February 07, 2013
President Barack Hussein Obama has evidently fired a shotgun, but we all know that he doesn't "shoot skeet all the time." At least Obama didn't say that after he shot the skeet he cleaned it and Michelle cooked it for a healthy family dinner.
But he did say, "We do skeet shooting all the time." Can you imagine if he had said, "We do basketball shooting all the time." Or "We do golf ball hitting all the time." People shoot skeet, they don't "do skeet shooting."
But the mainstream media just accepts whatever comes out of Obama's mouth as the gospel.
Obama keeps talking about country people who grew up hunting and says they have a right to be able to continue that tradition, as if the US Constitution said, "Because people like to hunt, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That is not what the Constitution says. The Second Amendment reads, "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."
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, it is about individuals having the right to bear arms to protect themselves from people who don't want them to live in a "free State." It is so that "the people" can protect themselves from the government.
The idea that this right has not been infringed is pretty silly, but the Second Amendment should not be infringed anymore. If Obama and the liberals think that the Second Amendment is outdated, there is a process to change it. When it turned out prohibition didn't work the president didn't issue executive orders allowing certain people to drink alcohol at certain times, nor did he issue an executive order making martinis legal but keeping beer illegal. Instead Congress acted responsibly and the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment.
Let Obama start the process to repeal the Second Amendment if he thinks it needs to be done. And we'll see how that works for him.
, , ,
Insane people are going into places where they can be relatively certain that no one else has guns and shooting people. In the case of Newtown, Adam Lanza went into an elementary school and killed children, which tears at everyone's heart. But if the problem is that some insane or evil people are shooting others in places where guns are outlawed, is the solution to outlaw more guns? Lanza stole those guns from his mother, whom he killed. Is it possible to stop insane people from killing responsible gun owners and stealing their guns?
The Obama response to the shooting at Newtown is despicable, because it is simply political. The kids were killed with a rifle that looks like, but is not, an assault rifle. So the response from our president, who is supposed to be smart, is to ban rifles that look like assault rifles. Does Obama really believe that if the gun Lanza had stolen from his mother had had a wooden stock instead of a plastic one that he would not have shot anyone? Would it have really saved lives if the gun had not had a flash suppressor? Are we supposed to believe that if he had had to put in a new magazine more often he would have just given up and gone home without killing anyone? He reloaded several times as it was, so slipping in a few more magazines would not appear to have been a problem for him.
He could have killed just as many people with a rifle that looked more like a traditional hunting rifle. Obama is not asking Congress to outlaw guns that operate like the one used in Newtown, but just guns that look like the one used at Newtown. Are the American people going to fall for that level of absurdity?
A better way to keep insane people from killing others is to have a place for insane people to go where they can be kept safe and others can be protected from them. According to the reports on his behavior, Lanza needed to be somewhere he could be treated. But in the US we have decided that it is wrong to provide care and treatment for the severely mentally ill.
If you spend any time length of time with the homeless you know that many of them could benefit from someone taking care of them. They are homeless because they can't deal with society, and society won't help them except to give them blankets so they won't freeze to death while they sleep on our streets.
It is ever so interesting to me that when I was a child dogs roamed free and the mentally ill were locked up for their own good. Today dogs are locked up for their own good and the mentally ill are allowed to roam free. One of the big reasons given for locking up dogs was to protect them. It is a strange society that cares more about the welfare of dogs than people.
, , ,
It is incredible the amount of power that the liberals give to the Republicans in the House of Representatives. A recent editorial in The New York Times blames the Republicans for the "sequester." I agree that the sequester is a stupid idea, but the Republicans control the House. The Democrats control the Senate and the White House. According to the august editors at The New York Times, "the sequester, instigated by the 2011 Republicans rampage against government," is going to cost the country one million jobs.
In 2011 the Senate was controlled by the Democrats and Obama was president, so how in the world did the Republican majority in the House run over both of those institutions with their rampage?
The sequester, despite what The New York Times is preaching, was an incredibly stupid bipartisan deal. It was an idea that only the Stupid Party could devise, but even the Stupid Party couldn't put it in place without the support of the Democrats and the president.
The Republicans in the House can't do much of anything except adjourn without the support of the Democrats in the Senate and the president, because the Republicans certainly don't have a veto-proof majority in the House. And it wouldn't matter if they did because the Democrats have a majority in the Senate.
, , ,
Hillary Clinton will be known for traveling nearly a million miles while serving as secretary of state. Is that really an accomplishment? According to The New York Times, which worships Clinton, her claim to fame will be the million miles and the fact that she opened relations with Burma, an incredibly repressive state. But Clinton not only went there herself, she got Obama to travel to Burma, or Myanmar as it prefers to be called.
The ruling junta, according to the United Nations, is a consistent and systematic human rights violator that is responsible for genocide, the use of child soldiers, systematic rape, child labor and human trafficking, and there is no freedom of speech.
So Clinton raised the standing of this outlaw country in the eyes of the world by having the president of the United States visit. But even after Obama's visit it's the same rulers doing the same things. Some people think that Obama, just by walking through a country, can make it better, but it just hasn't worked out that way. Obama will visit Burma but not Israel, which is certainly interesting....continued on page 2