Our nation is in dire straits due to the endemic low caliber of the individuals we choose to represent us. The problem is that politics is a self-selecting system. If you want to succeed in politics, you must be willing to compromise everything, including your principles and values. If you are an individual who refuses to compromise on your principles and values (even though you may be willing to compromise on public policy matters) you will be virtually unelectable, and even if you do manage to get elected, you will be virtually powerless in the legislature since the only way you can ever get things done is to "play ball".
The fault lies with we common people. While we "commoners" are the last remaining bastion of courage, we are also the source of the corruption. We have allowed ourselves to buy into the leftist lies that government can solve all our wants and that our fellow citizens are legally obligated to provide for our needs. We have become the plebeians of ancient Rome who have sold out the Republic that was our birthright in exchange for the bread of an overbearing welfare state, the circuses of professional sports and reality television, and the rule of an imperial president. We ape the values of the jaundiced elites who sneer at "archaic" concepts like courage, fortitude, sacrifice, honor, and integrity. From a purview of the nightly news, reality television, and shock radio, it would appear that there is now little, if anything, that is beneath our dignity. How is it possible for us to choose individuals of quality when our own standards of conduct have become so debased?
The truly sad part is that since the courage of the statesman has failed us, I believe that we are rapidly approaching the point where we will be forced to depend upon the courage of the warrior. The common man of courage and integrity lacks influence in the halls of power. His principled vote to preserve the Republic is derided as "mean spirited" and overwhelmed by the selfish votes of his peers who form the entitlement peasantry. His letters to his representatives in the legislature begging them to do their Constitutional duty are replied to with polite and subtle scorn or are ignored entirely. The common man of courage and principle is being placed in a perilous position. Thanks to the selfish ignorance and apathy of his fellow citizens, the ballot box has failed him. Thanks to a sycophantic media and an arrogant government, the soap box has failed him. Thanks to a peremptory judiciary (along with the sheep-like compliance of a jury of his "peers"), the jury box has failed him. He is approaching a Rubicon in history where the only alternatives will be submissive acquiescence to the descent into so-called "benevolent" totalitarianism or to exercise the final option of the cartridge box. And all the bloodshed that will ensue could have been avoided had we stuck to the "outdated" principles of courage and honor.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
“Reasonable” Gun Control Has Nothing to Do with Reason
You often hear leftists of various stripes clamoring for more gun control. When those who value their rights resist such predations, the leftists respond that they only want “reasonable” gun control. There is, however, no such thing as “reasonable” controls on guns beyond prohibiting the unsupervised possession and use by the incompetent and untrustworthy.
Gun control is not about controlling guns. A gun is an inanimate object. As such, it is neither good, nor evil. It simply is. You can take a gun, load it, place it on a table in a room full of people, and it will not kill anyone without being picked up and used by some other one. Conversely, if that some other one sincerely wishes to kill anyone (in general or in particular), and no firearm is available, that person will merely find some other more primitive method to accomplish his ends. One of the reasons that progressives have such a problem with this distinction is that moral or ethical relativism has warped their simple liberal minds to the point where they are no longer capable of making a rational distinction between that which is good, that which is evil, and that which is neither. It is far easier to pat yourself on the back for being “non-judgmental” when you refuse to label malicious actions or predatory people as “evil”, and instead, apply the label of evil to an inanimate hunk of metal and wood.
Gun control is not about controlling crime. In the first place, only the most patently naïve could ever be so foolish as to sincerely believe that a sociopath who will disregard a prohibition on murder (which carries the most severe penalty of any crime in our society) will inexplicably obey a prohibition on the possession or criminal use of a firearm. People who talk about enacting prohibitions in order to ‘get firearms off the streets and out of the hands of criminals’ are either cynically dishonest or criminally insane. We see evidence of the real-world effects of gun prohibition on a regular basis. While the vast majority of the 50 states permit some form of concealed-carry by their citizens, unopposed mass public shootings still take place. If you look at the details of such mass shootings, you will note that they most often take place where lawful gun possession is prohibited. And when mass shootings do occur in “gun-free” zones, the victim count is invariably higher. The state of Virginia allows concealed carry, except on college campuses like Virginia Tech. And the state of Illinois’ complete prohibition of any type of carry (concealed or open) anywhere in the state obviously did not deter the shooter at the NIU campus. And soldiers are prohibited from carrying loaded guns on military posts for self-defense. That did not, however, prevent a soldier-turned-terrorist from committing mass-murder with a handgun he was prohibited from having. This pattern of attacks in victim-disarmament zones will never change because the criminal will always have the advantage in being able to choose the time and place of the crime. The victim does not get a say in when, where, and how he or she will be murdered.
