We will know soon

There is much happening in the Federal Courts. Both sides left and right have weighed in on the various issues and expressed their opinion of what the opinion of the Judges or Justices will be and why.

There is one thing at stake that few have even thought about. One as important as life and death.

The vaccine mandate issued by OSHA through the Department of Labor. For now, it is on hold thanks to the Fifth Circuit. As you know the Sixth Circuit won the lottery drawing. No matter the ruling one side or the other will appeal the decision (opinion) and from there to the Supreme Court.

The vaccines and their effectiveness or ineffectiveness will not be on trial. The vaccines safety or lack thereof will not be on trial. The claims of this mandate preventing serious illness or death will not be on trial.

What will be on trial is America. When all this is done, and the final ruling (opinion) is made we will know.

We will know if the President is the Commander in Chief of the Military or if he is now Commander in Chief of the Country and all that is in it.

If you know and study History, then you know about the Enabling Act and in what Country and Time this Act occurred. You also know what happened because of this Act. If you are reading this and do not know what the Enabling Act was and what came about because of it, I encourage you to research it.

The kicker in all of this is that it will be the Government deciding how much power the Government has.

God help us, if the final ruling (opinion) finds that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Country and all that is in it.

The democrats already have plans to reform the Courts. They even discussed the possibility of packing the Court. I guess that would be akin to ensuring you get the ruling (opinion) that best fits your agenda.

Why now?

Checked in on the latest from the House impeachment inquiry, read a few news articles, caught a few video clips and listened to a few news and opinion personalities. Pretty much the same as I have done since this circus began. And each day the results are the same, democrats and their allies in the media claiming the most damning evidence has come to light and it is only a matter of time, republicans and their allies in the media saying their is no evidence and it is game over. They all hear and see the same thing and yet come up with different outcomes, amazing.

For three long years the democrats have been looking for a reason, any reason, to remove the president from office. Every path they have taken turned out to be a dead end. Now they have embarked on an impeachment inquiry and have gone down many a rabbit hole on this journey. They have gone past the point of no return, they can not turn back now and save face, nor can their allies in the media, they must push forward. About the only out they have is to claim they have the evidence but it would be pointless to proceed when it would be impossible to get the requisite number of Senators to vote to convict and remove. They could make this claim whether or not they have any evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, no one would be the wiser.

The “official” impeachment inquiry began with the 2020 election just over a year out and now here we are within a week of Thanksgiving. We are well into the democrat primary season with Iowa in February. I doubt that the House will wrap up this inquiry before Thanksgiving, dragging on until early or mid December. Then Christmas will be approaching, if the Senate takes as long as the House is taking this will drag on well into the new year. When the Senate convenes for this all other business stops and if true as reported the Senate will be in session 6 days a week.

The same question comes up, Why now? There could be many reasons.

Perhaps they began this inquiry knowing full well that it would drag on for sometime. Campaigns will be sidelined for those democrats in the primary contest who happen to be sitting Senators, they will be at work. The only campaigning done for them will be through their surrogates. This gives a decided advantage to those not in the Senate, they will be out campaigning everyday. I doubt very seriously that they will suspend their campaign to show solidarity with their opponents. Perhaps this road was taken knowing it would give a decided advantage to the candidate of their choice. No, the democrats would never interfere with their own primaries or show preference for any candidate.

Perhaps it is the timing. The democrats knew full well that the spending bills to fund the government would not get done in time. After all, when was the last time the Congress actually got the spending bills passed on time or ahead of time for that matter? Once again here we are with a stop gap measure, a continuing resolution, to keep the government open. The democrats could forward their articles of impeachment to the Senate with, let’s say, a week or two until this stop gap measure is set to expire. The Senate could inform the House that they will begin the trial portion after another stop gap measure is approved. The House could inform the Senate that you have ample time to do this and no consideration will be given to a stop gap measure until after the trial. The Senate would be forced into a quick trial and verdict to avoid a government shutdown. 2020 is an election year, if the government suffers it second shutdown in as many years that would be bad for the republicans. If the Senate holds a quick trial to avoid a shutdown the Democrats will blame the republican controlled Senate for not giving fair consideration for the evidence presented to them. Thus the Senate would be caught between a rock and a hard spot. No the democrats would never cause a crisis and blame someone else.

Perhaps it is the crowded primary field. The democrats know that there is not one candidate, in the crowded field that would become the nominee, could defeat the President in the 2020 election. Since they can not beat him they chose to continue their mission of removing him from office.

Perhaps to avoid something. Removing the President has been their goal since day one, the talk of impeachment began when the President was the President-elect. They could have went down this path at any time since January 3rd of this year, yet they waited. Prior to this inquiry, formal inquiry, the President, a republican president, was willing to enact gun control legislation there were several republican members of Congress willing to go along. Some republicans had already teamed with democrats on legislation proposals. The President and the republicans would be going against the dreaded NRA. They could have waited until the republicans had enacted gun control. There was no way the democrats were going to let this happen. They would have lost two of their most important talking and campaign points. They could no longer claim that the republicans were against enacting “common sense” gun control measures, also they could no longer say that the republicans were in the pocket of the NRA. If the President and the republicans in Congress had gotten on the “gun control train” they could have been heroes to the gun control cult. That could have cost the democrats some votes they could not have this happen. So instead of having some republican gun control measures they chose to move ahead with this inquiry. They knew this impeachment inquiry would derail any gun control legislation. Within the past few days some Senators(democrat and republican)were lamenting how this impeachment has derailed gun control talks with the President.

Well anyway the circus continues tomorrow.

By choice or force?

The leftists are going all out with their plan to disarm the peaceful law-abiding citizens of this Republic. Quite sure by now everyone, not living under a rock, has seen the clip of the 2020 presidential hopeful saying “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47”. Some in his political party have tried to distance themselves from his statement. I do have to wonder if it is the message they are against or the delivery. Did he say openly what most leftists talk/dream about privately? They might not be able to get the toothpaste back in the tube.

When he used the word “We” he meant the government. So what he actually said was, “Hell yes, the government is going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.

The following comes from the Patrick Henry speech “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” 23March1775.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.

The following excerpt comes from The Declaration of Arms also known as the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, 06July1775
The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the General, their Governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants, having deposited their arms with their own magistrates, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honor, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the Governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire to leave their most valuable effects behind.

