Disdain For The US Constitution?
Or Disdain for A Tyrant?
George W. Bush wasn't a saint but Barack Insane Obama makes him look like he is the best thing since sliced bread. I disdain a tyrant, or anyone in a position of authority, who acts like one. You're seeing one upfront and personal anytime Obama speaks America. I have to take a break at times to catch my political breath ever since Obama assumed office. He makes Bush look boring with his outrageous conduct, speech and narcissistic personality.
Obama gives new meaning to the term "political theater." He uses his props, be they doctors, fire fighters, law enforcers and very young children in his pathetic demagoguery. He is shameless in his acting like he is incensed with the way the world is. You go ahead Obama because only people stupid enough to be continually misled and lied to listen to a thing you say at this point. You have destroyed your own credibility by yourself without too much assistance from anyone else.. This is going somewhere as usual so keep reading.
Facts are facts and what we see concerning gun control legislation is misguided political crapola. There is not one thing in any of his proposals, or the US Senate's proposals, that will contribute to a NOT having a repeat of Aurora, Colorado or Sandy Hook in Connecticut. Short of gun confiscation , which may apparently be the ultimate goal, there is nothing there that addresses changing the "culture of violence" that causes these misguided souls to do what they will do. His suggestion that no one cares about kids except himself and his party is pathetic political demagoguery. Then he plays the "save one just one life by his legislation" schtick goes over the edge.
The fact is that he has disdain for the US Constitution. If you think he was a Constitutional law professor I have a bridge that I'll sell you. So lets back up to this past Wednesday and see exactly what he said and review it. The language he used should concern anyone who values their freedom to repel tyranny when need be. I can actually hear King George III using this rationale.
Obama out in Colorado said any concerns about gun seizures and background checks being hand-in-hand as a means to achieve gun confiscation are empty theories. Really? A study of history and tyrants and the disarmament of the populace dispute that Obama. The Second Amendment is what it is and says what it says for a specific purpose even though Obama sees it as an inconvenience in achieving his means.
His specific language is worrisome in light of what we know about history and tyrants and governmental tyranny. Now here's the problem in a nut shell. This is what he said, "You hear some of these folks: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government. We can’t do background checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ The government’s us. These officials are elected by you. … I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place.”
Note that he siad he is constrained from getting his way by a system that the founding fathers put in place. That would be the United States Constitution. In particular the Second Amendment that had everything to do with dissuading a powerful central government from running over the citizenry and nothing to do with hunting. Just a little document standing between Barack Insane Obama and tyranny. Well DUH! You liberals getting his drift yet?
History makes Obama's rationale problematic. Yes, we do live in an elective Republic. This is a democratic republic and not a democracy so lets be clear on that issue. Tyranny is possible in a democratic republic despite what Obama just laid out there for the low information voters among us. Hitler was elected by the people's of Germany. Benito Mussolini used Italy's constitution to worm his way to the top. In the Gaza, how did Hamas obtain power? Take the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt right at this very moment and do a correlation. Get the picture?
So now understand this about your "rights." If what Obama, or any other tin horn dictator in the world wants to feed you, says is true you derive your rights from the government that the ignorant can elect by a majority of the ignorant. Our nation wasn't founded with that concept in mind. What that says is that if stupid people elect a politician(s) by a majority vote that they can trample all over our God given rights at their own whim. I say that is nonsense.
Our rights are guaranteed despite the actions of any government, not because of it. Our rights didn't come from "us" as Obama would have have you believe. They don't come down on high from any government but from God, your Creator or Nature or whatever you think created you.
The Founders Understood...
See Obama wants you to now believe that the government is "us." It's not. Those are our elected representatives who are supposed to do the will of the people, not what they think is best for us. They have it backwards with Obama leading the charge. Define a pure democracy and you will understand the flaws in Obama's argument. Even if we were a pure democracy we wouldn't have the right to stomp on the rights of anyone else. That's insanity. Is that what this nation has come to where we will tolerate insanity and utter nonsense while forfeiting our God given rights?
The Second Amendment is one of the pillars of The Bill of Rights. It was placed there to make sure that the people have the ability to deal with a tyrant. Obama's logic on Wednesday was Chum logic and misguided. Looking back at history and the control of a people's firearms should give you pause to realize where it leads. It's called fascism and oppression of the people. King George III couldn't get away with it. What makes Barack Insane Obama think he can?
"Vote It," "Like"It, "Tweet" It, "Pin " It, "Share It" With Your Followers. Time to let em read it and keep reading it.
The Frog Prince
Me? I Will Not Remain Silent! Ever!!!
More by this Author
Ineptocracy is the new system of government that Obama-Biden ushered in. It is a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society...