President Obama loves to parade infants out onto the stage to show that "these little ones" have a deep understanding of political and national issues, and should be listened to; after-all, if what they are proposing can save just one life, isn't it worth it?
Like Jimma Carter, Obama, and a lot of the Democrats like to heed to the concerns of "the little ones", no matter that it was their teachers who put them up to "writing" letters to the President. Jimma spoke to his infant daughter about national security, so why shouldn't Obama ask "the little ones" what he should do? I dare say, half of America doesn't know how to get a letter to the President, especially one that he will read, so for this reason alone we should pay attention to these "little ones".
But the most striking thing to me is, the Obama Administration is losing some of its high profile cabinet members, for one reason or another, so why doesn't he consider appointing one of "these little ones" who have such a profound grasp of national issues? Perhaps he can replace Napolitano at Homeland Security or Eric Holder at the DOJ. Either of these offices could use a more realistic approach and understanding of even a "little one".
The news media that no one listens to, is suggesting that Obama's children should be off-limits to political infighting, and I agree, but I would go one further .... no children should be used to further anyone's political agenda. It is shameless and uninspiring to have the leader of America, use children as a back drop to his manipulations of the Constitution, and the American citizenry; high-fiving them, awkward hugs, not withstanding.
Democrats can rarely present their side of an argument, legitimately because they almost always have ulterior motives. Some have said those motives include turning this nation into a 3rd world country, or worse, so how could a person think he could get a large following, if he announced that to be his reason for proposing anything, legislatively? And that is why we get children being used on a national issue as fodder. Children have a tendency to tug at our heart strings, and we are willing to do almost anything to protect them.
In New York, the governor just enacted new laws that, for instance, grandfather in existing "high-capacity" magazines, BUT if the police find more than 7 rounds in it, you will be prosecuted for violating the 7 round maximum rule. He acts like he is not concerned with what you already have, he just wants it to stop here, but that is not the truth of the law. And the Governor implies something has to be done, as is the reasonable thing to do. Well Governor, it already has been the law of the land to abide by the Constitution which has given the world the greatest nation on earth, and that didn't require a 7 round limit to a semi-automatic weapon. We don't need to fabricate a new origin.
Governor Cuomo likes to hype up the conversation with rhetoric like, "you don't need 10 rounds to kill a deer". SIR, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting; it is in the Constitution to help American citizens not be over-thrown with a run-away government; a dictatorship; an Empirical Authority. It is a Constitutional right of protection. Police might be necessary for the gang fights and traffic violators, but I and every American citizen has a right to defend what is ours, even our children.
I do not have a problem with anyone owning a 3.5 rocket launcher, or a tank or a gatlin gun, if he can afford to buy one; it is his right to own one (I can't remember the last time a tank was used in a crime). There should be no restrictions on what a person uses to protect his private property; it is Constitutional. Too many years and too many laws have come and gone which have watered down the individuality of the people of this great nation. Those loses redound to legislation that is heaped up onto other legislation that have eroded our rights and freedoms, so that now we are arguing about saving the life of one child with weapons that can shoot no more than 7 rounds, as if when we get that right, there will be no more crimes or deaths; how stupid!
President Obama is just the figure head of the hydra-leviathan called the Democratic party. Collectively, they want to dictate their ideas onto the rest of us, and anyone who opposes those ideas, is wrong headed, and the Constitution just constantly gets in their way. And I say dictate because for the last 4 years, less than 100 Senators have been the "governing" force of this Republic. The 435 members in the House of Representatives has been turned into a eunuch, either by the Senate or with the help of the establishment Rhinos who have a similar agenda;
Senators who are supposed to represent the states they come from, not a party philosophy. If given the chance, they will continue to impose legislation that will eventually neuter the people that make up this great nation, and they do it by circumventing or bastardizing the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold. Ironic, isn't it? Why did they swear to defend the Constitution, then proceed to run roughshod over it; aren't you the least bit curious? Is this their way of having the much talked about, dialogue with the American people?
