The battle of the Constitution

-
There is no battle to save our 2nd amendment right. There is a battle to save and protect the Constitution. There is either the Constitution or there is a system that allows government to write what ever law it wants. The message should be about the Constitution, and the requirement of law makers to follow due process and live up to their oaths. Anything else they could do would be treason. If we focus on guns we are limiting the argument, narrowing the focus.... we are, in a sense, lowering our intellect to the lowest denominator and everyone knows do not argue with an idiot, he'll drag you to his level and beat you every time. We need to elevate the argument to the real point: Our Constitution where in we gave the federal government certain powers and only those powers.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

note 1 - people as property

-
Image
notes for my latest book on politics and life. ...it is imperative to continually point out that people are not property. There is no other truth. The majority of people are mindlessly on the side of "people AS property". They don't even know it. So they let a litany of insanity rule their lives. Ask someone why they think speeding is a crime and they'll say "well that person could cause an accident that could kill your family. You WANT YOUR FAMILY DEAD?!?" … their answer: - besides the fact they always seem to assume the worst in people - government has the authority to stop you from possibly, maybe, in the future, causing someone else harm . In other words: pre-crime. Then ask this same person if they believe government should mandate what time you should get out of bed, shower, eat breakfast, and leave the house.  They will, of course, say, "NO THAT'S SILLY"...because by this point they are screaming; people stop listening. ...
Read more

Free! Free! Free! – How socialism’s free things requires ownership over the means of production

-
Image
Recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a professed Democratic Socialist, appeared on Colbert. She made a couple of statements that are pure anti-human, and the crowd, unaware of the consequences of her comments, applauded. Colbert, seemingly enamored (not by her good looks mind you but by his past opinions on the virtues of communism), said nothing of any consequence. None of this, of course, should surprise anyone that is paying attention.  She stated that she believes education and health are basic human rights. So, since, they are basic human rights, they must be freely accessible to anyone that wants them.  Colbert didn’t even ask her, “Well, Alexandria, how exactly are you going to pay for this?” This is because democracies as a whole believe that the outcome of the vote is a moral truth and whatever costs created by the so-called elected officials, is a required condition of participation. If the state requires the users to pay for everything, then the users (slaves...
Read more

What is a Libertist?

-
Someone recently asked me this question. I was shocked. I had come to think the word was self-evident. So I turned to google to make sure I wasn't just a snooty upturned nose type forcing plebs to accept my jargon. Typing "define Libertist" into google and you have to go almost to the bottom before you come into the definition.  Google assumes I meant Liberttist, with two t's. A Liberttist, two t's, is a person that writes the texts that go along with an Opera and this text is called a Libretto. It, dictionary.com, tells me is derived from Libro, or book. Fair enough and completely sensical (I used 'sensical' on purpose because English professors everywhere still think it is not a word. My typing it and publishing it here, prove, gentlemen, otherwise).  But if you take out that second t the word means: one that defends Liberty. Thus my reason for shock, because I had assumed that since the word was in the name, that the clarity and purpose of modifyi...
Read more