims the Obama administration willfully and with intent encouraged an abduction of Ambassador Stevens, in an attempt to hold a "hostage exchange" so the enemy could get their "blind sheik" back. If true, this would answer all the questions, above.
And the general's story implies the only reason Stevens was murdered is because the enemy storming the consulate felt betrayed, because despite an order to "stand down" (why?) two of our guys fought, killing dozens of the attackers.
Well, that's the story according to a general, and one that answers all the questions - including the question as to why we have no answers to any of those questions.
When we consider many other facts, things begin to clear up a bit.
Obama was born and raised a muslim
His first official act was to try and appease the muslims in his speech in Egypt
His administration led the way to the fall of the Egyptian secular government
His administration led the way to the fall of Libya, now in enemy hands
His administration pulled our troops from Iraq, now a stronghold for Iran
His administration has insured that Afghanistan is not an ally
His administration kept out of the Syrian uprising, making way for terrorist groups to settle in
His administration spent 2 years in secret negotiations with Iran that get us nothing, yet gives Iran permission to continue producing fissile materials
His administration has consistently been at odds with Israel
AND NOW - remember that lady lawyer who went to prison until 2018 for helping the terrorist "Blind Sheik" smuggle messages to Al Qaeda? Well, the Obama Administration just sprung her from prison. She's free. Go ahead, libs - tell me which side Obama is on..
In fact, it could be said that the Obama administration could not have done more for Islam and jihadists if they had actually been part of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group declared as terrorist, with whom Obama spent many hours in the White House.
Sometimes, things just are not as they appear.
And sometimes - they are!
Just sayin'...
Monday, December 30, 2013
Sunday, December 22, 2013
When A Liberal Is Not A Liberal
There are liberals, and there are far-left liberals. Liberals on the far left are anything but liberals. They are communists and socialists looking to dominate the world by controlling all individuals from cradle to grave.
In the dictionary, the definition is as follows:
lib·er·al (adj) - broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
Now ask yourself - whenever a far-left liberal tries to shut down or penalize opposing viewpoints, would you call that "tolerant of different views"? When a so-called liberal calls respected scientists who dispute the Global Warming theory as "backward deniers", would you call that "broad-minded"? And when these same loons believe that it is okay for personal freedoms to be sacrificed for the sake of some political agenda (TSA, NSA, IRS scandal etc), would you say that is "protecting person freedom"? And when a "liberal" calls the self-proclaimed slut*, Sandra Fluke, a hero, but calls Sarah Palin, who has been true to one man for 24 years a slut, would you call that honest? (*The unmarried Sandra Fluke gave a speech that said she had sex so often she could not afford birth control.)
No. Those "liberals" who espouse such things are not liberals - they are tyrants, with an appreciation of the principles of communism.
So, if you consider yourself a liberal, you may want to re-evaluate your beliefs to see if you are truly a broad-minded person, respectful of others views and rights, and a protector of personal freedom. If not, then you may need to accept what you really are - an intolerant bigot that believes in the right to oppress others and force others into obedience and virtual slavery.
/
In the dictionary, the definition is as follows:
lib·er·al (adj) - broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others, and protect the personal freedom of the individual
Now ask yourself - whenever a far-left liberal tries to shut down or penalize opposing viewpoints, would you call that "tolerant of different views"? When a so-called liberal calls respected scientists who dispute the Global Warming theory as "backward deniers", would you call that "broad-minded"? And when these same loons believe that it is okay for personal freedoms to be sacrificed for the sake of some political agenda (TSA, NSA, IRS scandal etc), would you say that is "protecting person freedom"? And when a "liberal" calls the self-proclaimed slut*, Sandra Fluke, a hero, but calls Sarah Palin, who has been true to one man for 24 years a slut, would you call that honest? (*The unmarried Sandra Fluke gave a speech that said she had sex so often she could not afford birth control.)
No. Those "liberals" who espouse such things are not liberals - they are tyrants, with an appreciation of the principles of communism.
So, if you consider yourself a liberal, you may want to re-evaluate your beliefs to see if you are truly a broad-minded person, respectful of others views and rights, and a protector of personal freedom. If not, then you may need to accept what you really are - an intolerant bigot that believes in the right to oppress others and force others into obedience and virtual slavery.
