The American Freedom Network

The Second Amendment

April 18, 2013 – 9:37 am

Many claim they “simply want sensible gun control”. That is the problem. Guns don’t need to be controlled. Indeed, firearms are specifically protected from “control”. This sentence invariably results in this liberal screed, “sure and you think people should have howitzers and rocket launchers”, delivered in a tone of disdain and incredulity. As if all are sheep such as they.

The second amendment states; “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 definition of “infringe” is helpful here.

The right to bear arms predates the first 10 amendments of the Constitution; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It was never intended to protect “hunting” or any other specific use of firearms. It is and was intended to assure that Americans can arm themselves as they see if and as necessary. The Supreme Court has affirmed this but that is scant comfort. SCOTUS has also “infringed” the second amendment numerous times.

“Well imagine the chaos if….”, wails a typical sheep or collectivist. They imagine a world where APCs and Katyushas are in every driveway. Obviously they know nothing of the costs of modern weapons and the general, but not universal, disinclination of most people to have such. We know we can’t afford any such munitions nor see a need for it. That doesn’t mean there is not a fundamental, unalienable, RIGHT to keep and bear any arms.

The minutemen in Concord WERE protecting cannon and “military style” weapons, not Granny Adams’ single shot hide-away. Those Concord Patriots were the “militia”, composed of Blacksmiths, Farmers (predominantly), Doctors, Shop-keepers etc. They were protecting their community, commonwealth and country from a tyrannical government. One that intended to confiscate their arms.

Vice-President Biden can cry, Senator Reid can mock concerns over tyranny and the President can call factual reality “lies”. It doesn’t change the fundamental truth of what the second amendment is intended to protect. The right to keep and bear arms. Not some arms. Not arms the government decides or your neighbors and media fear irrationally. Don’t let the straw-men of the left or your own good heart allow anyone to abridge any of your inherent and unalienable rights. You know, the ones the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to ensure protection of.

Posted in Constitution, Government, Law, RTKBA | Comments Off

Sensible Values

April 16, 2013 – 8:55 am

HT to Dennis Prager.  Many of us here agree implicitly with these statements:

–Marriage should remain defined as the union of a man and a woman.

–The human fetus should have at least as much right to life as, let us say, a dog.

–America is the greatest force for good in the world.

–The greatest problem in black American life is not racism or poverty but the absence of fathers.

–The most effective — often the only — way to stop great evil is through war.

–More men than women are more willing to work more hours at a job.

–More women are likely to find happiness in a successful marriage and family than in a successful career.

–At this moment in history, the world has more to fear from fundamentalist Muslims than from fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists.

Posted in Culture, Culture Wars | Comments Off

Politically Correct Deaths

March 17, 2013 – 5:33 am

“When will black people get as outraged over a gang-banger killing innocent people as they do when a police officer kills an unarmed black man?”  Excellent question and article.

Something that should be looked at much more.  It isn’t “racism” or “evil corporations“, its a sub-cultural (urban) malignancy nearly as old as human kind.

It isn’t poltically correct to point out that the violence statistics aren’t primarily due to “rednecks”, “crazy people” and “conseratives”.  Rather its is the dependency class, held DOWN by government, killing one another and breeding like unmarried rabbits.

It has NOTHING to do with “race” and everything to do with collectivist politics and a sick urban sub-culture.

Posted in Culture, Culture Wars, News | Comments Off

Why ANY “war on entitlements”?

March 8, 2013 – 1:43 am

It is very clear, politically, that the majority of the American people favor “entitlement” programs.  All philosophical arguments, pro or con, aside this must be plain to realists.

The challenge is in more effective applications of the “benefits” modern Americans believe are “rights”.  Benefits programs run at a giant macro Federal level can’t be effective or efficient.  The Federal government wasn’t designed or intended to “run” such programs.  Uncle Sugar is too far removed from the real needs to be able to address them effectively.

Smaller governmental units can be much more effective at these operations.  Private charities once managed ALL “benefits” to the indigent or otherwise needy.  They, families and churches in communities assured these things got done.  A form of this, in the modern world would be realistic and have far greater chance of real benefit to those in need.  The role of the Federal government (Congress primarily) would be to establish simple standards that must be met as a minimum.  Meeting those would be up to the smaller governmental units.  The central government via a much smaller oversight bureaucracy (they’re not promulgating, publishing, monitoring, enforcing and prosecuting any more.) and primarily the Courts.