There is something to note from the excerpt above The word arms is used twice, the word muskets is nowhere to be found.

The citizens of Boston trusted that the General, their Governor, would honor his word(treaty). They were sadly mistaken. Once disarmed they had no means to resist what was coming.

They could have, I suppose, asked or even begged for the return of their arms so they could defend themselves or at least force the General, their Governor, to honor his word. Do you think that a population that had been disarmed would be rearmed?

What happened in Boston that day in April 1775 was perhaps the first recorded example of a voluntary buy-back scheme. The price the government would pay for the voluntary surrender of arms by the citizens was the freedom to depart Boston and with them take the remainder of their possessions.

They traded one thing to gain another and wound up with neither and nothing. Seems like Benjamin Franklin had a quote on that matter. He had another, “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you”.

There was a quote attributed to Edmond Burke, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it”(the word doomed is sometimes used in place of destined). There is another old adage that fits, “History is a guide post not a hitching post”. History is chock full of examples of what has happened in countries where and when the population, the peaceful law-abiding population, is disarmed. Roundups and exterminations.

It was once said that one man with a gun can control one hundred without guns. If that is true then you just have to do simple math to figure out where this leads, if one can control one hundred, than ten can control a thousand, one hundred can control ten thousand and so on.

The gun control debate is just a part of the overall control issue. Gun control is not about the elimination of arms, it is about controlling who is armed.

Some in government and some wanting to be in government are more than willing to use the force of government to disarm the peaceful law-abiding citizens. Some politicians, the various gun control groups and their allies in the media tell us how much safer we will be if we disarm.

There are only two ways that an armed civilian population can be disarmed.
Choice.
Force.

Can peaceful law-abiding citizens(civilians)trust the government if only the government is armed.

History says no.

Just wondering

With all or most of the democrat hopefuls signing onto the green new deal, I was just wondering if they will be taking the train to their campaign events. No why not? Aint one of the plans in this farce to do away with air travel? I mean after all the leader of this environmental cult said that we only have 12 years to save the planet. We must take radical steps now or it will be too late, she says. If it was all that important they should step up now, lead by example. Oh yeah leave your car behind, as another part of this is to get cars off the road. Ride the train, when you get to a passenger terminal get off the train and walk the rest of the way to your event. Show the rest of us how much you want to commit to stop using fossil fuels.

No these people are not going to take the train, they will instead continue to use jets to continue their campaigning. Nor will they give up travel by car. No they will instead keep using fossil fuels while preaching to the rest of us we must give up the use of fossil fuels. Sort of like the last group of environmental wackos preaching to us that we were destroying the planet, while going to their environmental summits in passenger jets or in some cases private jets. Yep, they too were preaching that we have to change our habits.

If you take the White House on the promise of this green new deal will you commit right now to getting rid of the fleet of Presidential Aircraft? Will you commit right now to getting rid of all the aircraft used by diplomats, agency heads and the rest right now if you win?

I did not think so.

So just when does this 12 year doomsday clock start ticking? 2020? 2032? Maybe never? They gave up on their 10 and 5 year clocks. Back when I was in elementary school(1960’s)they said that a new ice age was coming. The new ice age never arrived.

As for this high-speed rail system, it is over a one hour drive for me just to get to the nearest Amtrak station. If I even wanted to take a train, which I do not, I would have to walk for hours if not days if I were deprived of my truck. I might also point out that much of the land here in North Central Florida and indeed this Republic is not suitable for train tracks of any type let alone high-speed rail.

So you want everybody that wants a job to have a good paying government job. Looks like your plan blasts right through socialism and goes to full-blown communism. For every one to have a government job then the government would have to control everything, the means of production all the way to the means of distribution. You also want them to be union jobs. Why union jobs? Could that be a part of you plan because you green new deal will cost a lot of union jobs? Much of the auto manufacturing industry as well as the airline industry are good union dues paying members. You still must protect the unions.

Okay so you want to save the planet. Could you please tell me what providing a free college education to all has to do with saving the planet? Like wise could you tell me what free health care(Medicare for all)has to do with saving the planet? This guaranteed wage thing needs also to be explained.

Someone once said “Green is the new Red”. Some one also said “A communist is just an impatient socialist”.

Some, if not most, on your side claim that President Trump and the GOP are out of touch with the citizens of this nation and the values of this Republic. You, I dare say, are out of touch with reality.

Again I ask this, Is it too late for a divorce.

DEO VINDICE

How far will they go? Part one

For this part of this post I will use some parts of some historical speeches and yes I am going to cherry pick.
June 5th 1788, a speech by Patrick Henry…There are many on the other side, who, possibly may have been persuaded of the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force you are inevitably ruined… The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, if it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves are gone; and have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America….

June 7th 1788 another speech by Patrick Henry… That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages… It is on a supposition that our American Governors shall be honest, that all good qualities of this Government is founded: But its defective, and imperfect construction, puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men: And, Sir, would not all the world, from the Eastern to the Western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad. Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty? I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt….

It was not all that long ago that California Congress critter and another gentleman got into an “exchange” over a gun confiscation scheme. The congress critter implied that the people would simply obey the law, and the gentleman said there would be a civil war. I know you have heard seen or read about this, but again bear with me. The congress critter said it would be a short-lived war the U.S. has nukes. Things went wild around the internet over the implied use of nukes on Second Amendment supporters. I think the congress critters implication was that we would obey willingly or force would be used to bring us into compliance. Words have meaning and those were the words of a petty tyrant. The two things I took from the congress critters statement was:
1. The government under democrat control would contemplate or attempt a gun grabbing scheme, one like a voluntary buy-back program. Which is not meant to be voluntary by any means, you would participate(comply)or else.
2. The or else, is the use of government force and the infliction of penalties to make one wish they had “voluntarily” complied.

More recently there was yet another California congress critter that said he would like to limit speech, but the First Amendment prevented him from doing that. What he said is troubling to say the least, but I do admire his honesty. At least he did say that the Constitution did prevent him from doing this, However, I doubt seriously he would have the same mind-set about anything he could do to infringe on the Second Amendment, which is also a part of the Constitution. Again the words of a petty tyrant.