/
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Homosexuality On The Rise - Why?
Is there a conspiracy between the government and certain corporations to control population growth by "forcing" homosexuality? Before you laugh it off, perhaps you should mull over a few things.
Ever since the early 1900's "progressives" have espoused population control. Many have even called to allow euthanasia of the "useless elderly". And ever since the 60's, those same progressives have been pushing "abortion at will". But it goes much deeper than that.
Every educated person knows it to be a fact that soy is full of female hormones. They also know that an infusion of female hormones can actually alter a persons sexuality. That is simple science. Yet, despite that, almost every brand of baby formula is made with soy as a primary ingredient. And almost every major food producers includes soy in their products. Heck, don't take my word for it - read the labels! Pick up ANY jar of "natural mayonnaise" and you will find the first and primary ingedienmt is soy.
The American public is being fed a huge amount of soy, complete with its female hormones. And since it begins with soy formula at birth, is it any wonder that a larger percentage of our children are growing up homosexual? Studies indicate that homosexuality has more than doubled in the last two generations.
Understand - the food manufacturers could not be doing that without the full consent of the FDA. And you certainly know that the FDA is aware of the female hormones in soy.
So here is what we have - progressives (both Democrat and Republican) wanting to control the population. And they have controlled the government 70% of the time since Teddy Roosevelt. They control the FDA which allows, even encourages the wide-scale use of soy in all food products. And virtually every food manufacturer puts soy in almost every product they make. In fact, the two most harmful ingedients for human consumption - soy and wheat - are also the most prevalent. Wheat, as most informed people know, is the primary cause of obesity and many of today's ailments. But just try to find any food (other than natural fruits, veggies and meats) that does not include it.
So, you tell me - is there a correlation? Could it possibly be an intentional conspiracy to control population growth in an over-populated world?
I understand the possible desire to control population, but when you consider our enemies - China, Russia, and every muslim nation - is actively TRYING to over-populate while America dies on the vine, then all I can say is the days of American sovereignty are sorely limited.
/
Ever since the early 1900's "progressives" have espoused population control. Many have even called to allow euthanasia of the "useless elderly". And ever since the 60's, those same progressives have been pushing "abortion at will". But it goes much deeper than that.
Every educated person knows it to be a fact that soy is full of female hormones. They also know that an infusion of female hormones can actually alter a persons sexuality. That is simple science. Yet, despite that, almost every brand of baby formula is made with soy as a primary ingredient. And almost every major food producers includes soy in their products. Heck, don't take my word for it - read the labels! Pick up ANY jar of "natural mayonnaise" and you will find the first and primary ingedienmt is soy.
The American public is being fed a huge amount of soy, complete with its female hormones. And since it begins with soy formula at birth, is it any wonder that a larger percentage of our children are growing up homosexual? Studies indicate that homosexuality has more than doubled in the last two generations.
Understand - the food manufacturers could not be doing that without the full consent of the FDA. And you certainly know that the FDA is aware of the female hormones in soy.
So here is what we have - progressives (both Democrat and Republican) wanting to control the population. And they have controlled the government 70% of the time since Teddy Roosevelt. They control the FDA which allows, even encourages the wide-scale use of soy in all food products. And virtually every food manufacturer puts soy in almost every product they make. In fact, the two most harmful ingedients for human consumption - soy and wheat - are also the most prevalent. Wheat, as most informed people know, is the primary cause of obesity and many of today's ailments. But just try to find any food (other than natural fruits, veggies and meats) that does not include it.
So, you tell me - is there a correlation? Could it possibly be an intentional conspiracy to control population growth in an over-populated world?
I understand the possible desire to control population, but when you consider our enemies - China, Russia, and every muslim nation - is actively TRYING to over-populate while America dies on the vine, then all I can say is the days of American sovereignty are sorely limited.
/
Solution to Welfare?
Welfare, in its current form is bankrpting America, just as it has bankrupted socialized nations ever since the Roman Empire instituted the dole system. No one wants anyone else to live in destitution, but on the other hand, sane people do not want entitlements that de-incentivize working, or that destroys a person'e sense of self worth. So, is there a solution? I think so.
