Posts Tagged ‘liberal

15
Jun
17

Lessons Government Officials Should Learn From Charity Baseball Game Shooting

On Wednesday, June 14, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and four others, were shot at a Republican congressional baseball practice, by a gunman who appeared to have targeted Republican members of Congress. The alleged shooter–James Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Illinois, who is reported to have been a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter–died following a shootout with police.

The Capital Police were only there, because a high-ranking official (Scalise) was in the group, practicing. If he hadn’t been there, with the armed detail, the situation could have been even worse.

‘Joe Six-Pack’ can’t afford, and is not allowed, to have an armed security detail follow him everywhere he goes, but these elitist government officials have access to such. That’s just another example of Animal Farm, in my opinion.

But I digress.

One witness said the scene was like being in Iraq without a weapon.

Sen. Rand Paul said it would have been a massacre if the Capital Police (people with firearms) hadn’t been there.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said that if it hadn’t been for the Capital Police (people with firearms), there would have been no one there to stop the gunman.

That’s right, because ridiculous gun control laws–and a court system that seems to love to prosecute people for self-defense–get in the way of people being able to protect themselves!

Wouldn’t it have been awesome if a bunch of peaceful* people, who were carrying concealed firearms, had taken this guy out from the start of his rampage? I have to wonder how many of those five injured people would have gotten out unscathed.

And wouldn’t it have been awesome if the gunman had decided not to risk shooting anyone, in the first place, because he would have known anyone around him could have been “packing” a firearm?

I hate to say it, but this is a case of reaping what you sow.

You want to limit self-defense, Government officials? Well, self-defense was also limited for you, because of it. You paid a high price, because of gun control nonsense.

There is a lesson to be learned, though: Now is a great time to eliminate gun control that gets people shot and killed!

MAKE IT HAPPEN!

 

*I absolutely detest, and completely disagree with, having to get a government-issued Permit (permission) to carry a concealed firearm for protection. Having gotten that off my chest and out of the way, statistics show that concealed carry permit holders cause less crime than even police officers.

08
Mar
10

SC Policy Council Misses the Mark on Free Markets

Today, I received an email update from SC Policy Council entitled, “Defend the Free Market: Tuesday 10am at the Statehouse.” I prefer a truly free market, so at first glance it sounded pretty good.

The message began with this:

“Legislators made it clear:  they want to get rid of the free market in South Carolina. Instead, they want to control the economy themselves, behind closed doors with your money.

See for yourself what the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said this Sunday in The State newspaper:

‘If we let the free market work,’ [Hugh] Leatherman said of eliminating company-specific incentives,’we’d be back in the 1800s.’

You read that right. He doesn’t think you can grow your business, choose the right job, make the best decisions or invest in your future, yourself. He and his colleagues believe they are much better qualified to do that for you. They want to cut deals with your money, and it doesn’t matter to them if they drive South Carolinians out of business.

Tomorrow, we are going to tell them our state is not for sale, and we need your help to do it!”

At this point, I was pretty fired up and preparing for battle–that is until I read the next part of the message:

“We’ve told you about legislators’ plans to give a powerful out-of-state developer a huge tax break – one that will take dollars away from core services like education and law enforcement, and will cost South Carolina businesses. Retail incentives are the worst kind of corporate welfare, and economists are clear: they don’t create new jobs or generate new wealth.

Rarely do we have a chance to defend the American free market economy. We have that chance tomorrow, but we need your help.”

Whoa, wait a minute! Did I just detect Orwellian Doublespeak? Since when is allowing people to keep more of their money “welfare”?

If a thief breaks into your house and takes $900 of the $1000 in your wallet, is he giving you $100 in “welfare”? No, he just stole 900 bucks!

It’s the same thing with a business. If government takes a little bit less from your company, it isn’t “corporate welfare”; it’s a reduction in theft.

I thought the SC Policy Council was for “Limited Government, Free Enterprise, Individual Liberty.” How can they stand for all those things, and call their gathering a “defend the free market” rally, when they just stated they want to stop a business from getting a tax break?

Basically, this is protectionism on a statewide scale. Their statement is saying make sure the out-of-state business gets hit with the same evil tax (theft) that SC businesses have to endure. Misery loves company, right?

