Guns, Liberals and Mullahs: Which Two Don't We Need?

As the events in Iran unfolded over the past two weeks one of the most disturbing images to be “smuggled” out of that country is the video of the shooting death of a young protestor, Neda Agha Soltan, at the hands of government forces seeking to crack down on unrest and secure the sham re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of the world’s only existing theocratic country. The force and brutality ordered by the Mullahs to be used on their own people was extreme even by the standards of other mainly Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Chad. It should serve as a reminder to all people everywhere why a theocracy should NEVER exist, whether that theocracy is Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish or Christian. (OK you lefties before you scream, “what about Israel” go look up the definition of “theocracy”.) It should also serve as a graphic example of why that kind of forceful movement by the government against its own people can NEVER happen here. But, the reason it can’t happen here and the acknowledgement of that reason is cursed by every Liberal everywhere.

A terse sentence of a mere 27 words crafted by our Founding Fathers over 230 years ago is why this sort of imposition of force has never been attempted by the US Government and likely never will. We know those 27 words as the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

“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 right to “keep and bear arms” by virtue of its position in the Bill of Rights appears to have been, in the minds of the Founding Fathers, second only to the provision which guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly and petition of redress. In fact, the right “to keep and bear arms” comes before ALL these other uninfringeable rights:
1. The military not being quartered in your home without your consent
2. Being secure in your person, papers, houses, and effects and secure from unreasonable search and seizure
3. Protection from double jeopardy and the ability to refuse to testify against yourself
4. Not being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
5. A speedy and public trial by jury and the ability to confront witnesses against you as well as present witnesses of your own.
6. To have the assistance of counsel for your defense
7. Not being subject to excessive bail nor have cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on you.

Don’t you think the framers of the Constitution had a reason for putting all these rights in the order they did? Of course they had a reason- - -it was because they held the rights of freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to be first, foremost and uninfringeable and didn’t trust any central government not to try to take away those rights from individual persons or states- -thus, the need for a militia and the right to "keep and bear arms".

Yet, if the Liberals in this country had their way the Second Amendment would be repealed tomorrow. The very section of the Constitution that keeps what is happening in Iran from happening here is what Liberalism and virtually all its proponents would take away if they could.

We have let BHO and his legions of liberal lackeys set an agenda for Socialist takeover of industry in this country. They succeeded with the auto industry and are close to succeeding with domestic energy (taxing an industry into government submission is just another form of Socialism) and will pull out every stop to do the same with Healthcare. Are we going to sit back and let them take away our ability to defend ourselves against an oppressive government, too? I hope not.

Oh, just in case you think "The Sage" is some sort of gun-nut living in an open carry state and agitating for rebellion- - -let me state for the record- - -I don’t own a gun and never have but I’m sure thinking about buying several now. And I’m willing to bet the folks dodging government bullets on the streets of Teheran tonight are wishing they had a few guns of their own, as well. Nothing good can happen in a country where only the Government has the right to “keep and bear arms”.


ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.

BHO’s Healthcare Plan: A Payoff to Contributors?

In 1959 during the early stages of our “Cold War” with the Soviet Union my 9th grade “Civics” teacher, Jim Davidson, a fiercely patriotic North Carolinian, had very concise definitions for all the “isms” we were learning about. Here’s what “Big Jim” as we called him away from class taught us about one of those “isms”.

Socialism: “an economic system in which the State either owns or tightly controls those industries, businesses or enterprises that are deemed to be socially important. Ownership of private property is valued under this economic system and the ownership of private enterprises not deemed to be socially important is encouraged. The people are allowed to keep the fruits of their own efforts and labors, although they are almost always heavily taxed by the State in order to fund programs and enterprises it considers to be socially important."

“Big Jim” was ahead of his time. I doubt that in 1959 he could have actually foreseen the rising tide of Socialist economics within Democratic governments like Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, New Zealand and Canada (to name a few) yet he painted an accurate picture of the face of Socialism today none-the-less. I don’t know where Jim Davidson is now or even if he’s still alive but I’m certain that if he is alive, somewhere he’s raving, stomping and flailing his arms as he ponders what BHO and the American Trial Lawyers Association (the plaintiffs bar) want to do to the most socially important segment of our society today- - -health care. In a nutshell here’s what BHO and his merry band of ambulance chasers and slip-and-fall artists want to do.