Consider this:
Economists (not the government) would work together to determine the absolute minimum amount of income necessary for bare survival - without unnecessary amenities, such as ATV's, wide screen plasma TV's and iPads. This, of course would have to be "regionalized", to take into consideration cost differences by region.
Of the number arrived at, the government would assure that every citizen receives at least half fromthe government, while the individual would be required to provide the other half (except for those who cannot provide for themselves due to physical and/or mental incapacity - they would receive the full amount, perhaps more). In other words, equal responsibility - if the individual is unwilling to provide at least half his own needs, the government has no obligation to help him.
To provide incentive to people to better themselves, this "poverty stipend" would only be reduced by $1 for every $2 the individual earns that is over and above the poverty guideline, which eliminates the fear of losing money by working.
EXAMPLE: Let's say the minimum income for a family of 4 in a certain area is $24,000. The family would receive $12,000, in monthly payments of $1,000 each. If the family earns $30,000 in a year, they would still receive $9,000 a year in stipend. The stipend would not disappear altogether until the family is earning $48,000 per year.
There would be NO other government welfare programs, except Medicaid. Social Security would be untouched, as that is not welfare - it is earned by each individual who works.
While this plan may seem harsh, that is what is necessary to end poverty. Governments cannot "buy out" poverty - only productive work can eliminate poverty.
/
Consider this:
Economists (not the government) would work together to determine the absolute minimum amount of income necessary for bare survival - without unnecessary amenities, such as ATV's, wide screen plasma TV's and iPads. This, of course would have to be "regionalized", to take into consideration cost differences by region.
Of the number arrived at, the government would assure that every citizen receives at least half fromthe government, while the individual would be required to provide the other half (except for those who cannot provide for themselves due to physical and/or mental incapacity - they would receive the full amount, perhaps more). In other words, equal responsibility - if the individual is unwilling to provide at least half his own needs, the government has no obligation to help him.
To provide incentive to people to better themselves, this "poverty stipend" would only be reduced by $1 for every $2 the individual earns that is over and above the poverty guideline, which eliminates the fear of losing money by working.
EXAMPLE: Let's say the minimum income for a family of 4 in a certain area is $24,000. The family would receive $12,000, in monthly payments of $1,000 each. If the family earns $30,000 in a year, they would still receive $9,000 a year in stipend. The stipend would not disappear altogether until the family is earning $48,000 per year.
There would be NO other government welfare programs, except Medicaid. Social Security would be untouched, as that is not welfare - it is earned by each individual who works.
While this plan may seem harsh, that is what is necessary to end poverty. Governments cannot "buy out" poverty - only productive work can eliminate poverty.
/
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Christians Take Note - The Bible vs Homosexuality
As an American, and as a Christian, I am getting fed up with the BS from both sides concerning homosexuality. Please bear with me a few moments, and perhaps a few things will become clear enough to help clear the air - which would do us all a lot of good.
The LGBT community spews its hate and intolerance of Christian beliefs, and say we should stay in the closet. They, of all people, should know that it is wrong to be relegated to the "closet". They want to make their beliefs and desires as public as possible (have you seen a "gay pride parade?), but demand that religious people should not have the same right of freedom of speech and the right to express oneself. To them I say BULL!
On the other hand, many Christians are also on the wrong side, as they have been misled by their "leaders". Most Christian (and Muslim) leaders teach that homosexuality is a sin, because God (or Allah) says so. WRONG! Nowhere in the Bible is God attributed with saying homosexuality is a sin. What the Bible DOES say, however, is that homosexuality, and a man laying down with another man is an "abomination". Look it up - an abomination is not necessarily a sin.
A "sin" is a wrongful act and generally considered morally reprehensible. An "abomination" is nothing more than something that is an abnormality of nature. Big difference, folks. If homosexuality were considered a sin by God, there would be Eleven Commandments.
A mutation is an abnormality of nature, but it is not a moral sin. And therein lies the difference.