If they really supported a truly “free market,” they would be saying, “We favor reducing the taxes that SC businesses have to pay, to equal the lower rates of out-of-state businesses, to make things even across the board” (until we can eliminate taxes, altogether). Instead, SC Policy Council is pushing liberal tax policies (by their own words, increased taxes for social services). Given the organizations who are partners in this event, SCPC’s message comes as no surprise to me.

It all boils down to this: If you truly support a free market, you may want to pass on joining the SC Policy Council’s rally to impose higher taxes on businesses–out-of-state or otherwise.

A taxed and regulated market is anything but “free.”

20
Mar
09

The Fairness Doctrine

The “Fairness Doctrine” is being pushed by liberals/progressives/socialists, because they feel that their views aren’t being given fair coverage in talk radio. The policy would mandate that conservative talk radio give equal time to the opposing viewpoints.

It doesn’t matter that the socialist viewpoint overwhelmingly rules television networks and the vast majority of newspapers. No, they have to have it all.

A liberal talk radio network was tried, and it went into bankruptcy, because you can’t expect people who are looking for a handout to financially support that kind of business. Because the venture tanked, socialists have to use force to get their views heard where they aren’t welcome.

So, with all this “fairness” in mind, I have one question: Will equal time be given to the anarchist view that opposes both liberal and conservative viewpoints, or does “fairness” only apply to liberals and conservatives? Since we are trying to be “fair,” shouldn’t equal time be given to the view that this liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat institution of slavery and theft should not exist, in the first place?

If this (horrid, ridiculous, freedom-trampling, radio welfare handout) measure passes, I’ll be waiting for the invitation to use their own policy of forced inclusion against them by using common sense to mop the floor with all of their Establishment ideas – live, on-air.

06
Mar
09

Watchmen: Very Dangerous

I watched the midnight showing of Watchmen, last night, and I enjoyed it. The characters were cool, acting was good, the hero chick was hot, and the storyline was unusual. Even so, I find myself not being able to recommend it to others, now that I have fully digested it.

For a movie that is supposed to be set on an alternate Earth, in 1985, the writers threw in a number of modern-day, liberal jabs that seemed to scorn the use of nuclear power, fossil fuels, and question the need for man to build more shopping malls. From what I remember, that was never in the original comic books.

In order to tell you how I really feel about the overall message and feel of this film, I will have to divulge plot elements, so…

SPOILER ALERT! If you don’t want to know anything about the plot of the movie, and how it ends, DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER. You have been warned.

The man who is supposed to be the smartest man on Earth, Ozymandias, devises a plan to blow up New York and blame it on Dr. Manhattan. Because of this trickery and manipulation, the USA and Russia end the Cold War – and the nuclear war that was about to erupt between them – in order to unite in peace against the new, common enemy: Dr. Manhattan.

Ozymandias states that the trickery – along with killing millions of people – was necessary to save mankind from itself. In true fascist form, for him the end justified the means, and in his view it was necessary to sacrifice a relatively small number of individuals for the good of the world and some perceived greater good.

The other heroes were reluctantly forced to go along with keeping the secret, to preserve the peace – except for Rorschach, who is killed by Dr. Manhattan for standing on principal and threatening to expose the truth.

As I watched the ending, I can remember “Oh…my…God…” escaping my lips. At that moment, Hitler’s action of burning down the Reichstag – and then blaming it on the opposition, so he could advance his agenda – came to mind.

September 11th also flashed through my head, along the statement that has been attributed to Henry Kissinger supposedly saying that an outside threat, such as an alien invasion – whether real or not – would cause the world to cry out for a world government to save them also jumped out to my attention.

The similarities were obvious: Some people feel that they are much smarter than the rest of us, so they feel justified in trying to dictate how we should live – even through lies or deadly force – in order to save us from our mistakes and silly ways.

In an age where people are rightfully worried about government controlling our thermostats, means of self-defense, food supplies, health care, information, wealth and possibly population, it is very dangerous to send a message of the end justifying the means, when so many lives are potentially at stake–and it is, for that reason, that I hesitate to recommend this film.