In the second place, to ban guns because some people (most notably, a very small minority) misuse them is patently absurd. Why not ban sports cars because some people speed? Or why not ban all automobiles because some people drive while intoxicated? Because some people are thieves, maybe we should lock up everybody. The logic of the preceding suggestions is no different than the rationale for gun control.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ---Jeff Snyder
If progressives were sincere in their desire to reduce the number of violent crimes that involve the use of guns, they would support any approach that has been proven to achieve that result. Incarceration is logically supportable, simply from the fact that if a criminal is locked up, he is incapable of preying upon civilized society. (Of course, it goes without saying that he can still victimize his fellow inmates, but it is highly unlikely he will be able to obtain a firearm to further his goals.) However, with their endemic inability to objectively differentiate between good and evil, liberals find that locking up predatory felons for long periods of time is excessively cruel and unjust.
Gun control is about controlling the citizenry. Logically, this can be its only rational purpose. By definition, only the law-abiding actually abide by the law. Therefore, the legislators passed a law restricting the possession or use of a firearm under one of the three following premises: either 1) they passed it assuming it will be disobeyed by everyone, or 2) they passed it expecting it to be obeyed by everyone, or 3) they passed it knowing it would be obeyed only by the law-abiding and ignored by the criminals. The first assumption would be an exercise in folly, since to pass a law that no one obeys undermines respect for the law and the legitimacy of government. For the government to willingly and knowingly engage in such blatantly self-destructive behavior is very unlikely. The second expectation would also be equally foolish since it would require nothing short of inspired wisdom and divine intervention to compose a law so perfect in its from and function as to immediately inspire even the most incorrigible miscreants with the necessity of unwavering compliance. It is only the third assumption which is even remotely realistic in its expectations. In fact, original gun-control laws were enacted in order to keep blacks and other minorities in check.
The prohibition on practical self-defense accomplishes several progressive goals. First, it serves to make the average citizen fully dependent upon the state for protection, particularly when the criminal is faster, stronger, or numerically superior. This is particularly true for potential victims that are elderly, infirm, or weaker than their attacker. Second, it makes leftists feel good about themselves for sticking up for the downtrodden and misunderstood criminal element which they view as merely victims of an unjust society. If you think this is not true, ask yourself why leftists (particularly so-called ‘feminists’) express less outrage at the idea of a woman being violently raped and murdered than they do at the idea that that female might actually use a handgun to kill her rapist. And, last, but not least, it allows the agents of an ever larger, less representative, and more oppressive government advance their agenda without fear of reprisal or armed resistance. If you think this last statement sounds paranoid, please review some of the actions of the thugs in blue in post-Katrina New Orleans.
The words of those who founded this nation illustrate a true understanding of the place of the citizen in the political spectrum. “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” By modern progressive standards, these are the words of a dangerous radical. The man who spoke those words is obviously the kind of right-wing lunatic who would go to war against his own long-established government and even kill the agents of that government. That radical was George Washington, and those words were delivered in a speech he gave on January 7, 1790, as reported a week later in the “Boston Independent Chronicle”. Note that when he gave the speech, he was the government, serving as the President of the United States from 1789 to 1797. Had he uttered such words today, Mr. Washington would find himself on one or more DHS lists.
