Democrats more interested in disarming the law-abiding, seizing more power than reducing gun violence
There has been a drastic reduction in crime in the united States over the past 40 years, including violent crime, with and without assault weapons bans, primarily due to demographics and tougher sentencing. An aging population commits less crime. Americans reacted against the lax, criminal-coddling liberal Democrat laws and Supreme Court rulings of the late 1960s and early 1970s with more copy cats of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s tough anti-crime tactics than of hip hop gangstas.
Result, reductions in crime so drastic that while Chicago was awash with murders relative to the rest of the nation in 2012 with 532, that number is nearly half those committed in the Windy City every year of the early 70s.
What kind of people abide 55 million abortions?
How many PETA members are pro-life? Just asking because they are famous for opposing the killing of rodents and in watching one’s step lest one commit reckless ant-icide. But of course, if they had to buy Pampers on a regular basis, they might not be able to afford the BMW payments or the bus ticket required to get them to Oregon to plant tree-protecting spikes.
Before seven lawyers in robes opened a Pandora’s Box 40 years ago (that no Congress of We the People had broached since 1776) when the Supreme Court ruled for Roe against Wade on January 22, 1973, the United States won its Independence; abolished slavery; raised its and the world’s standard of living through free market capitalism and its oil, coal, electricity, automobile, airplanes and other fruits; defeated Fascists; and put a man on the moon. In other words, we dodn’t join Don Quixote in tilting at windmills (pictured).
Conservative principles that make the Party of Lincoln and Reagan grand must be defended daily by those nominated and elected under the GOP banner. We can’t assume that potential voters aren’t influenced by big liberal Democrat lies.
Yesterday, on fake Inauguration Day (as per the U.S. Constitution, President Obama took the operational Oath at Noon on Sunday, January 20), we got the more tepid post-re-election-mortem version of “Mitt Romney hated dogs before he aided and abetted Bain Capital job and health insurance loss homicides; Speaker John Boehner threatened to default on the Full Faith and Credit of the United States; and Republicans’ mammas wear Army boots.”
Conservatives and Republicans cherish the fact that their intellectual kin on talk radio, conservative websites and the “fair” portion of their Fair and Balanced Fox News Channel regularly refute caricatures of them regularly vomited from the lips of Democrats in Congress and the media. Sadly, our last GOP President deemed the Office too lofty for him to dignify Dirty Harry’s dirt and our last GOP nominee thought at least 47% of the electorate were un-persuadable. Turns out that an electoral majority emerged to re-hire the worst presidential steward of the economy since FDR, despite radio refutations and burgeoning food stamp rolls.
Conservatives who petition the White House empower his dictatorial inclinations and separation of powers grabs
White House now requires ‘We the People’ petitions to have 100,000 signatures for official response:
President Barack Obama’s deputies have quadrupled the number of signatures that petitioners on the administration’s “We the People” website must collect to get an official response from the White House, following a series of popular, provocative and disrespectful signature drives by his critics.
Some of the petitions sought approval for states to secede after Obama’s re-election, while others called on the White House to disavow executive orders that restrict gun rights, or to deport CNN’s British-born, progressive host Piers Morgan.
“Starting today, as we move into a second term, petitions must receive 100,000 signatures in 30 days in order to receive an official response from the Obama Administration,” said an early evening Jan. 15 statement from Macon Phillips, the White House’s digital strategy director.
We the People, and especially we the conservative people, ought to make more productive use of our time thc collecting signatures designed to elicit the opinion of Barack Hussein Obama. Would it matter if President Obama issued an “official” website response agreeing that Texas or South Carolina should secede from the Union or that Piers Morgan should be deported?
President Obama’s blindness to government spending problem, and insistence on ever more tax increases on the rich towards always moving fair share-goalposts, makes refusal of the Republican House to raise the debt ceiling an acceptable option.
In the wake of the 2010 tea partier conservative epic GOP mid-term election landslide that returned control of the House of Representatives to the party, this columnist urged Republicans to risk a government shutdown during the 2010 budget negotiations as more palatable than risking “default” during the likely debt ceiling battle the following year.
Only President Barack Obama can cause the U.S. to default on its sovereign debt, and congressional Republicans must make this fact clear to the American people before the current debt ceiling is reached.
And only by owning the definition of “default” does the minority party in control of only one house of Congress have any chance of using the debt limit debate to rein in the Democrats’ out of control spending, spur job-producing economic growth and win the political argument going into the next election.
Of course, the Republican House of Representatives can, under Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, refuse to authorize the borrowing of any additional money on the credit of United States, and thus impose the balancing of spending with tax receipts, i.e. “the budget”. In that event, the Executive Branch would have at its disposal only tax receipts to spend on all “obligations” of the federal government based upon current law including entitlements and “discretionary” spending covered by the continuing budget resolution still in effect. But tax receipts only cover approximately two-thirds of current budgetary obligations, with the discretion to prioritizing expenditures in the President’s hands, absent a new law setting such priorities that both sides would have to agree to; and of course, that won’t happen.