Imagine the capital freed up!  Imagine the Federal budget reductions possible.  State and Local governments growth and operations are much more available to the average citizen, rich or poor.  Each community or locale can assure their citizens get the “benefits” that community thinks they need.  If they are some magically, comprehensively “bad” grouping, the minimum Federal standards exist for the short term.  The smaller unit’s voters will be able to effect necessary change and improvement.

Wow!  A Federal “modern welfare State” that actually might be Constitutional!!

Posted in Culture, Entitlements, Government, Politics | Comments Off

Lib/Prog Collectivist symptomology

March 7, 2013 – 4:30 pm

Ever wonder how to ID a sheep of the lib/prog plantation?

Wonder no more!  Here is a short and very incomplete list of symptoms exhibited by collectivists.

• You think sexual harassment is rampant, date rape pervasive, domestic violence common, and Paula Jones is lying.
• You hate Obama, Biden and Hillary jokes.
• You pale at the execution of child killers, but defend the killing of unborn children as an expression of choice.
• You think trees have feelings, animals can conceptualize, and the fetus is a blob of protoplasm.
• You are convinced that Frank Capra films and Norman Rockwell paintings are lies and distortions, but “Platoon,” “Dances with Wolves,” and “Thelma and Louise” are realistic.
• You thought Walt Disney was saccharine sweet and terminally cutesy pie until it made “Pocahontas.”
• You think a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of the school day constitutes government indoctrination and an intrusion on parental authority, while sex education, condom distribution, and multi-culturalism are values-neutral.
• You agonize over threats to the natural environment (acid rain, toxic waste) but are oblivious to threats to the social environment (pornography, promiscuity, and family dissolution).
• You want to legalize cocaine but outlaw handguns.
• You think cops are pigs and criminals are products of their environment.
• You believe the National Rifle Association helps criminals, while the American Civil Liberties Union protests the innocent.
• Jesse Jackson makes sense to you.
• Barbra Streisand makes even more sense.
• You think Janet Napolitano is totally hot.
• You believe corporate profits are obscene, but government spending is too low and the American people are under taxed.
• You think deficits are caused by tax loopholes.
• You believe homosexuality is genetically determined, but fascism and spouse abuse aren’t.
• You are convinced that proponents of welfare reform hate the poor and opponents of Affirmative Action hate minorities, but AIDS activists who bash the Pope and People for the American Way types who go psycho over Protestant “fundamentalism” are guardians of democracy.
• You attribute every minority problem to entrenched, institutional racism and the legacies of slavery and segregation.
• You think the black middle class is a myth created by Republicans.
• You view race riots as justifiable expressions of rage over injustice, but fail to see the similarities between a black mob burning a Korean store and a white mob in the Jim Crow era lynching a black man.
• You don’t understand all the whining about Affirmative Action and are more than willing to sacrifice someone else’s employment or education opportunity to assuage your guilt.
• In your wedding vows, the “love, honor, and cherish” part was replaced with “legitimize, empower, and respect her reproductive freedom.”
• You see no correlation between welfare and the rise of illegitimacy, judicial leniency and surging crime rates, or addiction and an entertainment industry that glorifies drug abuse, but you believe Richard Nixon is responsible for everything horrible that’s happened in the past quarter century.
• You support Al Gore for President in 2000, but have no idea why.
• You think those child-abusing, religious fanatics at Waco had it coming, but the illegal immigrants roughed up by California deputies – after leading them on a high-speed chase – are the victims of the decade.
• You think marriage is obsolete…except for homosexuals.
• Instead of Cowboys and Indians, your children play “Barbaric Imperialists and Innocent Native Americans”.
• You think limiting access to certain types of firearms and ammunition accessories by law abiding people will somehow reduce ANY type of violence.

Posted in History, Humor, Politics | Comments Off

Can’t see the issue for the Cliff in your mind

March 7, 2013 – 12:14 pm

It is amazing how some people can’t discuss issues in any constructive way.  They are so set on establishing their passionate denunciations of some general (and generally unanswerable in specifics) “Evil” in the world.  As an example.  Our contributors engaged in a Facebook discussion we’d like to share with you.  One participants seem to be balance and rational and seeking some common ground.  The other seems entirely focused on beating on Evil Big Business “owning government”.

