What’s wrong with this Cory Gardner Deal?

What’s wrong with this Cory Gardner Deal?

Read Full Post »

Governors Health Care Law Is Here To Stay

Governors Health Care Law Is Here To Stay

Read Full Post »

Proposed Military Budget Cuts To Pre WWII Levels

Proposed Military Budget Cuts To Pre WWII Levels

Read Full Post »

Soros Fingerprints on FCC Probe

Soros Fingerprints on FCC Probe

Read Full Post »

Deficit Debate – Military Pay Cuts

Deficit Debate – Military Pay Cuts

Read Full Post »

Remember To VOTE

Read Full Post »

The Gun Is Civization

“The Gun Is Civilization”

 

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.  If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.  Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception.  Reason or force, that’s it .

 

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.  Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

 

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.  You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

 

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.  The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

 

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force  equations.  These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat — it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

 

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society.  A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly .

 

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

 

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.  The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

 

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.  It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

 

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone.  The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.  I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.  It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act!!

 

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Read Full Post »

Two Americas

House Divided — This explains it very clearly
 
In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180AM said this in response to Obama’s “income inequality speech.”
 
The Democrats are right, there are two Americas:
* The America that works, and the America that doesn’t.
* The America that contributes, and the America that doesn’t.
* It’s not the haves and the haven’ts, it’s the dos and the don’ts.
* Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society, and others don’t. That’s the divide in America.
* It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility.
* It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. * It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.  It’s not invective, it’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.”  He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.
 
That is the rationale of thievery. The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.

 

Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.  It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America.  It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.  The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victimhood and anger instead of ability and hope.  The President’s premise — that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful — seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. 

 

By and large, income variation in society is a result of different choices leading to different consequences.  Those who choose wisely and responsibly have far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.  Success and failure frequently manifest themselves in personal and family income.  You choose to drop out of high school and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.  You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course, you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course.
 
My doctor makes far more than I do.  There is significant income inequality between us.  Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an inequality of effort.  While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a  job in a restaurant.
 
He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes.  His outcome pays a lot better than mine.  Does that mean he cheated and Obama needs to take away his wealth?  No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.
 
It is not inequality Obama intends to take away, it is freedom.  The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail.  There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure.  The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy.  Even if the other guy sat on his ass and did nothing.  Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and shortsighted decisions.

 

Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring equality of effort.  The simple Law of the Harvest — as ye sow, so shall ye reap — is sometimes   applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”  Obama  would turn that upside down.  Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society.

 

Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Obama gets his way.  He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity.  He and his party speak of two Americas and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other.

 

America is not divided by the differences in outcomes, it is divided by the differences in efforts.  It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.  What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism.  He has fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit.  That’s what socialists offer.  Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow.
 
Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Read Full Post »

George Leing

Read Full Post »

Global Warming Warning!

GLOBAL WARMING WARNING!

 

The following was reported around the world by the Associated Press.  This was reported by many newspapers and here is an example from THE WASHINGTON POST:

 

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate, at Bergan, Norway.  Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.  Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.  Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm.  Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points, well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.  Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.  Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. 

 

 

PRINTED ON NOVEMBER 22, 1922

 

Read Full Post »