Homosexuality is an abomination of nature because the primary purpose of life is to continue life - survival of the species. The Bible calls it "going forth to multiply", to propagate. Any living thing that does not propagate is not normal in nature. It is an abomination, by definition. But failing to propagate is not a sin.
So, here is the crux - homosexuality is not a sin, in and of itself, and should be tolerated better by Christians. But on the other hand, homosexuals should not try to put forth that their lifestyle is in any way normal, or natural. It simply is not. And it is a sin to try and force their beliefs down our throats as much as it is a sin for us to try and force our beliefs upon them. Homosexuality does not make them sinners, but being intolerant of those who do not accept their lifestyle is, indeed, a sin. Insisting on others being tolerant of you while being intolerant of them is wrong. Period. And that goes for both sides.
Christians do not - and should not - have to be accepting of the LGBT lifestyles if they find it to be an abomination, but they should accept that people who are different have a right to be different. They should not be condemned for their lifestyle, provided it does not include anything that IS morally reprehensible and sinful, such as child molesting or bestiality.
And the LGBT community does not have to accept the tenets of any religion, but neither should they be intolerant of them, nor call upon religious people to hide in a closet. In fact, THAT would be a sin, since every major religion includes a requirement of its followers to "spread the word" and convert people. To do any less would be a disservice to ones religion.
That said...
Each of us is unique - different from everyone else. If you do not want to be vilified for your differences, do not vilify others for theirs, unless theirs is morally reprehensible. Homosexuality may be abnormal, but it is not morally reprehensible. If you doubt that, try actually READING the Bible yourself.
/
The LGBT community spews its hate and intolerance of Christian beliefs, and say we should stay in the closet. They, of all people, should know that it is wrong to be relegated to the "closet". They want to make their beliefs and desires as public as possible (have you seen a "gay pride parade?), but demand that religious people should not have the same right of freedom of speech and the right to express oneself. To them I say BULL!
On the other hand, many Christians are also on the wrong side, as they have been misled by their "leaders". Most Christian (and Muslim) leaders teach that homosexuality is a sin, because God (or Allah) says so. WRONG! Nowhere in the Bible is God attributed with saying homosexuality is a sin. What the Bible DOES say, however, is that homosexuality, and a man laying down with another man is an "abomination". Look it up - an abomination is not necessarily a sin.
A "sin" is a wrongful act and generally considered morally reprehensible. An "abomination" is nothing more than something that is an abnormality of nature. Big difference, folks. If homosexuality were considered a sin by God, there would be Eleven Commandments.
A mutation is an abnormality of nature, but it is not a moral sin. And therein lies the difference.
Homosexuality is an abomination of nature because the primary purpose of life is to continue life - survival of the species. The Bible calls it "going forth to multiply", to propagate. Any living thing that does not propagate is not normal in nature. It is an abomination, by definition. But failing to propagate is not a sin.
So, here is the crux - homosexuality is not a sin, in and of itself, and should be tolerated better by Christians. But on the other hand, homosexuals should not try to put forth that their lifestyle is in any way normal, or natural. It simply is not. And it is a sin to try and force their beliefs down our throats as much as it is a sin for us to try and force our beliefs upon them. Homosexuality does not make them sinners, but being intolerant of those who do not accept their lifestyle is, indeed, a sin. Insisting on others being tolerant of you while being intolerant of them is wrong. Period. And that goes for both sides.
Christians do not - and should not - have to be accepting of the LGBT lifestyles if they find it to be an abomination, but they should accept that people who are different have a right to be different. They should not be condemned for their lifestyle, provided it does not include anything that IS morally reprehensible and sinful, such as child molesting or bestiality.
And the LGBT community does not have to accept the tenets of any religion, but neither should they be intolerant of them, nor call upon religious people to hide in a closet. In fact, THAT would be a sin, since every major religion includes a requirement of its followers to "spread the word" and convert people. To do any less would be a disservice to ones religion.
That said...
Each of us is unique - different from everyone else. If you do not want to be vilified for your differences, do not vilify others for theirs, unless theirs is morally reprehensible. Homosexuality may be abnormal, but it is not morally reprehensible. If you doubt that, try actually READING the Bible yourself.