Washington’s words hit at the heart of the matter. The real reason for the right to keep and bear arms is defense of the person and liberty of the individual against all who would pose a threat, particularly the government. The history of the last 100 years is a history of people being killed by their own governments. The greatest threat to your life and your liberty comes from your own government. In nearly every single case (as the chart in the previous link illustrates) before being exterminated, the population was disarmed by being forced to register their guns. It is endemic of the leftist tendency to talk out of both sides of their mouths that liberals refer to such statements as "right-wing paranoia". Progressives do not believe in American exceptionalism (labeling such a belief as xenophobic or jingoistic), and they even denounce America as "evil," "racist," and "oppressive," yet they also claim (when the right to bear arms is mentioned as a measure to stop a genocidal government) that "it could never happen here."
That defense against the government is a primary reason for the right to bear arms is further proven by the endless clamoring to ban so-called “assault-weapons”. Semiautomatic rifles (i.e. “assault weapons”) have been around and available to the general public for over a century. In fact, prior to the 1934 National Firearms Act, even full-automatic weapons (i.e. machineguns) were completely unregulated by the government. Today, most states still allow private citizens to own and shoot machineguns, so long as all Federal NFA rules are obeyed. So why doesn’t the government see privately owned machineguns as a threat? It is because private machineguns are very rare due to being extremely heavily regulated and almost prohibitively expensive, with prices running into the tens of thousands of dollars or more. Semiautomatic firearms, by contrast, are far more affordable and are very popular with collectors, hunters, and shooters, yet they can still be highly effective in a paramilitary application, even against more advanced weaponry.
Regardless of whether it manifests itself as a registration scheme or as an outright ban on certain types of guns, the fact remains that "gun-control" = "citizen-control". So, if you want “reasonable” gun control, the question you have to ask yourself is “how much arbitrary government control over your life is ‘reasonable’?”
Gun control is not about controlling guns. A gun is an inanimate object. As such, it is neither good, nor evil. It simply is. You can take a gun, load it, place it on a table in a room full of people, and it will not kill anyone without being picked up and used by some other one. Conversely, if that some other one sincerely wishes to kill anyone (in general or in particular), and no firearm is available, that person will merely find some other more primitive method to accomplish his ends. One of the reasons that progressives have such a problem with this distinction is that moral or ethical relativism has warped their simple liberal minds to the point where they are no longer capable of making a rational distinction between that which is good, that which is evil, and that which is neither. It is far easier to pat yourself on the back for being “non-judgmental” when you refuse to label malicious actions or predatory people as “evil”, and instead, apply the label of evil to an inanimate hunk of metal and wood.
Gun control is not about controlling crime. In the first place, only the most patently naïve could ever be so foolish as to sincerely believe that a sociopath who will disregard a prohibition on murder (which carries the most severe penalty of any crime in our society) will inexplicably obey a prohibition on the possession or criminal use of a firearm. People who talk about enacting prohibitions in order to ‘get firearms off the streets and out of the hands of criminals’ are either cynically dishonest or criminally insane. We see evidence of the real-world effects of gun prohibition on a regular basis. While the vast majority of the 50 states permit some form of concealed-carry by their citizens, unopposed mass public shootings still take place. If you look at the details of such mass shootings, you will note that they most often take place where lawful gun possession is prohibited. And when mass shootings do occur in “gun-free” zones, the victim count is invariably higher. The state of Virginia allows concealed carry, except on college campuses like Virginia Tech. And the state of Illinois’ complete prohibition of any type of carry (concealed or open) anywhere in the state obviously did not deter the shooter at the NIU campus. And soldiers are prohibited from carrying loaded guns on military posts for self-defense. That did not, however, prevent a soldier-turned-terrorist from committing mass-murder with a handgun he was prohibited from having. This pattern of attacks in victim-disarmament zones will never change because the criminal will always have the advantage in being able to choose the time and place of the crime. The victim does not get a say in when, where, and how he or she will be murdered.
In the second place, to ban guns because some people (most notably, a very small minority) misuse them is patently absurd. Why not ban sports cars because some people speed? Or why not ban all automobiles because some people drive while intoxicated? Because some people are thieves, maybe we should lock up everybody. The logic of the preceding suggestions is no different than the rationale for gun control.