Which brings me to ask these questions. Is there a swearing-in ceremony for congress critters? If there is a swearing-in ceremony, do they swear(affirm)to protect and uphold the entire Constitution? Perhaps they only swear(affirm)to defend and uphold only the parts of the Constitution they, their party, their donors and their base supports. Perhaps they do not give a tinker’s damn about the Constitution and only mouth the words, you know with their fingers crossed.

this goes for women too, would not want to appear sexist

So why is it that this Republic is inching closer and closer to socialism? Hint, it aint changing demographics.

It was once said that if socialism/communism were ever to come to this land it would come by way of the ballot box. In this recent election how many socialists were running for office? How many socialists were elected? How many socialists were re-elected? Don’t get me wrong I do read and laugh my tail off when the memes are posted poking fun at the young woman, the self-declared democratic socialist, from New York who was elected to congress. But here is a news flash, she is going to congress where she and those like her will be legislating for the next two years, legislating over the entire country. In two more years will she and those like her be voted out of office? Will she and those like her be re-elected? Will even more like them be elected in 2020? Think about this, we will be and are paying socialists from the national treasury(tax dollars)to legislate over a free country.

The circus during and surrounding the Supreme Court Justice confirmation showed just how many clowns there are in congress. So now we are going to be governed by clowns as well as socialists. If Patrick Henry could see what our government has become, I believe he would say “I told you so”.

Not all leftists are in the democrat(socialist)party there is likely more than a handful or two in the republican party. It was once said that there is not a dimes worth of difference between a democrat and a republican when it comes to politicians. Think about this it makes news when a politician changes party affiliation and the party gaining welcomes them with open arms. If a republican switches to democrat does he/she abandon the principles they once stood for or said they stood for? The same goes for a democrat switching to a republican. Is it just a uni-party when it comes to politicians? It seems that assimilation is not a problem for a politician.

Without a doubt the democrats that will control the House of Representatives come Noon on the 3rd of January will continue to push their anti-gun agenda. They will seek to continue their push for their so-called “common sense” gun control measures. As I see it, there is with a high degree of probability that they will attach their schemes to “must pass” legislation, like funding bills. How many so-called republicans will join them, you know in a bi-partisan fashion?

I do have suspicions of any government that would want the citizenry disarmed. I also have suspicions of any government that would seek to limit(curtail)if not outright take away any of our Constitutional Rights.

So to answer the question, How far will they go? The leftists will go as far as they can possibly get away with, inching ever closer to socialism.

To answer the question, Why is this Republic inching closer to socialism. Oddly enough the answer lies in the 60’s and 70’s, possibly even before. The 60’s and 70’s did provide us with some great music. Even the protest songs of that by-gone era were and still are better than the noise they try to pass off as music these days. Still listen to and enjoy the music.

But like most things, there are two sides. The same goes for the music of the 60’s Hello Viet Nam, written by Tom T. Hall and performed by Johnny Wright. This song has some truth in the lyrics.

America has trouble to be stopped
We must stop Communism in that land
Or freedom will start slipping through our hands.

I hope and pray someday the world will learn
That fires we don’t put out will bigger burn
We must save freedom now, at any cost
Or someday, our own freedom will be lost.

I have nothing but the highest respect for all who served in Viet Nam, for each and every one of you I am forever grateful.

Back to the lyrics of Hello Viet Nam. Communism was not stopped in that land. Freedom is slipping through our hands. The world did not learn. The fires are burning bigger. Freedom was not saved. Someday our freedoms might be lost.

Back to the congress critter wanting to limit speech. Actually congress does not have to legislate laws to silence the opposition to the leftists, that messy business can be handled by the tech giants and the current gambit of social media platforms.

Back to the “exchange” concerning a civil war for just a moment. No on second thought I will save this for the next part.

DEO VINDICE

If…

criminals(men and women)will not obey the Law and Word of God, then what could ever possibly make anybody think that they will obey the law and word of mankind? God already said “Thou shall not murder. Another mass shooting(murder)and more calls and demands for gun-control.

The left as well as those who favor gun-control push what they call “common sense” measures. The problem is that those measures will only apply to law-abiding citizens, they will not apply to the criminal element in our midst.

Look at it this way, when permits to carry are denied to law-abiding citizens they simply do not carry. The criminal has no intention of applying for a carry permit, in fact the criminal will carry and would carry no matter what the law says or does. The only thing accomplished here is that a person who could have been “allowed” to have in possession a means to prevent himself from being a victim was instead “allowed” to be come a victim.

It is one thing to have the means and capability to defend oneself or another and choose to not exercise that option. It is quite another when one is denied the means to defend oneself or another leaving them no option.

At this point I am going to have to admit ignorance, I am at least partially ignorant of the laws particular to California as to where a person can carry or can not carry. As a matter of fact on that point I do not know all of the laws of the other 48 states or D.C. either. At this point in time there is no need for me to know the gun laws in or of the other 49 states or D.C. as there is no chance in the foreseeable future of me venturing out of the state of Florida, so I shall remain blissfully ignorant. Even if I were to leave the state of Florida there are some states I would avoid like the plague based on what little I do know of your gun laws.

What I do know are the gun laws that pertain to Florida as well as the Federal Laws. I know where I can carry and where I can not carry. When I do have to visit a place where I can not carry I conduct my business and depart. If a business I visit has a no gun policy, I simply turn and walk away never to revisit. He/she made their choice and I made mine. My point here is that I follow the law, and this is exactly what the criminal element counts on. They count on us to follow the law.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of these mass shootings(murders)are conducted in the shooters(murderers)home state, home town, nearby town or at the very least a state the murderer is very familiar with. If the murderer is in his/her home state then it is very likely that he/or she knows the laws for that state or at least some of them. The same is true if the murderer is in a state they are familiar with. Operating in familiar territory has advantages, for instance these mass murderers want “big numbers”. They will not achieve “big numbers” if they choose a target in which the intended victims have a means to fight back. There is a reason why these mass murders never happen at or are even attempted at a “cop shop”. They want a “soft” target they do not want a “hard” target, they do not even want a target of unknown softness or hardness. They will pass up hard, possibly hard, possibly soft just to focus on a “known soft” target.

The murderers use the law to their benefit(advantage)in racking up numbers. It is not the tool(gun)that gives them the advantage, what gives them the advantage is the lack of opposition.

Now is a good time to bring up few points.