So which side is conducive to constructive policy discussion?  Read the thread after here….. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Blog News, Business, Economics, Government, Politics, Reviews | Comments Off

Not True – An example of leftist faith in misinformation

March 7, 2013 – 7:58 am

An example of how homosexual activists have fooled well meaning people. Whether because of commitment to feel-good leftism or simple feel-good ignorance, these folks are truly fooled.

 

A friend posted this on a Social Network. He is a good man, well meaning, active in his community, compassionate and skilled. But much kool-aid and intellecual laziness and rigidity have infected his political and science opinions. Don’t tell him though, it pisses him off. Which IS…THE Liberal reaction to disagreement. Shout it down, cast aspersions and, in the face of determination, block/hide/disassociate from the debate opponent. Its not their heart, its their programming and intellectual laziness. How hard for YOU, is it to look for arguments against your own beliefs and positions?

 

He claims; “There are (hundreds) tax and legal benefits that a married couple gets and are denied to gay couples. If a hetero couple chooses not to marry, it is their choice to do so. Popular vote/will of the people aside, the 14th amendment of the constitution addresses the issue of substantive due process, which by definition is denied to gay couples. The amendments to the Constitution were set up so that the majority would not always prevail.”

 

1. The base premise is just incorrect. All the legal benefits can be acheived through existing contract law (inheritance, POA, visitation), nearly everywhere. We don’t claim universiality as we can’t cite that yet. There are tax benefits to married couples that were implemented to promote family. Families which homosexual couples can NEVER naturally achieve. These aren’t available to homosexual couples unless they choose (as more than you think do) to get married (which means a union between a man and a woman, always has). Here is a much more learned take http://ow.ly/io50N. A typical difference between the collectivists and their supporters versus reasonable thinking people is the former use vague, emotion based arguments while the latter are much more detailed

 

2. We’re not too concerned about happy and carefree couples. Homosexual activists certainly are not that by appearance.

 

3. Due process isn’t denied to homosexual couples nor to couples that are exceedingly happy.

 

4. Actually, the whole Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. Strange how the left applies this so vehemently to homosexual activist’s issues but aren’t so hot to protect (Any?) others they disagree with. The amendments to the Constitution were to enumerate specific adjustments to the Constitution on an issue by issue basis, NOT to “protect the minority”.

 

5. The successful canard, adopted by many well-meaning people on the left and the ignorant, is equating marriage (an age old well defined institution with any other type of voluntary union between 2 (at least) people. Word redefinition. Hence the generalized misuse/redefinition of the word “gay” and the word “marriage”.

 

6. The Constitution, the founders who made it nor the citizens who ratified it intended that ANY arbitrary subset of citizens, based solely on chosen behavior, be identified as a political groupings or specifically protected minority.

 

7. Blind to their own hypocrisy, see how these tolerance demanders treat those who disagree. They say horrible things about people of faith, people who voluntarily leave their lifestyle, and anyone who points several chilling facts and risks about homosexual lifestyles.

 

8.What homosexual poltical/social activists really want is public and societal affirmation of their CHOSEN (freely) lifestyle. By word redefinition, by political manipulation and by most excellent PR work. They seek to force society to see homosexuality as morally neutral and a “natural choice”. Why? That, is a whole different article.

 

9. Those who, out of their wonderful intent and in their seeking to feel good about themselves, support this agenda are deceived often. They aren’t “stupid” or “bad” in any way generally. They’ve just bought the cowpie. Our friend above is an example.

 

10. As with most modern liberal activism it is about conformity. Tolerate anything except that which disagrees with what is mandated for tolerance. In other words, our way good, any other way or opinion bad and should be suppressed as “intolerant”.

 

Posted in Constitution, Courts, Culture, Culture Wars, Government, Homosexual Activism, Law | Comments Off

When the Left debates anyone

February 19, 2013 – 11:48 am

It is commendable that many conservatives, libertarians and Republicans are willing to engage in reasoned debate with the collectivists and their sheople on the left.  Seeking sensible consensus is what rational people do.  What is most interesting however is how the left approach it.  They accuse all non-leftists of refusing to “compromise” or of “obstruction” routinely.  Here is the problem.  To liberals “compromise” means agree with us completely.  To the collectivists “obstruction” means you refuse to agree completely and go along with the left regardless of how stupid or vacuous their “positions” are.

