Archive for the 'Obama' Category

The Possibility Of A Modern Civil War Is Real

Published
by
Your Liberties
on April 7, 2009
in Anti-Liberal, Conservative, Economy, Liberal, Natural Rights, Obama, Personal Responsibility, Right To Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment
. 13 Comments

A domestic uprising is becoming more of a reality as our rights are threatened by the epic failure that is socialism.  It’s common knowledge that our country is struggling within its own borders.  Conservatives and liberals are at each others throats, and although there was much talk about bipartisanship we have yet to see any inclination this will happen with the democrats holding the majority.  The real question is how bad do things have to get before actions overpower negotiation.

The economy is still garbage, the unemployment rate is 8.5%, and there is active legislation to suppress rights and liberties afforded to us by our founding fathers.  This administration is an embarrassment to society, and society will only take so much before it fights back.  Attempts at negotiation with have proved fruitless, Ann Coulter said it best herself.

Political debate with liberals is basically impossible in America today because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments.

Its no secret that the financial stability of our country is in jeopardy.  The massive amount of money being poured into the financial sector has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is our pockets.  Its likely going to come from pockets of Americans not yet old enough to have a voice.  Funding the bailouts is like stealing from piggy banks.  There is not an American out there who is not feeling the effect of stupid liberals trying to level the playing field.  Our country was founded around capitalism; keep your filthy hands to yourself.  Obama, in his infinite wisdom was was quoted saying

I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

The only people this is good for is the lazy liberals who have refused to apply themselves and expect to dig in my pocket for “change”.  Try it again and you will pull back a bloody stump.

The national unemployment rate is hovering around 8.5% the highest rate since 1983.  With this many misplaced workers tension is mounting between unemployed citizens and the marxists who think its their job to run this country.  To all Karl following morons who put faith into big government and our current administration, we have news for you, we were given the right by men much wiser than all of you collectively to take you down a peg or two.

A country not focused on free enterprise is doomed to fail, and your unwillingness to admit that will be your demise.  Every public asset has roots in free enterprise, and therefor every argument you can make for socialism is weak.  If you do not stop force feeding us your agenda we will have no choice but to take a defensive stance, and by defensive I mean smear your sorry excuse for an opinion back to London where it came from.  This is not a threat, it is a promise, one that I am allowed to make if you continue to violate my rights.

I am an American, DO NOT TREAD ON ME!

The Widest Partisan Approval Gap In More Than 40 Years

Published
by
Your Liberties
on April 6, 2009
in Anti-Liberal, Conservative, Economy, Liberal, Obama, Personal Responsibility and Tea Party
. 0 Comments

Current statistics are showing the largest gap in approval ratings for our useless commander in chief.  This study shows an approval rating for Obama of 88% from fellow Democrats, a 27% approval rating from Republicans, and a 57% approval rating from Independents.  This studying coming shortly after the messiah himself hosted his bipartisan “Timeout” dinner last month.

To the liberals who make up the 88% that approve of Obamas performance — Do you live a sheltered life?  Have you read a newspaper in months?  The current state of our economy is garbage.  We have a national unemployment rate of 8.5%  We are spending billions and billions of dollars to bailout failing companies who made poor business decisions and did not position themselves to weather any economic hardship.  This money will come out of your pockets, and likely your childrens pockets.

Take a stand America, its your future that is in jeopardy.  Attend a tea party, write your representatives and express your disapproval of the current administration.  We must hold our local representatives accountable to correctly represent our individual opions, that is their job.

Who Gives You The Right? - Part 1

Published
by
Your Liberties
on March 23, 2009
in Natural Rights, Obama and Personal Responsibility
. 1 Comment

The birth of the first man and woman to roam the earth marked the beginning of the concept of natural rights.  Regardless of your spiritual affiliation one truth remains constant - we are all created equal.  Life is an individual gift that cannot and shall not be compromised by anyone.  Natural rights are the rights we inherit with the gift of life, they are universal and fall outside the scope of legal rights.

Natural rights, also known as inalienable rights are not bound by the laws, customs, or beliefs of a given society.  One of the first formal applications of natural rights is from Islamic law which denied a ruler

the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being.

In the 1600’s John Locke discussed natural rights.  He defined life, liberty, and estate as your natural rights.  Locke attached the following definitions to his concept of natural rights.

  • Life - Everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
  • Liberty - Everyone is entitled to do anything they want so long as it does not conflict with the first right.
  • Estate - Everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it does not conflict with the first two rights.

Locke’s work argued that these natural rights could not fall to the theory of social contract.  The social contract theory describes inalienable rights as those rights that cannot be relinquished to government.

As citizens of the United States we are afforded natural rights by the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The preamble expresses that if the government interferes with these rights that we have the right to “alter or abolish” said government.  With the liberal trash that is polluting our government today the time is now to take a look at our current administration in relation to our natural rights.  Obama’s big, pushy, socialist government will not, and cannot stand.

The presidential Messiah is mounting an attack on our natural rights.  His political opinions teamed with those of his liberal counterparts interfere with your right to defend your life, your freedom, your home, and your funds.  In the coming parts of this article we will look at why, and what you can do.

Socialism Is For The Lazy - Lets Try Personal Responsibility Instead

Published
by
Your Liberties
on March 10, 2009
in Economy, Obama and Personal Responsibility
. 1 Comment

To quote Thomas Sowell

Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.

I find this very fitting today, all this liberal banter about equality makes me sick.  The bailouts, the redistribution of wealth, the standardization of “quality of life”, socialized health care, blah blah blah … I get up every morning, work hard, and enjoy the fruits of my labor.  What I do with my free time and money is just that … MINE.  It is unconstitutional for the government to force me to provide a quality of life to those who were given the same opportunities I was, but chose to be lazy instead.  If I choose to show compassion and share what I have worked for it is once again MY decision.  I will decide who, how, and for what reasons.