First, the criminal element does not give one hoot about the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact they see the Second Amendment as a hinderance to their criminal enterprise. An armed populace is the last thing they want and what they fear most.

Second, the criminal element is probably and most likely among the gun-control cult. The more restrictions that can and will be placed on the law-abiding public means that there are fewer obstructions for the criminal element to overcome. The criminal element is probably the loudest voice in the gun-control cult.

Third, the common sense gun control measures they push benefit the criminal element while they only effect and burden the law-abiding citizens.

Fourth, the ones bank-rolling this cult do so with armed, heavily armed, security at their side or at least very near. You can bet that what restrictions they want placed on the public will not apply to them.

I do have to wonder about the motivation of any government at any level that would start legislating away the rights and liberties of the population. They promise more security if you give up a little liberty. A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin goes something like this, “Any society that will give up a little liberty for little security will deserve neither and lose both”. But even with the promise of increased security they have admitted that nothing can stop all of these mass murders. Yet their favorite mantra is “We just did not go far enough”.

Let us look at some of their common sense measures.
A national registry of firearms. Historically speaking this had led to disaster for the population registering their personal firearms. Registration leads to confiscation, even if only of political opponents. It would be difficult to confiscate firearms unless one were to know where they were and who had them.
Universal background checks. Each time you buy a firearm from a FFL you must do the paperwork and pass a background check.
Close the gun show loophole. One can not close what does not exist. If you want a background check done on all firearm sales, including private(between individuals)just say it.
A ban on the AR and AK platforms, which will morph into a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, which will morph into a ban on a semi-automatic anything, which will morph into a ban on their next “demon” until we are left with nothing but sticks and rocks.
A gun violence tax. A per bullet tax. A gun buy-back. A background check to by ammunition. Limits on magazine capacity. Bans on bump-fire stocks. The list just goes on and on.

Please note that none of the above will affect the criminals in the least.

In the past they claimed they did not want to stop us from hunting, sport shooting or target practicing, well that was pretty generous of them considering. But it was not all that long ago they said they thought it was time to repeal the Second Amendment.

We now wait to see what laws are shoved down the throats of law-abiding gun owners in the states now in control and those that will be in the control of the anti-gun left.

We are living in interesting times.

DEO VINDICE

Tugging at heartstrings

Again the left uses a tried and true scheme to influence public opinion, using emotion over logic. The latest outrage from the left comes courtesy of illegal immigration. It seems that children are separated, or were being, from their parents(mothers mainly)at the southern border. This happens when and because the “parents” cross the border illegally with children.

They even stoop to using a false(manufactured)picture on the cover of a liberal leftist “rag”, the one showing a crying child looking up at the President while the President looks down on the crying child. Again it is all about the children.

The left is once again “worried” about the children. They claim it is inhumane to separate children from their mothers. They claim that common sense gun reforms(restrictions placed on law-abiding citizens)will protect the children from murderers(non-law-abiding people). They care not about children whether inside or outside of the womb, what they do care about is their socialist/communist leftist agenda. They care not about children, private property rights or borders, if they did they would not be socialist/communist leftists.

The “children” crossing the southern border face unlimited/untold dangers(exposure to harsh elements, rape, human trafficking and such). If the leftists really cared about those “children” they would demand that a border wall be constructed. The children would not be placed in danger while making that long arduous journey, there would be no way in except through authorized entry points.

Look at some of the benefits at a wall along the southern border. It would cut down on illegal drugs entering this country. It would cut down on undesirables(gang members and other criminals)entering this country. It would benefit and protect the children they would face less dangers.

Entering/attempting to enter this country is an unlawful act, those who commit unlawful acts are usually detained. The illegals crossing the border illegally are placed in detention centers while they wait for disposition. Children are separated from adults at hose centers as a protection for the child. If one crosses illegally with a minor, the minor is separated from the adult as a precaution while things get sorted out, if the child is the offspring of the adult the separation is only temporary.

They even try tugging at the heartstrings of pro-life conservatives, they “worry” that the illegals that just happen to be pregnant are getting the pre-natal care they so desperately need. They have a “concern” for the unborn and the mother all the sudden. Since when did the leftists care one iota about the unborn.

Show that you really care about children. Build the wall. Protect the children, do not place expectant mothers in harm’s way. You have to do this for the children, As you say if it saves even one life it is worth it.

Prove you care. You do care don’t you? Come on leftists do it for the children you claim to want to protect.

DEO VINDICE

This is going to get ugly

The left is unhinged and is rapidly becoming totally unhinged. Where has the civility gone? The left has no idea of how to conduct themselves in a civilized manner. Many thought they were just “blowing off steam” after Donald J. Trump was elected President, and they would finally just accept that fact and move on. They are never going to accept that fact and they get can not get past the fact that HRC is not president. It is already ugly and is only going to get uglier.

A so-called comedienne who referred to the daughter of the president as a “feckless cunt”, many thought that funny. A washed-up actor referred to a female cabinet member as a “gash”, and again many thought that funny. In years past the democrats were claiming that the republicans were waging a “war against/on women”. I guess now we know who has the least amount of respect for women.

The President’s Press Secretary was denied service and asked to leave because the owner of the restaurant has differing political views. So now are we expected to believe it has become appropriate to deny service based on political views? The Secretary of DHS was forced to leave a restaurant because of protesters. Has it now become appropriate to protest a person trying to have a quite dinner with their family?

I might point out that both the Press Secretary and the Secretary of DHS are both women and it was the left that showed once again they can not be civil. Again tell me just who is against women.

One of the protesters at the eatery chosen by the Secretary of DHS was identified as a current employee of the DOJ. Are there no standards of conduct for government employees?

The antifascist left made their way to the scene after the election of President Trump, claiming the president to be a fascist. They set about rioting in the streets, destroying property and creating all sorts of mayhem. They claim to be antifascist yet they act in the most fascist manner. They have attacked both verbally and physically those who have a different political view. They have shut down many free speech events because of a differing view.

A political has-been(political hack)from a previous administration has come right and said that the Cabinet should turn against the President. He may as well have called for a mutiny against the President.

A leftist talking head(political hack)has come out and said that if the voters support President Trump, they are the problem, not Trump but his supporters. He as much as said that the ones who support and vote for President Trump are Nazis.