/
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
There Is Only Need For ONE Law In America
America was founded on the principle of liberty for all. And to achieve that, there only needs to be ONE law - if a person is not harming anyone else, is not depriving anyone of their life, property or liberty and is not preventing anyone else from exercising their own liberties, LEAVE THE PERSON ALONE!
Only one law, but the degree to which a person violates it would determine the degree of punishment. So, you would receive much more serious punishment for murder than for stealing a candy bar. But there would be no law against building a garage on your property, or, as happened in Garden City, NY, men ticketed by police for washing their car in their driveway.
America, however, is no longer a free country. Americans have forfeited their liberties right and left, by liberal loons bent on regulating every breath you take. With regulation comes control, and with control comes the power they thirst for.
It may be getting close to a time to once again throw off the yoke of tyranny, as we did in 1776.
A note to government: LEAVE US ALONE! Government only has two functions granted them under the Constitution - the common defense to protect us from foreign enemies, and provide for the GENERAL welfare (not SPECIFIC, INDIVIDUAL welfare). All other "to do's" granted to the government are off-shoots of those two things.
Every American citizen should be free to do whatever they wish, provided it causes no harm to another or to the community in general, and does not infringe on the right of others to do the same.
/
Only one law, but the degree to which a person violates it would determine the degree of punishment. So, you would receive much more serious punishment for murder than for stealing a candy bar. But there would be no law against building a garage on your property, or, as happened in Garden City, NY, men ticketed by police for washing their car in their driveway.
America, however, is no longer a free country. Americans have forfeited their liberties right and left, by liberal loons bent on regulating every breath you take. With regulation comes control, and with control comes the power they thirst for.
It may be getting close to a time to once again throw off the yoke of tyranny, as we did in 1776.
A note to government: LEAVE US ALONE! Government only has two functions granted them under the Constitution - the common defense to protect us from foreign enemies, and provide for the GENERAL welfare (not SPECIFIC, INDIVIDUAL welfare). All other "to do's" granted to the government are off-shoots of those two things.
Every American citizen should be free to do whatever they wish, provided it causes no harm to another or to the community in general, and does not infringe on the right of others to do the same.
/
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Has American Foreign Policy Been Backward?
When I was a kid in school (that was a LONG time ago), I was often faced with bullies - those who mostly were bullying others. And I learned how to deal with them - with force. And I noticed a strange phenomenon - whenever I fought a bully and bloodied him, he always ended up becoming a close friend. I believe it has to do with respect for strength and moral terpitude. And I also noticed something else - the kid I was protecting, or helping, would end up treating me with disdain. I am not a shrink, but I believe this result comes from his dislike for being indebted, and a strong feeling that by protecting him, I made him appear small and weak. He then had a need to prove he was not small, nor weak, and would become my enemy in an attempt to prove himself.
Now I look at America's foreign policy. And in case you never noticed, the countries we beat in war invariably became our staunchest allies - we beat the British - twice. We beat Germany. We beat Japan. We beat Italy.
On the other hand, the nations we have befriended have all become our enemies. When the Axis of Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan) tried to take over China and Russia in the late 1930's, we aided China and Russia with weapons and raw materials. We helped them beat back the aggressors. And within one year of the end of WWII, both Russia and China had become our worst enemies.
And look today - we helped Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya. And would you call any of them our allies? Not hardly. We even helped Osama bin Laden beat back the Russians in the 1980's - only to have him become a mortal enemy.
The more I look at history, and its results, the more convinced I am that Mother Nature had it right all the time - survival of the fittest. The strongest. Perhaps instead of cozying up to other nations that are not our allies, we might be better off just beating the crap out of them when they get out of line and do things that adversely affect America.
Kick asses!
There's nothing quite like being respected. As long as the butt-kicking is deserved, and is for the right reasons.
/
Now I look at America's foreign policy. And in case you never noticed, the countries we beat in war invariably became our staunchest allies - we beat the British - twice. We beat Germany. We beat Japan. We beat Italy.