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ---Jeff Snyder
If progressives were sincere in their desire to reduce the number of violent crimes that involve the use of guns, they would support any approach that has been proven to achieve that result. Incarceration is logically supportable, simply from the fact that if a criminal is locked up, he is incapable of preying upon civilized society. (Of course, it goes without saying that he can still victimize his fellow inmates, but it is highly unlikely he will be able to obtain a firearm to further his goals.) However, with their endemic inability to objectively differentiate between good and evil, liberals find that locking up predatory felons for long periods of time is excessively cruel and unjust.
Gun control is about controlling the citizenry. Logically, this can be its only rational purpose. By definition, only the law-abiding actually abide by the law. Therefore, the legislators passed a law restricting the possession or use of a firearm under one of the three following premises: either 1) they passed it assuming it will be disobeyed by everyone, or 2) they passed it expecting it to be obeyed by everyone, or 3) they passed it knowing it would be obeyed only by the law-abiding and ignored by the criminals. The first assumption would be an exercise in folly, since to pass a law that no one obeys undermines respect for the law and the legitimacy of government. For the government to willingly and knowingly engage in such blatantly self-destructive behavior is very unlikely. The second expectation would also be equally foolish since it would require nothing short of inspired wisdom and divine intervention to compose a law so perfect in its from and function as to immediately inspire even the most incorrigible miscreants with the necessity of unwavering compliance. It is only the third assumption which is even remotely realistic in its expectations. In fact, original gun-control laws were enacted in order to keep blacks and other minorities in check.
The prohibition on practical self-defense accomplishes several progressive goals. First, it serves to make the average citizen fully dependent upon the state for protection, particularly when the criminal is faster, stronger, or numerically superior. This is particularly true for potential victims that are elderly, infirm, or weaker than their attacker. Second, it makes leftists feel good about themselves for sticking up for the downtrodden and misunderstood criminal element which they view as merely victims of an unjust society. If you think this is not true, ask yourself why leftists (particularly so-called ‘feminists’) express less outrage at the idea of a woman being violently raped and murdered than they do at the idea that that female might actually use a handgun to kill her rapist. And, last, but not least, it allows the agents of an ever larger, less representative, and more oppressive government advance their agenda without fear of reprisal or armed resistance. If you think this last statement sounds paranoid, please review some of the actions of the thugs in blue in post-Katrina New Orleans.
The words of those who founded this nation illustrate a true understanding of the place of the citizen in the political spectrum. “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” By modern progressive standards, these are the words of a dangerous radical. The man who spoke those words is obviously the kind of right-wing lunatic who would go to war against his own long-established government and even kill the agents of that government. That radical was George Washington, and those words were delivered in a speech he gave on January 7, 1790, as reported a week later in the “Boston Independent Chronicle”. Note that when he gave the speech, he was the government, serving as the President of the United States from 1789 to 1797. Had he uttered such words today, Mr. Washington would find himself on one or more DHS lists.
Washington’s words hit at the heart of the matter. The real reason for the right to keep and bear arms is defense of the person and liberty of the individual against all who would pose a threat, particularly the government. The history of the last 100 years is a history of people being killed by their own governments. The greatest threat to your life and your liberty comes from your own government. In nearly every single case (as the chart in the previous link illustrates) before being exterminated, the population was disarmed by being forced to register their guns. It is endemic of the leftist tendency to talk out of both sides of their mouths that liberals refer to such statements as "right-wing paranoia". Progressives do not believe in American exceptionalism (labeling such a belief as xenophobic or jingoistic), and they even denounce America as "evil," "racist," and "oppressive," yet they also claim (when the right to bear arms is mentioned as a measure to stop a genocidal government) that "it could never happen here."
That defense against the government is a primary reason for the right to bear arms is further proven by the endless clamoring to ban so-called “assault-weapons”. Semiautomatic rifles (i.e. “assault weapons”) have been around and available to the general public for over a century. In fact, prior to the 1934 National Firearms Act, even full-automatic weapons (i.e. machineguns) were completely unregulated by the government. Today, most states still allow private citizens to own and shoot machineguns, so long as all Federal NFA rules are obeyed. So why doesn’t the government see privately owned machineguns as a threat? It is because private machineguns are very rare due to being extremely heavily regulated and almost prohibitively expensive, with prices running into the tens of thousands of dollars or more. Semiautomatic firearms, by contrast, are far more affordable and are very popular with collectors, hunters, and shooters, yet they can still be highly effective in a paramilitary application, even against more advanced weaponry.