Yet another political has-been(political hack)from a previous administration came out with a tweet showing a picture of the entrance to a Nazi concentration camp. Saying something to the effect, there was another country that had separated children from their mothers. Again a comparison to Nazis.

A sitting member of Congress from the House of Representatives has come out in support of the events at the eateries above and says more like those need to be happening. From my interpretation of what she was saying she was actually encouraging these acts, even saying more like them should happen. Saying as much as when ever a member of the Trump administration is encountered they should be heckled and driven away from eateries, gas stations and where ever they are encountered. Some, if not most, on the left are going to see this as their “call to action”, their license if you will.

This will at some point get out of control.

We need not be wasting our time with challenges as to what would have happen if the right had acted like this towards the previous administration. We on the right manage to conduct ourselves in a civil manner, something they are incapable of doing. We do need to come to the realization that the left operates on hatred. They hate President Trump and will transfer that hatred to his supporters.

DEO VINDICE

Now they try this

The gun control cult will try anything to get us to relinquish our rights as owners of firearms. They now go to the church and try to shame Christians. They use the same old tactics and spread the same lies(drivel)but now some in their cult are doing it from the Church.

Came upon a post in the WordPress reader this morning, not one that I follow and have never seen it before but the title grabbed me so I read it, glad I did. The post is entitled Guns as Idolatry posted on the 28th. I did not link to it and I will sure as heck not re-blog this one. In this case paraphrasing his words would not do so his is word for word. His words are his words my words are my words. We need to know where these people(hide)are and what they do. This individual claims to be a Youth Pastor, and in his words has been one all of his life. Personally I would not let my children anywhere near this man. He put it out there I am obliged to respond.

I will admit when I saw the title I had my suspicions of where this post would lead, just by the title. Even with that suspicion I did read the whole post through, which is something this man will not do when or if he comes across this post being my response. He will stop as soon as he realizes I am on the opposite side.

Well here it is.

(His words)I have to admit, I grew up loving all types of guns. I was the typical full-blooded American boy. I could turn anything into a gun. Give me a stick, it’s a gun. Give me a pile of Lego’s and guess what I would always create . . . a gun! And then Star Wars came out and I wanted to be Han Solo with a laser gun strapped to my waist. Every young boy is fascinated with guns. But this is the realm of fantasy, whether it is imitating a cowboy, a sci-fi space pirate, a gangster or a cop. My teen years were even more influenced by the way of the gun to solve problems through the cinematic influences of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis. There are no aliens, terminators, Nazi’s, Russian’s, or bad guys that a good gun with an all-American superhero could not stop.

He referenced a “good gun”. So I think his point was it was “fantasy” to believe a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, not sure because of the wording he used. It is not fantasy that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. It is however under reported. It is under reported because the MSM has become the propaganda arm of the leftist gun control cult. If they believe it to be fantasy, why do they always call the cops, the cops are the good guys and they bring guns, sometimes they bring their friends with their guns. So stop living in a fantasy world by calling the cops every time a bad guy comes into someone’s life. By the way the vast majority of Civilians are also good guys, they also have friends, I have heard no complaints when a good guy “civilian” stops a bad guy when he/she comes into someone’s life.

(His words)Unfortunately our country is in a moral quandary with the fact that we are seeing more and more actual gun violence playing out in real-life America. It is getting to the point where it seems like every week we are introduced to another news story of someone taking out their grievances by using guns on innocent victims. Whenever this happens it seems like a majority of Americans are broken by the cycle of violence that we seem to find ourselves in. And yet there seems to be a small but powerful segment of America that digs their heals in and praises the 2nd Amendment despite all the gun violence we are experiencing as a nation. Now I have no problem if someone chooses to own a gun for the purposes of hunting or home protection. But what I am witnessing is that the gun has become a form of idolatry within our country. When the “right” to own certain types of weaponry trumps the lives of innocent victims, I have a problem with that, especially with those who claim to be apart of the community of Christians.

Here he “comes out” to reveal what I suspected from the start. In true leftist fashion he is blaming the gun not and not the person. The violence you blame on the Second Amendment would be much greater without the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was not written so we could hunt. Just for your education the Second Amendment was written because of the following and it comes to us straight out of the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms July 6, 1775. One of the Founding Documents of this country you claim as being in a quandary.

The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure the dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligations of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.

That, Sir, is why we have the Second Amendment. It was not deer, rabbits or squirrels that confined those people to that town. Nor was it the aforementioned animals that denied them their most valuable effects. Now as to idolatry, I have yet to pray before anything but the Lord, never have never will. You seem to think a person can not own a firearm and still worship the Lord.

(His words)I will be straight up, I have never owned a weapon. I can’t justify it theologically, nor do I feel that I would want to bear the responsibility to own one. With kids in my home and working as a pastor, I see that owning a weapon would be hypocritical to what I believe. First of all, I am not a hunter. I have no problem with those who choose to do so, but this born-and-raised suburbanite could not find the will to kill any of God’s creation. I couldn’t do it. I will leave that task up to people who have a stomach for that type of thing.

He has never owned a weapon, if he had he would know that guns do three things; 1 they work 2 they don’t work 3 they rust. He we go with the leftist drivel, he could not justify owning one. Why is it that the left always want justification for owning a firearm. How about this for justification, because I want to, not mention what happened in Boston in 1775. He thought he would be a or seen as a hypocrite if he owned one being a pastor and having children around. He also points that he is not a hunter but has no problem with those that do. Here we go again with the hunting thing. Being a born and raised suburbanite he could not muster the will to kill any of God’s creation, didn’t have the stomach. More on this as the post unfolds.

(His words)Have I ever shot weapons for sport? Absolutely! I have been to gun ranges. I have shot clay pigeons. And I actually enjoy the sport of paintball in that you can actually play games against each other without death and carnage occurring. I grew up on video games with digital guns (especially Goldeneye!), and I loved movies with lots of guns, superheroes and villains.

Here he brings up weapons for sport been to the range and has shot clay pigeons, interjecting the sports shooting thing the left is famous for. He fails to mention if he had a range safety course, safe handling of firearms. So he enjoys the sport of paintball, pointing out that you can actually play games against each other without actually causing death and carnage, pretend death and carnage. He grew up on video games with digital guns and loved movies with lots of guns, superheroes and villains. I would point out that maybe we should have never made a game of killing. This goes back to the responsibility issue, one is not held responsible for what they do in a game, you can make all the mistakes you want and just say “oops”. No punishment no penalty.