On the other hand, the nations we have befriended have all become our enemies. When the Axis of Powers (Germany, Italy, Japan) tried to take over China and Russia in the late 1930's, we aided China and Russia with weapons and raw materials. We helped them beat back the aggressors. And within one year of the end of WWII, both Russia and China had become our worst enemies.
And look today - we helped Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya. And would you call any of them our allies? Not hardly. We even helped Osama bin Laden beat back the Russians in the 1980's - only to have him become a mortal enemy.
The more I look at history, and its results, the more convinced I am that Mother Nature had it right all the time - survival of the fittest. The strongest. Perhaps instead of cozying up to other nations that are not our allies, we might be better off just beating the crap out of them when they get out of line and do things that adversely affect America.
Kick asses!
There's nothing quite like being respected. As long as the butt-kicking is deserved, and is for the right reasons.
/
Saturday, December 7, 2013
How Minimum Wage Really Affect "Income Inequality"
Raising the minimum wage would have a catastrophic effect on the economy because of a little discussed "unintended consequence."
While
the wages for the poor would increase, thereby increasing their buying
power (albeit temporarily), which in turn necessitates an increase in
the cost of goods (which then reduces the buying power), the wages for
the middle class will remain the same. Yet, the increase in the cost of
goods will also affect that middle class, which, in turn, casts them
downward into poverty. That is what happens when the costs increase for
the middle class but their
income does not increase.
The middle class is disappearing and the income gap is widening precisely because of constant increases in minimum wages.
STEP 1 - minimum wage
is increased and the poor get a temporary boost
STEP 2 - businesses must now increase the prices of goods, and/or lay off workers
STEP
3 - the buying power of the poor again decreases due to the increase in
prices. Meanwhile, the middle class, who received no income boost
because they already make more than minimum wage, will have to pay those
higher prices, reducing their buying power, also
STEP 4 - The middle class is no longer middle class, and the income gap widens
The economy works just like physics, and the same laws apply. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
Friday, December 6, 2013
The World With "Income Equality"
President Obama and other progressives talk about "income inequality", and how the world would be a shangri-la if only we had income equality. So, let's take a look at a world with income equality.
Every adult would be assured the same - or nearly the same - income. It would not matter if you flip burgers or work as an astro-physicist. So, that begs an important question - if your incvome is going to be the same as everyone else's, why would you want to waste years and hundreds of thousands of dollars going to college? In fact, what would be your incentive to even finish high school?
And if Steve Jobs knew his income would be the same as everyone else's, do you really think he would have created Apple? More to the point - if his income were the same as yours, how could he possibly afford to create Apple?
It is income inequality that creates a system that works. It is the very basis of competition, and we know it is competition that drives the economy and entrepreneurial pursuits. You want MORE than the average Joe, so you work harder to get it. And you want - and deserve - to be rewarded for your efforts.
In a world of income equality, there is no incentive to get educated, work, or create. So the government must then step in and try to FORCE people to work, get educated and create. And we saw what a failure that was in the Soviet Union. In fact, it has failed in every society that attempted it.
But let's say for the sake of argument that everyone is provided the same amount of money to start with. Just how long do you think it would be before the lazy, uneducated people would lose their share to those who hustled and worked? According to some studies, it would only take less than a year for everything to be back the way it is. The ne'er-do-wells would spend their share on toys, gadgets and crapola, while the smart folks would invest in creating products that would lure the ne'er-do-wells to spend their money.
That is human nature. And try as you might, you are not going to change human nature.
By the way - "income equality" is a tenet of communism.
/
Every adult would be assured the same - or nearly the same - income. It would not matter if you flip burgers or work as an astro-physicist. So, that begs an important question - if your incvome is going to be the same as everyone else's, why would you want to waste years and hundreds of thousands of dollars going to college? In fact, what would be your incentive to even finish high school?
And if Steve Jobs knew his income would be the same as everyone else's, do you really think he would have created Apple? More to the point - if his income were the same as yours, how could he possibly afford to create Apple?
It is income inequality that creates a system that works. It is the very basis of competition, and we know it is competition that drives the economy and entrepreneurial pursuits. You want MORE than the average Joe, so you work harder to get it. And you want - and deserve - to be rewarded for your efforts.