Regardless of whether it manifests itself as a registration scheme or as an outright ban on certain types of guns, the fact remains that "gun-control" = "citizen-control". So, if you want “reasonable” gun control, the question you have to ask yourself is “how much arbitrary government control over your life is ‘reasonable’?”
Friday, June 4, 2010
If You Want to Criminalize "Hate Speech" Begin by Outlawing Liberal "Opinions"
One of the most egregious examples of the hostility toward liberty by those on the left is the desire to criminalize so-called ‘hate speech’. Here, in the "Land of the Free," such attempts at prior restraint based upon content are generally most successful on college campuses, and places like California that are bastions of leftist/progressivist ideology.
This attempted criminalization of 'hate speech' is amusing in terms of its blatant hypocrisy. Attempts to outlaw hate speech nearly always come from the left, yet it is also well documented that the most flagrant use of hate speech emanates from the left. Before we go further, however, I think it would be eminently helpful to define hate speech. In the interests of objectivity, let us agree that hate speech is “speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, or bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.” Bigoted can be defined as "blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others". That being said, when was the last time you heard a mainstream personality on the right seriously engage in ‘hate speech’?
We hear such disparaging speech from the left all the time. Whether it emanates from has-been celebrities like Janeane Garofalo, Rosie O'Donnell, Danny Glover, or Sean Penn in one of their frequent and famous tirades slandering the same fans that used to pay their salaries, or supposedly ‘mainstream’ media personalities like Contessa Brewer tarring conservatives with the accusation of racism or CNN anchor Anderson Cooper saying “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging,” the leftists in front of the cameras seem to have no sense of professionalism or decorum. If Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh had made statements on the air that were even a fraction so offensive, the liberal media would have been up in arms calling for the FCC to shut down their programs. Even the Leftist-in-Chief Obama is not immune to slanderous commentary against his own citizens by calling them “teabaggers” or complaining how “they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment”. When was the last time you heard of a Republican president (or presidential candidate) making such a disparaging and contemptuous statement?
Such ad hominem attacks go beyond accusations of racism or perverse sexual activity. These attacks accuse the non-left-leaning of being “intolerant,” “hateful,” “mean-spirited,” “homophobic,” “xenophobic,” “misogynistic,” “greedy,” “unpatriotic,” or some variation of “backward,” “ignorant,” or “unenlightened.” When you have the Speaker of the House accusing her own constituents of being “unpatriotic” for supporting traditional American values (e.g. free markets, limited government, self-sufficiency, etc.), language has been turned on its head. Far worse, however, is the frequency with which such leftist opinions encourage, condone, or sanction violence against those with whom the progressives disagree. To say that President Bush should be tried for war crimes, while harsh, is a legitimate statement of opinion. When Air America Radio personality Randi Rhodes repeatedly suggests that the answer is to assassinate the POTUS, the opinion has crossed the line to border on the criminal. When illegal aliens threaten to murder whites unless they are granted amnesty, the speech has become intolerable and is no longer protected. When SEIU union members verbally threaten and physically intimidate peaceful protesters over disagreements regarding public policy, the union needs to be disbanded.
Even supposedly apolitical institutions like the Miss USA competition are not immune to the virulence of leftist slander. Perez Hilton a Miss USA judge and gossip blogger, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean about her stance on same-sex marriage. He then proceeded to call her a "stupid b***h" in a video tirade he aired on his blog due to his rabid dislike of her answer to the question that he, himself, asked. To say you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is to simply state an opinion. To answer honestly when asked a question is merely courteous. To engage in such name-calling (particularly because you did not like the answer you received) is churlish. Strangely enough, the silence of the feminists on this issue was deafening. As it was when Playboy published Guy Cimbalo's enlightening article about conservative women he would like to rape. Apparently "all men are mysogynists and rapists" unless they are leftists and actually admit to wanting to abuse and rape women. Also, apparently, strong women are a good thing unless they fail to toe the leftist/progressive line.