(His words)But there is a difference between fantasy and reality. Our country has a huge obsession with weapons and we fail to see the benefit to having a conversation about how we can best protect the greater good of people and still respect responsible gun owners. We desperately need to have this conversation. Instead, we see the NRA, backed by some of its supporters, constantly raising the warning that the government is coming to take you guns away and destroy the 2nd amendment. This simply is fear-mongering at its worst. And what is the purpose of such fear mongering? To sell more weapons. The NRA played this card all throughout the Obama administration. Any suggestion to talk about gun violence and gun safety was always met with cries that they are coming for your guns! Now that our own kids who are victims of gun violence are speaking up they are being called out as terrorists and liberals.

Wow. We have been trying to talk to them, we have talked to them until we are blue in the face. They are the ones who refuse to talk, they only make demands. In true leftist fashion attacks the NRA. Accusing them of fear mongering. As for them coming for our guns and trying to destroy the Second Amendment, maybe he missed the op-ed written by a former Justice of the Supreme Court when he offered his opinion that it was time to repeal the Second Amendment. Maybe he missed the interview where the “queen of confiscation” said if she could have gotten enough votes in the Senate it would have been “Turn then in Mr. and Mrs. America, turn all of them in”, I believe she mention the number 51. Not to mention many in his cult have come right out and said the same thing. I might point this out to the gentleman that the kids are not the victims of guns or gun violence(as you call it)they are instead the victims of other kids, violent kids. Was it an adult or one of those precious children that was shouting “Burn Her, Burn Her” at the NRA representative, Dana Loesch during the town-hall? Just who is it that resorts to name calling when they loser or begin to lose a debate? As to the obsession with guns he alluded to I will get to who is obsessed and with what later in this post.

(His words)I have heard tired and lazy arguments to blame everything else other than the easy access we have created within our culture to be able to get any type of weapon you want. It’s video games! It’s the entertainment industry! It’s medications! It’s mental health! It’s the breakdown of the family! It’s because we took God out of the schools (which actually is HORRIBLE theology of God’s omnipresence)! We want to blame everything else other than the fact that we have ridiculously easy access to weaponry that is designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time.

So he grows tired of the same argument we put forward as possible causes. He really proves how little he knows about guns. We can not just have anything we want, somethings are totally prohibited and something require a special tax and approval just to possess making them out of reach for the average citizen. Of course he blame the easy access to firearms, yet above he admitted to never owning a firearm, therefore he has no direct knowledge of it being either easy or difficult. Again just regurgitating what he has been feed, which is a line of crap.

(His words)So, being that I have never gone through the process of actually owning any type of weapon, I propose the following if it is not already law:
1.Buying a gun should have a process that is similar to getting a driver’s license. One should have to get a license to own a weapon. I understand that this is the case but there are still loopholes in which people can buy weapons without going through this process. Recently a news story showed an underage boy trying to buy cigarettes, alcohol and pornography at a local convenient store and got denied in all three instances. But then they took him down to a gun show where within minutes he walked away with a high-powered weapon. He was a 13 year old.
2.Which brings me to my second point, the age of owning a gun needs to go up to 21. Now that we better understand the brain development of teens, and their ability to be impulsive without thinking thorough the consequences of their actions, we should not be providing them with weapons that kill. Give them time to develop and grow. They need to earn the responsibility to own a weapon.
3.When a teenager causes a death that was influenced by being under the influence of alcohol the parents are held responsible if the alcohol came from their home. I am tired of mindless parents of school shooters having no clue that their kid was into said violence. This is not responsible gun ownership or parenting. They need to start bearing the responsibility for the actions of their child/teen. Having high-powered weaponry easily available to their kids is the height of irresponsibility. We hear a lot about “law-abiding” gun owners but let’s talk about RESPONSIBLE gun owners instead. If your kids uses your guns to shoot up a bunch of innocents then you lost your responsibility to own guns and you should be held accountable for the consequences.
4.There needs to be a national gun registry. We need to be able to track where weapons have come from and hold those people responsible. The government already knows what vehicles I own and apparently anyone can pull up a CarFax to know the history of my cars. Why can’t this be done within the context of weapons?
5.The CDC needs to be able to study gun violence. Why would we not want this? And the bigger question is why would the NRA prevent this from happening? The more we know, the better equipped we will be to tackle this plague of gun violence within our country.
6.One should have to have a certain amount of recorded training in order to own a weapon. My teens have to go through 50 hours of driving experience with a licensed adult in order to qualify to take their driving test! Why can’t we require this type of training before one can own a gun?
7.I am tired of our politicians being owned by special-interest lobbies, in this case, the NRA. The NRA bears some of the responsibility for where we have found ourselves because they stoke the flames of fear that people are trying to eradicate the 2nd Amendment and do all they can to prevent legitimate research that would help us know more about when, where and why gun violence is happening. We need to vote out politicians who accept money from the NRA and ignore the voices of those who voted them in. I have not found one quote in which someone wants to eradicate the 2nd amendment. I want gun owners to be responsible and not cave in to the constant fear-mongering of the NRA. Is it just me, or is it not so obvious that this constant fear-mongering helps to sell more guns which benefits the gun manufacturers? Someone is becoming ridiculously rich off all this fear mongering. Why do people cave into this so easily? Is it just plain ignorance, gullibility, or naivety? There is no doubt in my mind that we have experienced a “dumbing-down” in America. Have we just become that stupid that we do not see when we are being played?