Willis Player, another great mind is quoted as saying

A liberal is a person whose interests aren’t at stake at the moment.

Once again, couldn’t be further from the truth.  I have many years of hard work on the table and from hard work comes both material and immaterial possessions.  These belong to me and I will do what I see fit with them.  Personal responsibility is at the helm, if you made your bed you lay in it.

I work hard to provide health insurance to my family.  If you were too lazy to take advantage of our public schools in order to prepare yourself to be a contributing member of society that’s your fault.

I work hard to put a roof over the heads of my family.  If you choose to milk the rest of us for your government funded housing then I hope you sleep well at night.

I work hard to put food on the table.  If you abuse our welfare system because your too lazy to work then I really hope your happy with yourself, because I am not.

Get a job, work hard, be happy.  It’s that simple.

I Can Haz Welth?!

Published
by
Your Liberties
on March 5, 2009
in Economy, Obama, Personal Responsibility and Ron Paul
. 0 Comments

A few days ago Ron Paul on Bloomberg TV said in a few different words that it was immoral and unconstitutional to transfer wealth from productive to non productive members of society.

This opinion paired with the paragraph buried in Obamas Mortgage Modification Plan about forgiving second liens has got me all worked up.  Dr. Paul is absolutely correct in thinking that it’s immoral and unconstitutional to force me pay higher taxes to fix a problem I did not cause.

I live within my means, I went to college, I own a home, I pay my bills on time every month.  Sometimes I am not left with a whole lot to entertain myself with but such is life.  I’ve struggled in the past - but I NEVER asked for a handout.  I was given the same opportunities as a child that every American is given.  I went to public school where I was not forced to learn but chose to learn.  Hell … I even donate to charities and give unused household items to the salvation army to help those who are down on their luck.

The majority of mortgage fiasco has not been caused by people who are down on their luck, its been caused by ignorant citizens who over spent their means.  Evolution is centered around the concept of survival of the fittest, same concept applies here.  It is not my responsibility to bail your sorry ass out because you needed a 4800 square foot house for you and your dog, or because you needed that addition to your home for the indoor pool.  Let them all fail, teach them a lesson.  Don’t give them a clean slate, make them work for it.  Have some money stashed away for a rainy day, don’t blow your savings on that fancy 70inch flat screen to hang above your twin bed.

Failure is recoverable, you will be back on your feet with some hard work, you can even be successful if you work hard enough.  Look at Obama he failed at life and hes now the president.  Turns out he is failing at that too but that’s neither here nor there.

Dont Take My Assault Weapons Bro!

Published
by
Your Liberties
on March 4, 2009
in Obama and Right To Keep and Bear Arms
. 0 Comments

On February 25th Attorney General Eric Holder was quoted as saying

As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to re institute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.

Well Obama can take his “assault weapon ban” and shove it up his liberal ass.

First of all lets define an assault weapons as used by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which caries the subtitle of Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

A semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines, and two or more of the following is an assault weapon.

  • A folding, or telescopic stock.
  • A pistol grip.
  • A bayonet mount.
  • A flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel that may accommodate one.
  • A grenade launcher.

A semi-automatic pistol that accepts detachable magazines, and two or more of the following is an assault weapon.

  • A magazine that attaches to the pistols grip.
  • A threaded barrel to attach a barrel extender, a flash suppressor, a handgrip, or a suppressor.
  • A barrel shroud that could be used as a hand-hold.
  • Has an unloaded weight of more than 50 oz.
  • A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm.

A semi-automatic shotgun with two of more of the following is an assault weapon.

  • A folding, or telescopic stock.
  • A pistol grip.
  • Has a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds.
  • A detachable magazine.

Now lets give an assault weapon a more valid definition.

An assault weapon has the following characteristics:

  • It is a single weapon that has the ability to be fired from the shoulder.
  • It must be capable of selective fire.  Be that semi-automatic with the option of burst or fully automatic.
  • It must chambered for an intermediate power cartridge being more than a pistol and less than a standard rifle.
  • Its ammunition must be supplied by a detachable box style magazine.

The definition used by the government for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is ridiculous at best.  I will use one of my favorite rifles of all time for a couple of examples on why I think the feds definition has no substance.  The Ruger 10/22 is a small caliber varmint rifle use for hunting small game and general “plinking”.  This platform is highly customizable with the ability to add a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip, a suppressor, and with a little ingenuity a bayonet mount.  All these items are currently legal and it needs to remain that way.  Is this rifle any more dangerous to the overpopulated prarie dog towns that riddle our country? Not hardly, sure it can have a folding stock, a pistol grip, and a suppressor, but it still fires without any of the above.  The same holds true for one of my other favorite rifles - the AR-15.  It can accept all of the accessories that would classify it as assault rifle according to Obama.  But once again without any or all of the items it still fires - one round per trigger squeeze.

My point is this … assault weapons as defined by the Federal Assault Weapons ban are no more dangerous than their non Assault Weapon counterparts.  Its the assault weapons as defined by the second definition that scare the ever living hell out of me.

Is a rifle that can fire multiple rounds per trigger pull more dangerous than a rifle that can fire only one round per trigger pull?  You bet your ass it is!  These types of weapons have been strictly controlled since the National Firearms Act of 1934.  You can still own and purchase NFA titled weapons manufactured before 1986 but because of the basic economic principle of supply and demand they are much more difficult to find, and they are very expensive.  Economics will keep legal NFA weapons out of the hands of those who intend to do harm with them.  An Assault Weapon Ban will not reduce or eliminate the undergound market for illegal NFA weapons which is the real problem, if you think it will then you really are more of a dumbass than you portray yourself to be.