Take a little test.  Debate someone (not a leftist) on an issue.  Through the give and take, note how the thinking people, using facts, data and reality come together to a consensus or compromise over the course of the conversation.

Next, debate a collectivist or one of their, generally ignorant but always impassioned, sheople.  If they make good compelling points you will see the non-left participant will to consider it and modify their own view.  On the other side you will not the leftist will NEVER change their view, regardless of how compelling any evidence or data may be.  Why?  Because, regardless of anything except their own feelings and what they absorb in passing from the ADHD Media snippets they see they are unconquerably assured in: 1. The “rightness” of their position 2. Anyone not liberal obviously can’t know anything and certainly don’t care about others as liberals do.

Try it, you’ll love it.  Here is an example of reasoned response to typical irrational liberal spewing.

Take one more test.  Visit some political sites and view the comments.  Count which contain the most aspersions, name-calling and other off topic attacks on the other side’s correspondents.  You’ll see the left’s vitriol far exceeds that of any other views.

I have a nephew who is an “Anarcho-libertarian” (forgive him, he’s young) and a colleague who is a “libertarian originalist” (as he calls it).  I debate them frequently.  I’ve seen them consider other ideas, modify their views and otherwise engage in genuine debate.  As have I.  I have NEVER seen that from a true liberal.  Wish-washy “moderates” who think they might be “liberal” are salvageable.

Before you engage in debate with the left, understand them better:

• Liberalism is a mental disorder
• Modern Liberal fascism
• Liberal Projection
• Liberal Conflation

Of course, better advice is not to waste your time “debating” people who have no interest in learning or considering other points of view.  I recommend you engage them and boldly, frankly and bluntly point out their silliness, hypocrisy, ignorance and fantasy based positions.  Follow me on Facebook for examples of how to do that.  If you’re a rational thinking person you wont need such an example though.

Hate is most often demonstrated by the left while wailing about “hate”.  Racism is most often demonstrated by the left while wailing about “racism”.  Intolerance is most often demonstrated by the left while wailing about “intolerance”.

Finally, reasonable people can disagree passionately about issues without it impacting their personal relationships in the slightest.  Liberals will resent you, disassociate from you and even possibly hate you simply because they CAN NOT TOLERATE opposing views.

Posted in Blog News | Comments Off

A Liberal Conservative Contrast

February 18, 2013 – 6:33 pm

After reading such, how could anyone bestow any real credibility on liberal media commentators.  Full Article here: From PBS All Things Considered.

ROBERT SIEGEL: Let’s start with the State of the Union, which you’ve both written about and, not surprisingly, you reviewed very differently. Mona, you wrote a column that said this, the lesson from the State of the Union address is this: Barack Obama has no second term agenda. What was a strikingly bad proposal in your view in that State of the Union? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Education, Government, Immigration, Media Reviews, News | Comments Off

Ignorant and partisan is no way to go through life son.

February 17, 2013 – 9:07 am

Yes!  They really think this way.  My goodness!

Insight to a “proud democrat”

Beaufort, N.C.Jan. 17, 2013

TO THE EDITOR:

Republicans and “so-called” conservatives are at it again. They are claiming that the Constitution gives people the right to have guns without the permission of the government. If that were true, then how could New York and Chicago have laws against it?We Democrats are sick and tired of Republicans constantly using the Constitution to cover up their true plans, which are to make us all afraid of everyone else. Our great president came from a civilized part of the country where there is strict gun control, and he is only trying to bring the benefits of that more modern way of living to the rest of us. I don’t know the exact statistics, but I’m quite certain that Chicago is a lot safer that Morehead City, when it comes to gun violence.

But do Republicans and conservatives listen to the voice of reason? No, of course not. All they want to do is whine and complain about how gun control and wealth redistribution violate the Constitution, as if the Constitution were all that great, anyway. There are a lot of things that need to be changed about the Constitution, I’d say, and President Obama needs to change it.

The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being president. Right now, it says that a person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair.

Please withhold my name because I don’t want to get crank calls.

 PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT

Posted in Humor, News, Politics | Comments Off