Well, looky here he never has been through the process of buying firearm, yet above he said it was ridiculously easy. He aint even sure if what he suggests is a law or not, Lordy.
Point 1. Truth is it is far easier to get a driver’s license than to get approved to purchase a fire arm, in some of the leftist states they will allow anybody a to get a driver’s license even if they are in this country illegally. Are you sure you want to lower the standards? Besides a drivers license is a privilege while owning a firearm is a right. So if he suggests having a license to exercise rights, would he be okay with getting a license to exercise his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh or Eighth? Thirdly he mentions the mythical loophole the left say exists, for the umpteenth time there is no loophole. Fourthly, Good God, man, crimes were committed was anybody arrested. There was at the least conspiracy in his news story, conspiracy to corrupt a minor. Was the fellow who sold the gun to the 13-year-old arrested? Did this even happen, come on? News reporters do not have the right to commit crimes to prove a point or get a story. I do hope that if this real you had the common sense to report this to law-enforcement. There should be at least three people sitting in jail right now because of this, the two(at least two)people(you did say they)who were corrupting the minor and the one who sold him the gun(I say sold because based on experience there is nothing available at a gun show for free). He accuses the NRA of fear mongering. What does that say about his first point, fear mongering?
Point 2. Did the brain development of teens slow down over time, their brains developed just fine a few years back. Just how, pray tell does one earn responsibility? Did he mean right? Besides if the age limit was raised to 21 you next would demand 25.
Point 3. His third point is going to cause a boom in the construction industry. Never once did he mention punishing the child for his crime. He qualified the drunken kid excuse with statement if the alcohol came from their home. He knows full well that there is no way to prove when much less where the child got snockered. He further claims that he is tired of mindless parents of school shooters having no clue that their kid was into said violence, saying this was not responsible gun ownership or parenting. They need to start bearing the responsibility for the actions of their child/teen. He went on claiming the height of irresponsibility was having high-powered weaponry easily available to their kids. He is also tired of the talk about law-abiding gun owners, he wants to talk about RESPONSIBLE gun owners. He then says, if your kids uses guns to shoot up a bunch of innocents then you just lost your responsibility to own guns and you should be held accountable for the consequences. Wow, where to start? I will just say for now that he wants the parent and the gun to be responsible. He fails to hold the child/teen/kid accountable. Perhaps he does not understand that law-abiding gun owners are responsible gun owners. Once again he uses the word responsibility where I think he meant to use the word right. So if his kid were to kill someone while he/she was driving and texting he would lose his responsibility(right)to own a car and a cell phone. Better build more prisons.
Point 4. His fourth point is that we need a national gun registry, because he has to register his cars and apparently anyone can pull up a Carfax on his car and know the history of it and he wants to know why this can not be applied in the context of guns. I could point that historically speaking gun registries have spelled disaster, but instead I will use this. Would he be happy registering all of his effects with the government? Given the hacks on information, he might just be uncomfortable if some nefarious person would gain access to what he has, you know just in case they wanted it? Then they could just enter Stuff Fax. And again driving is a privilege owning a firearm is a right.
Point 5. he thinks we need a study by the CDC and he accuses the NRA of trying to prevent this. He wants this study because the more we know the better we can tackle this plague of gun violence. He might just not like the results when the results of that study comes out, provided they were to conduct an honest study and our side is proven right.
Point 6. Has he never heard of hunters safety courses? I might also mention the NRA has partnered with others to provide firearms training. Even with the training required to become a licensed driver children still die, far more children are lost to motor vehicle accident than to what he calls gun violence.
Point 7. His biggest beef is with the politicians who get financial support from the NRA. He wants all NRA backed politicians backed by the NRA voted out. He also claims the NRA bears some of the responsibility for where we have found our selves because they stoke the flames of fear. He says, He has not found one quote in which someone wants to eradicate the Second Amendment. He must have missed the op-ed by the former Justice and the interview with the “queen of confiscation”. He wants gun owners to be responsible and quit caving into the fear mongering of the NRA. He goes on by asking several questions that I feel he should ask himself. Especially the one, on just plain ignorance, gullibility and naivety. He then states, There is no doubt that America has experienced a dumbing-down. Then he asks, Have we become that stupid that we can not see that we are being played? I have a question in response, just who has been dumbed-down? By reading your post, the entire thing I would say that the answer to the last question, in your case is yes.

(His words)And finally, the most disappointing thing I believe in all of this is that the church is not the leading voice in wanting to stop this carnage. We as Christians need to speak up louder against gun violence. This is a BIG pro-life issue! It is the height of hypocrisy to act so sanctimonious about life in the womb but ignore lives affected by gun violence. If you believe that there is a real devil who is out to destroy God’s creation then you have to see that he is celebrating our idolatry to weapons and reveling about each loss of life. The Bible teaches that he has come to kill, steal and destroy. If you are defending the current state that we find ourselves in you can not claim to be following the way of Jesus. Jesus is the Prince of Peace who told his followers to turn the other cheek, pray for your enemies, and to bless those who curse you. He was the very one who took on all the violence directed at him on the cross and defeated all his enemies through love, self-sacrifice, non-violence and resurrection. We are encouraged to pray “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven”. We are supposed to be ushering in a new way of life as a community that is radically different from the status-quo, yet the modern-day American church has unfortunately become a mere reflection of our culture. We have allowed empire worship to trump Christ worship and we don’t see the difference between the two.

So he thinks the time is right for the churches to come out for gun control, being the leading voice. I guess he never heard of the table being overturned and the money-changers being driven from the Temple.

(His words)I have been a youth pastor all my life. I am grieved beyond words for the kind of country we have created for our kids. We have been in a perpetual war ever since 9/11, we are spending ridiculous amounts on our military while Flint, Michigan still doesn’t have clean water and Puerto Rico doesn’t have full power. I honestly believe that we have become more of a reflection of the Biblical state of Babylon than the mythical “Christian nation” that some still believe. It is time we stop hunkering down to protect our “rights” and begin to break out of our selfishness and lust for power, and start thinking about what is best for the next generation of kids growing up. It is time to take our eyes off of the idols we have created and focus back on our kids who are dying. It is easy to read the Bible and be horrified that the Israelites got to the point where they were literally sacrificing their children to the god Molech. But I fail to see the difference between that and where we are at right now. We have more innocent Americans who have been murdered by gun violence within our country than service people in the line of duty! That’s just crazy and should be a big wake-up call for our entire country but especially the Church!

Where did he find those statistics?

(His words)So if you are a Christian and a gun owner, I would encourage you to advocate for sensible gun laws and consider what is best for the greater good of humanity. Think about your own children, think about your local schools, think about your communities. Every mass shooting has the same response: “I never thought it would happen here!” Why do we have to defend our rights until the violence comes to our own communities? Let’s come together as the body of Christ and be the kingdom that we are called to be and shake off the dirt of the Empire that we are entangled in.

Just another social justice warrior.

(His words)Lord have mercy on this nation.