In a world of income equality, there is no incentive to get educated, work, or create. So the government must then step in and try to FORCE people to work, get educated and create. And we saw what a failure that was in the Soviet Union. In fact, it has failed in every society that attempted it.
But let's say for the sake of argument that everyone is provided the same amount of money to start with. Just how long do you think it would be before the lazy, uneducated people would lose their share to those who hustled and worked? According to some studies, it would only take less than a year for everything to be back the way it is. The ne'er-do-wells would spend their share on toys, gadgets and crapola, while the smart folks would invest in creating products that would lure the ne'er-do-wells to spend their money.
That is human nature. And try as you might, you are not going to change human nature.
By the way - "income equality" is a tenet of communism.
/
The Non-Sense Behind Gun Control Activists
In Indianapolis, a newly minted gun-control activist, Shannon Watts, founder of the organization Moms Demand Action for Gun
Sense, wants to pressure businesses, especially national chains, to ban guns.
"Businesses have to make a choice," Watts said in a recent interview. "They can
side with the gun lobby, or they can choose to protect their customers."
Now, doesn't that sound reasonable? Not to people with any common sense! Here is what these gun control nuts do not seem to comprehend:
1) Any person intent on murder is not going to be deterred by any law, rule or policy. If stores ban guns, the killers will still bring them in. As a point of fact, almost all mass shootings occur in places where guns are not allowed - schools, for example. The law or policy does not prevent a homicidal maniac from committing murder.
2) By banning guns, activists are advertising to homicidal psychopaths that this place is easy pickings. No one here is armed, so there is no one to stop you.
3) If gun owners were encouraged to come to a store armed, there are two possibilities - a) psychopaths will go elsewhere to murder innocent people, and the store owners are protecting their customers, or b) if a homicidal maniac does come into the store, there may be someone who can and will stop him.
The point is simple - no gun control law or policy will prevent a maniac from being a maniac. Such laws only create "green pastures" for killers. It's like saying, "Hey, psychos, we're unarmed. Come and get us."
Bear in mind, too, that the cities with the highest gun crime rates are those with the strictest gun control laws, and the places where guns are formally banned (like schools) are the primary targets of these killers.
So, whereas everyone already knows these things, why do the gun control nuts continue to push gun control? The answer is right there in front of you - CONTROL. These people do not want to control guns - they want to control YOU!
That is the one, singular underlying premise of progressive liberalism. Control. Control what you eat, what schools you can attend, what drugs are legal, whether you can smoke pot but not cigarettes, whether you can put an addition on your home - they even control masses of people through entitlements.
It's never been about guns, folks. Just control.
/
Now, doesn't that sound reasonable? Not to people with any common sense! Here is what these gun control nuts do not seem to comprehend:
1) Any person intent on murder is not going to be deterred by any law, rule or policy. If stores ban guns, the killers will still bring them in. As a point of fact, almost all mass shootings occur in places where guns are not allowed - schools, for example. The law or policy does not prevent a homicidal maniac from committing murder.
2) By banning guns, activists are advertising to homicidal psychopaths that this place is easy pickings. No one here is armed, so there is no one to stop you.
3) If gun owners were encouraged to come to a store armed, there are two possibilities - a) psychopaths will go elsewhere to murder innocent people, and the store owners are protecting their customers, or b) if a homicidal maniac does come into the store, there may be someone who can and will stop him.
The point is simple - no gun control law or policy will prevent a maniac from being a maniac. Such laws only create "green pastures" for killers. It's like saying, "Hey, psychos, we're unarmed. Come and get us."
Bear in mind, too, that the cities with the highest gun crime rates are those with the strictest gun control laws, and the places where guns are formally banned (like schools) are the primary targets of these killers.
So, whereas everyone already knows these things, why do the gun control nuts continue to push gun control? The answer is right there in front of you - CONTROL. These people do not want to control guns - they want to control YOU!
That is the one, singular underlying premise of progressive liberalism. Control. Control what you eat, what schools you can attend, what drugs are legal, whether you can smoke pot but not cigarettes, whether you can put an addition on your home - they even control masses of people through entitlements.
It's never been about guns, folks. Just control.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)