Like Jimma Carter, Obama, and a lot of the Democrats like to heed to the concerns of "the little ones", no matter that it was their teachers who put them up to "writing" letters to the President. Jimma spoke to his infant daughter about national security, so why shouldn't Obama ask "the little ones" what he should do? I dare say, half of America doesn't know how to get a letter to the President, especially one that he will read, so for this reason alone we should pay attention to these "little ones".
But the most striking thing to me is, the Obama Administration is losing some of its high profile cabinet members, for one reason or another, so why doesn't he consider appointing one of "these little ones" who have such a profound grasp of national issues? Perhaps he can replace Napolitano at Homeland Security or Eric Holder at the DOJ. Either of these offices could use a more realistic approach and understanding of even a "little one".
The news media that no one listens to, is suggesting that Obama's children should be off-limits to political infighting, and I agree, but I would go one further .... no children should be used to further anyone's political agenda. It is shameless and uninspiring to have the leader of America, use children as a back drop to his manipulations of the Constitution, and the American citizenry; high-fiving them, awkward hugs, not withstanding.
Democrats can rarely present their side of an argument, legitimately because they almost always have ulterior motives. Some have said those motives include turning this nation into a 3rd world country, or worse, so how could a person think he could get a large following, if he announced that to be his reason for proposing anything, legislatively? And that is why we get children being used on a national issue as fodder. Children have a tendency to tug at our heart strings, and we are willing to do almost anything to protect them.
In New York, the governor just enacted new laws that, for instance, grandfather in existing "high-capacity" magazines, BUT if the police find more than 7 rounds in it, you will be prosecuted for violating the 7 round maximum rule. He acts like he is not concerned with what you already have, he just wants it to stop here, but that is not the truth of the law. And the Governor implies something has to be done, as is the reasonable thing to do. Well Governor, it already has been the law of the land to abide by the Constitution which has given the world the greatest nation on earth, and that didn't require a 7 round limit to a semi-automatic weapon. We don't need to fabricate a new origin.
Governor Cuomo likes to hype up the conversation with rhetoric like, "you don't need 10 rounds to kill a deer". SIR, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting; it is in the Constitution to help American citizens not be over-thrown with a run-away government; a dictatorship; an Empirical Authority. It is a Constitutional right of protection. Police might be necessary for the gang fights and traffic violators, but I and every American citizen has a right to defend what is ours, even our children.
I do not have a problem with anyone owning a 3.5 rocket launcher, or a tank or a gatlin gun, if he can afford to buy one; it is his right to own one (I can't remember the last time a tank was used in a crime). There should be no restrictions on what a person uses to protect his private property; it is Constitutional. Too many years and too many laws have come and gone which have watered down the individuality of the people of this great nation. Those loses redound to legislation that is heaped up onto other legislation that have eroded our rights and freedoms, so that now we are arguing about saving the life of one child with weapons that can shoot no more than 7 rounds, as if when we get that right, there will be no more crimes or deaths; how stupid!
President Obama is just the figure head of the hydra-leviathan called the Democratic party. Collectively, they want to dictate their ideas onto the rest of us, and anyone who opposes those ideas, is wrong headed, and the Constitution just constantly gets in their way. And I say dictate because for the last 4 years, less than 100 Senators have been the "governing" force of this Republic. The 435 members in the House of Representatives has been turned into a eunuch, either by the Senate or with the help of the establishment Rhinos who have a similar agenda;
Senators who are supposed to represent the states they come from, not a party philosophy. If given the chance, they will continue to impose legislation that will eventually neuter the people that make up this great nation, and they do it by circumventing or bastardizing the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold. Ironic, isn't it? Why did they swear to defend the Constitution, then proceed to run roughshod over it; aren't you the least bit curious? Is this their way of having the much talked about, dialogue with the American people?
No comments:
Post a Comment