His last statement is the only thing I can agree with him on. I cut my answer short on the last three, this post has gotten long, real long. If you are still here at this point I really appreciate it and thank you. I did it this way because I felt this should be exposed, again sorry about the length. Bear with me just a bit more.

I am nowhere near done with this, he has given me much ammunition.

If you attend Church and I hope that you do, please pay attention to the message being “preached”. This man claims to be a Youth Pastor, he is preaching to the kids. I am quite sure that he is not the only one.

DEO VINDICE

Just too far apart

Liberals and Conservatives can work things out through compromise(negotiation), truth is they have much in common. Their differences are not all that far apart. They just have to hammer out the finer details. The same is not true of the Left and the Right, they have nothing in common. There are no finer details to hammer out. When it comes to compromise(give and take)with the left they are willing to give nothing and are only interested in how much the right is willing to give them. That is their idea of give and take, taking anything the right is willing to give. The Right and the Left have nothing in common on any issue.

As stated above the Right and Left have nothing in common, no common ground. They, the Left, cant be negotiated with, they seek no compromise. Yet many on the right believe, and wrongly so, that they can work out the differences between the Right and the Left. Here is how the Left negotiates with the Right. We(the Left)are going to cut off one of your arms. Here is what the right does. They present the left or right arm to be cut off and then claim that at least they(the Right)saved the other arm, or say at least we(the Right)did not lose both arms. You simply cant negotiate like that, the correct response would have been “No you(the Left)are not, You(the Left)will cut neither arm off”. No negotiation. No compromise.

Look at what happened in Broward County as a direct result of the PROMISE program. Criminal behavior and acivity were decriminalized because of a supposed school to prison pipeline. There is no direct path from school to prison. To get to prison one must be convicted of a crime serious enough to be sent to prison, that means that law-enforcement was involved. Crimes were overlooked and as such there was no punishment for criminal acts or behavior, no law-enforcement involvement. It seems that too many school children were having run-ins with law-enforcement in Broward County, making the school district look bad. In other words some if not many students were not conducting themselves in a legal and lawful manner so the school district intervened. Because laws were not being enforced one POS was able to legally acquire a firearm, one which he would later use to do exactly what he threatened to do. So in this instance it was the Left that had a program that decriminalized criminal activities and then demanded that non-criminal activities be criminalized. Lost yet? Had the laws already in place been enforced the shooter would have in most likelihood been denied the purchase of a firearm. But sadly we will never know for sure. What we do know for sure is that each and every 18, 19 and 20 year-old(unless in the military or law-enforcement)in the State of Florida is being penalized for the actions of one, just one, 19 year-old. The Left demanded more gun control and the Right offered up the less that 21 year-olds, they can no longer purchase long guns without meeting certain criteria. In fact all Floridians were offered up, as now there is a waiting period to purchase long-guns(unless the customer holds a CCW license). The laws on the books were not being enforced and yet more laws were demanded and enacted. Great, just great.

How are these laws going to effect the elections here in Florida? The gun control legislation in Florida was enacted with the support of the republicans, here the republicans control both Houses and the Governors office. The republicans running for re-election are going to have some explaining to do. They were elected to serve the State, not to vote away the rights of its citizens. States that have enacted onerous gun control laws that are firmly in the hands of the leftist democrats have little to worry about. But Florida? Nationally?

One thing that happened as a direct result of the shooting at MSD in Parkland was that the gun control cult has finally been unmasked, and they did it themselves(though most of us have long suspected). They have come right out and said it is time for the Second Amendment to be repealed. So all of their talk about “common sense reforms” when it come to firearms in the hands of normal citizens was and is just that, talk. They do not seek anything less than total disarmament of the general population. The Left wants the population disarmed, the Right wants to keep and bear arms. There is no middle ground here, but again the Right believes they can negotiate and compromise.

One thing the Left always screams for a more background checks. We already submit to background checks to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer. They claim it is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But how good is a background check if the information is missing or inaccurate? If the young chap in Parkland had been arrested for his many episodes would he have been able to pass a background check? Would his butt have been sitting in jail or prison instead of taking those innocent lives?

So let us stick with background checks for just a moment. As far as legal immigration is concerned a person legally entering this country must pass a background check including a health screening and submit to several interviews. The same cant be said of illegals entering this country, there is no background check, no interview, no health screening, no nothing. When anybody and everybody is let in you have no idea who or what is among us. So the left does not really give a tinker’s damn about background checks.

The Left likes to promote and throw their idea of gun control(gun confiscation)in the country’s collective face, using the UK and Australia as an example.. The UK has some pretty restrictive gun laws. I am sure that by now most everyone has seen the video of the man with a knife keeping a large body of law-enforcement at bay. Even chasing them, first one then another. It looked a bit like an old Keystone Cops episode. Thing is the Keystone Cops were meant to be funny, you know poking fun. I was actually embarrassed for the UK police force, humiliating video. But even with the strict gun laws in the UK there are still reports of people getting shot. But in addition to people still getting shot they now have new threats, knives and acid. People being stabbed and most often being killed and acid attacks leaving the victims horribly disfigured. Not to mention the occasional motor vehicle being used as weapon. The city of London surpassed New York City in murders for two straight months. What is the Mayor of London concerned about? Fat food ads. Seems like not all that long ago NY city had a Mayor with similar concerns. Recently Australia, also having restrictive gun laws, suffered the first mass shooting in over two decades. Clever wording the report said first mass shooting not first shooting.

Back to America and the Leftist enclaves. If your so-called gun control laws worked the cities and states with the strictest gun laws would be the safest. The opposite is true, the cities with the strictest gun laws are the most violent and dangerous cities in this land. They are also the most crime infested. It is the law-abiding citizens who are the losers, while the criminal element enjoys the upper hand. Law-enforcement just cant keep up. I could not imagine being afraid to sit on my front porch at night because I might become the victim of a drive-by shooting. Nor could I imagine sitting in my house behind locked doors out of fear even in broad daylight. Criminals do tend to operate most effectively in areas where they will face the least resistance. The opposite is true, they tend to avoid areas where they don’t have the upper hand, facing resistance and possibly(most likely)armed resistance at that.

The Right can no longer foolishly believe that the Left can be reasoned with, negotiated with or compromised with. The time has come to say “No more”. Perhaps it is time to tell them to go piss up a rope. The left has renounced reason.

DEO VINDICE