Under the campaign cry of controlling health care expenses and reducing the costs of delivering quality health care to all Americans, Obamacare would:

1. Place tight controls and price caps on what drug companies can charge for their products. (This will reduce pharmaceutical company revenues but do nothing to similarly limit the cost of developing, testing and bringing new drugs to the market).

2. Place price caps on services and tests- - -x-rays, MRIs, EKGs, Cancer screening, blood analysis etc. - -offered by hospitals. (This will force the hospitals to shift the unpaid portion of the costs for these services to patients on private plans).

3. Place price caps on services performed by your physician. (This will force physicians to also shift unpaid costs to patients on other plans and will do nothing to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance)

Now here’s the really outrageous part. In his speech before the AMA in Chicago earlier this past week, BHO had the audacity to tell the doctors assembled there that his plan- -ObamaCare- - would limit their incomes as well as those of drug companies and hospitals while doing nothing to limit their costs of delivering services. Then he told them he had “no intentions of placing caps on medical malpractice lawsuits”. BHO must have hoped they would swallow what he had to say because he seemed a little surprised when he was politely booed. But he shouldn’t have been surprised because in an unprecedented display of political chutzpah and arrogance he stood there and told the medical establishment of the US that he was going to take money from their wallets but leave the wallets of Trial Lawyers untouched. What he didn’t explain was, “why?” The “why” should be obvious.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (www.opensecrets.org ) a group which, since 1990, has tracked political contributions, their donors and their recipients by industry here’s what Lawyers and their Lobbyists contributed to Federal Candidates and Parties during the 2008 election cycle - - -$270,571,798 . That’s right, over 270 million dollars!! (See: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2008&ind=K)

Of that amount 74% went to Democratic candidates and 26% to Republicans. From that group of contributors the largest contribution was made by the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the American Trial Lawyers Association) who gave 95% of their money to Democrats and 5% to Republicans. And of that $270.5 million contributed by Lawyers and their Lobbyists during the entire 2008 campaign cycle, here’s how it broke down with the Presidential front runners:

1. Barack Obama (D) $45,009,722

2. Hillary Clinton (D) $17,658,296

3. John McCain (R) $11,414,758


There’s an old joke that has a man and woman sitting at a bar. The man asks the woman if she’d sleep with him for $50. “Of course not”, the woman responds indignantly. “Well”, he presses on, “would you sleep with me for $10,000?” The lady thinks for moment and says, “For $10,000 of course I would.” Moving closer to her still he asks, “What about $500?” “I’d have to think about that”, she tells him. The guy gets a big grin on his face, rubs his hands together and says, “Great, we’ve clearly established what you are- -now all we have to do is argue about your price!”

In making what appears to be a political payoff to the Trial Lawyers, BHO has clearly established what he is- -in addition to being a Socialist- - AND he has clearly stated his price.




ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.

BHO: A Product of His "Heritage"?

As this is being written BHO’s “reaching out to the Muslim world” speech in Cairo, delivered in his uniquely gifted oratorical style, is still fresh in the world’s press and on the “Arab street.” He is still in Europe and has not yet laid his agenda before all the Heads of State he intends to. But one thing is clear already . . . in the struggle against radical Islam the United States of America will have to “go it alone” with nothing more than lip-service help from our European friends and allies.

Germany’s Chancellor Merkel told BHO just yesterday that her country would NOT take any of the Guantanamo detainees and it is expected that French President Sarkozy will tell him the same today. Why? Because both of these “leaders” are afraid that to do so will inflame the Muslims in their countries and lead to unprecedented violence. Sarkozy and Merkel are not alone. The Brits- -who have all but turned their country over to radical Muslims- -certainly aren’t going to help especially under the Labour Party (liberal) government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Spaniards have been out of the game ever since the train bombing which was exactly the goal the radicals wanted to achieve. The Italians- - -well they’re the Italians- - - so no one expects any help from them for any purpose what-so-ever. Perhaps only the Danes and the Dutch have a clear sense of the threat posed by radical Islam in Europe and have a moral willingness to help the US but those folks are still reeling from the “cartoon riots” and the Van Gogh murder in their respective nations.