Even supposedly apolitical institutions like the Miss USA competition are not immune to the virulence of leftist slander. Perez Hilton a Miss USA judge and gossip blogger, asked Miss California Carrie Prejean about her stance on same-sex marriage. He then proceeded to call her a "stupid b***h" in a video tirade he aired on his blog due to his rabid dislike of her answer to the question that he, himself, asked. To say you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman is to simply state an opinion. To answer honestly when asked a question is merely courteous. To engage in such name-calling (particularly because you did not like the answer you received) is churlish. Strangely enough, the silence of the feminists on this issue was deafening. As it was when Playboy published Guy Cimbalo's enlightening article about conservative women he would like to rape. Apparently "all men are mysogynists and rapists" unless they are leftists and actually admit to wanting to abuse and rape women. Also, apparently, strong women are a good thing unless they fail to toe the leftist/progressive line.
The most recent case of hate speech from the left is from Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA), who has accused supporters of Arizona’s recently passed immigration law of having “ties to white supremacy groups.” According to Sanchez "It's been documented. It's not mainstream politics," in spite of the fact that the law has majority support both within Arizona and within the United States as a whole. How is 60% favorable support “not mainstream”?
To expect people to obey the law (when it has been legitimately enacted and is constitutionally valid) is reasonable. To label people as racist for holding such expectations is beyond absurd. Ms. Sanchez's behaviour is irresponsible, unprofessional, unconscionable, and completely in keeping with the finest traditions of the left. I can not help but wonder whether Ms. Sanchez expects the public to abide by the laws she passes in her role as a U.S. Representative. If so, I find her unmitigated hypocrisy appalling. If not, I can only wonder what she sees as being her role and purpose as a legislator.
To expect people to obey the law (when it has been legitimately enacted and is constitutionally valid) is reasonable. To label people as racist for holding such expectations is beyond absurd. Ms. Sanchez's behaviour is irresponsible, unprofessional, unconscionable, and completely in keeping with the finest traditions of the left. I can not help but wonder whether Ms. Sanchez expects the public to abide by the laws she passes in her role as a U.S. Representative. If so, I find her unmitigated hypocrisy appalling. If not, I can only wonder what she sees as being her role and purpose as a legislator.
If you look at the issue objectively, you will see that the left really does not have a problem with speech that is ‘hateful’ or malicious. What the left really has a problem with is speech that supports policies or conveys information with which they disagree. The combination of banning speech that the left finds disagreeable along with vicious ad hominem attacks against political opponents allows the left to dominate the political discourse by silencing the opposition. By monopolizing the realm of ideas, the left can control the direction of public policy. The problem is that we have allowed the political left to dominate the language of political discourse. By “we”, I mean all decent people who are more interested in finding substantive solutions to problems than we are in advancing a particular political agenda.
We have stronger arguments than the leftists, and we have the facts on our side. When we say “concealed-carry laws save lives, and we have the statistics to prove it,” leftists say “you are a paranoid, gun-toting redneck.” When we say “bilingual education keeps immigrants poor by making it harder for them to assimilate into our society and economy,” leftists respond with “you are a xenophobic racist.” When we say “actual global temperatures have been cooling over the last few years,” leftists parrot “you are a global-warming denier.” Such responses are juvenile and idiotic (notice I said 'responses', not 'people'). The only way we can fail to win such debates is by allowing ourselves to be shamed or cowed into silence by such slanderous accusations.
When leftists call us names, we need to fight back by forcing them to address the issues. When we say “the Federal healthcare mandate is unconstitutional,” and the leftists reply with “you are racists,” we need to ignore the accusation and force them to prove us wrong on the issues. Take back our language and rejoin the political discourse. It does not matter if you are black or white, male or female, straight or gay. Stick to the issues and stick to the facts, and whatever you do, DO NOT allow the left to cow you into silence, no matter what.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)