No, the US is going to have to carry the burden of defeating radical Islam by itself and we simply don’t have a President who is up to the task of leading us in this struggle.

Now before anyone turns this into something it isn’t and does something stupid like accusing “The Sage” of hate speech, racism, right wing radicalism and the like- -thus intentionally derailing the real debate- - let me state for the record: BHO seems to be a very decent man. He clearly loves his family. He appears in every respect to be a very good husband to Michelle and an excellent father to their two beautiful daughters. He’s smart. He’s a gifted orator. And he has a good sense of humor as evidenced by his observation of an Egyptian hieroglyph with big ears as being “my relative”- - -a truly funny, likeable and charming moment. BHO on a personal level seems to be the kind of guy most of us would like to invite to our backyard for a cookout and swap jokes with while downing a cheeseburger and a beer. Unfortunately, none of that has a hill of beans to do with being an effective President. And, sadly, for that job- -especially for the role of “protector-in-chief” he is woefully ill-prepared. Worse yet, he is naïve.

BHO has told us all that in nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court she will bring a certain amount of empathy to her rulings because of the “richness of her heritage as a Latina woman . . . raised by a single mother. . .” and so on. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito made similar references to his “Italian heritage” during his confirmation hearings. And so we are told that not only is it alright for our public officials to be a working product of their heritage but that we should expect them to act in a way defined by their experiences and heritage. OK, that sounds logical and fair enough. Seems like we should be able to equally apply that standard to liberals and conservatives alike

So then, on that premise, what can we expect from BHO’s heritage, the product of a pacifist, single mother and an absentee, take-no-responsibility father? When it comes to our nation’s security what should we anticipate from a man whose heritage has taught him to always turn the other cheek and to walk away from bullies? (Have you read his books?)

In November of 2002, a scant 15 months after 9-11-2001, London’s “Guardian” newspaper published a “Letter to America” from Osama Bin Laden. In the letter OBL stated that Islam- - implying that not just some Muslims but all practitioners of the faith of Islam- - -was at war with America. He then goes on to list a litany of grievances and finally puts forth a list of “non-negotiable” demands the US must meet in order to gain peace with Islam. Among those demands are: America must adopt Islam and Sharia law [as opposed to the US Constitution] as its guiding principles of law and daily life; America must veil its women and its men must grow beards; America must abandon Israel; America must withdraw from all Arab lands and repay the people of those lands for the resources America stole from them. If not, America can expect more acts of violence on its shores says the Saudi born OBL.

In the 6 ½ years since that letter OBL has not retreated an inch from those demands. And it’s naive to think he and his radical brethren ever will. Yet, in crafting his Cairo speech for the “Muslim world” (an excellent speech in some respects yet missing opportunities in others) BHO seems to think that quoting a passage or two from the Qur’an, pronouncing a few religious terms with a correct Arabic accent and relating his own experiences with Islam will somehow “pacify” the radicals and gain the backing of the so-called “moderate Muslims”. He couldn’t be more wrong!

BHO and his self-assured band of Blackberry toting Progressives in strategizing how to deal with the evil threat that comes from the growing radicalization of Islam in mosques everywhere- -especially in Europe and America- -need to do two things. Read OBL’s “Letter to America” at: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver )
and commit its ‘demands’ to memory. Then, “Google” the name Neville Chamberlain , the British PM who thought Europe could appease Hitler, and get familiar with his sad legacy because a similar legacy seems fated to be shared by BHO and could become part of his daughters’ heritage. I can’t imagine any “protector” wanting that. Can you?

In the meantime- - -while BHO and his “jivy-league minions” try to appease those who will not be appeased- -the rest of us will pray for the improbable but prepare for the likely.


ALL POLITE DEBATE AND VARYING POINTS OF VIEW ARE ENCOURAGED AND WELCOMED. PLEASE USE THE “COMMENT” LINK BELOW TO OFFER YOUR THOUGHTS.