The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There
is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily." --George
Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Something
B. I. G. Is Coming To America! Progressive/Commies Push For Solution To Income
Inequality
by J. D. Longstreet & Fred Brownbill
The
left tried to make income inequality a major topic for discussion throughout
America last year but failed. So, they’ve gussied-up their message, repackaged
it, and they’re set to re-launch it again in 2014.
This year, however, the democrat’s
message concerning income inequality is more important than ever. See, they are counting on their beating
the drum for a guaranteed income for every American to turn on the hordes of
low info voters, and enough of those on the dole (wards of the state) to trudge
to the polls and save the US Senate for the democrats.
Here’s the thing: If the democrats
can hold off the republicans enough that they can get their base to help them
save five of the seats up in November, they will retain control of the Senate
and, saints preserve us, we will remain in the same deadlock in Congress we are
suffering through today with a republican House and a democratic Senate.
Getting
a piece of legislation guaranteeing a “BIG” is not important … at all. (More on “BIG” a little farther down in this
piece.) It’s all the sound and fury
that will accompany the debate. You can rest assured the democrats will
paint the Republicans as heartless
with no concern for the middle class and the poor. If the democrats can
manage to have their message
reverberate within the low info voter community they may be able to leech
enough votes from that quarter to save Democrat Party control of the US Senate.
That’s the goal.
So,
what IS income inequality, anyway?
I mean, other than a tool the Marxists, Communists, and Socialists use to beat
a capitalist nation severely about the head and shoulders until it crumbles and
they move in and completely destroy whatever is left of that country.
You would do well to pay particular attention to the source of the plaintive calls for income equality. You will find it originates from the ranks of the so-called “Progressives.”Remember: Progressive is only the latest nomenclature for “Communist,” “Socialist,” and “Marxist.” They are all one and the same: “fellow travelers.” The title “Progressive” is only a cover name for “Communist,” Socialist,” and Marxist.”
Over
the next eleven months, or so, the “marxocrats” are going to be pounding the
drum for redistribution of the nation’s wealth. Their hearts are going to publicly bleed, all over
the nation’s press, as they opine as to how they care for the poor downtrodden
American with less income than the CEO of a corporation, etc. It’s not fair,
they will cry.
It’s
true. It’s not fair. But then, neither is life.
In a capitalist system, one’s
income depends on many, many things. First
and foremost, however, a nations economy MUST be sound and flourishing so those
who want a job can get a job.
For
a moment let’s get real, shall we?
A kid flipping burgers is not
going to bring home what the CEO of the Widget Corporation does. Nor should he.
THAT’S income inequality.
While we’re at it, let's clear
away some of the smoke and mirrors the Progressive/Commies will be using over
the next few months.
“Income inequality” is the cover name for “guaranteed minimum income.”
What we are talking about here is “a government-ensured guarantee that all
citizens unconditionally receive an income sufficient to meet their basic
needs.” — SOURCE: http://www.usbig.net/index.php
Over the next few months you will
hear the word “BIG” bandied about quite a lot. BIG is an acronym. It stands for: “Basic Income Guarantee” and
that is what the democrats will be pushing for between now and the election in
November.
Here’s a bit more on BIG: “The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a
government insured guarantee that no citizen’s income will fall below some
minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means
test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty
that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying
government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG,
sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an
increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions
aimed at maintaining incomes.” — SOURCE: http://www.usbig.net/index.php
You DID notice the sentence: “All citizens would receive a BIG without means
test or work requirement.” didn’t you?
Again, it all boils down to redistribution of
the nation's wealth, which means — YOUR wealth — taken from you and given to
someone who did not earn it and does not deserve it.
Look.
America has changed. In my opinion, there will never again be high employment
in the country — at least not for a few generations.
Manufacturing jobs have
disappeared because manufacturing plants have either gone out of business or moved out of the US to other countries
more hospitable to business. They’re gone, and won’t be coming back. Their former employees are without jobs
and are not likely to find anything they are qualified for simply because those
jobs no longer exist… period.
Currently there is a drive on to
increase the national minimum wage. That’s
another job killer. At some point — and we are very near it right now
–employers are going to begin replacing men and women employees with machines.
Technology is at such a level now that a hamburger joint could have most of
their staff replaced by computerized machines. This is no longer “new”
technology.
Some of us remember Automats,
which were fast food restaurants where simple foods and drinks are served by
coin-operated and bill-operated vending machines. They’ve been around for
decades. Just think of what we could do with today’s technology. We won’t have to wonder long, for if the
minimum wage goes up too much, a businessman who wants to remain a businessman,
will not hesitate to replace his human employees with computers. That will, of
course, mean MORE unemployed Americans out on the streets.
The answer to income inequality the
Progressives/Communists are going to tell us is a BIG, The basic income
guarantee.
Where, pray tell, will the
government get the money to hand out each month? From the rich? Not for long. The rich will simply flee. They will take
their money, and their businesses (which generate jobs), and leave the country.
In fairly short order the entire nation would resemble the derelict
city of Detroit. Soon our entire society would find itself in a deplorable
condition.
Democrats know they can depend on the support of those whose family
traditions include living off government largesse for generations. And
the democrats can always rely on the
Mainstream Media to promote their loving care for the poor and downtrodden while running
interference, the whole of 2014, for Obama and the democrats and, lest we
forget, for Obamacare.
So, get ready, it’s going to be
brutal between now and November. The
Democrats have their backs against the wall and they will be flailing in all
directions.
The Democrats will be intent upon making the GOP look as bad as they possibly can between now and
November. Since they own the bully pulpit and the press in America they WILL be
successful to some degree.
Conservatives should dig in and
hold fast so that in November we may truthfully say with Saint Paul of old:
“I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith …
” ( 2 Timothy 4:7). We must remember this admonition, too, from St. Paul: “…
Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
slavery.” (Galatians 5:1)
#######
9 Things You Didn't Know About the Second Amendment
By Matt
MacBradaigh
The
Constitution doesn't grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights
that inherently exist.
This is why the Founders used the word "unalienable" previously in
the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away.
In D.C. vs.
Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right.
The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence
of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed ... this is not a right
granted by the Constitution” (p. 19).
2. The
Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights
The
use of the word "militia" has created some confusion in modern times,
because we don't understand the language as it was used at the time the
Constitution was written. However, the Supreme Court states in
context, "it was clearly an individual right" (p. 20). The
operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of
Rights. The Court explains that "All three of these instances unambiguously
refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may
be exercised only through participation in some corporate body" (p. 5),
adding “nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to “the
people” refer to anything other than an individual right" (p. 6).
3. Every
citizen is the militia
To
further clarify regarding the use of the word "militia," the court states “the
ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men” (p. 23). Today we would say it is all citizens, not
necessarily just men. The Court explains: “'Keep arms' was simply a common
way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else" (p.
9). Since
the militia is all of us, it doesn't mean “only carrying a weapon in an
organized military unit" (p. 11-12). “It was clearly an individual
right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p. 20).
4.
Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment
We
often hear politicians talk about their strong commitment to the Second
Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting. Although hunting is a
legitimate purpose for firearms, it
isn't the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the
core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders
“understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves ... the 'right
of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when
'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an
injury' (p.21). They conclude "the
inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment
right" (p.56).
5. There
is no interest-balancing approach to the Second Amendment
Interest-balancing
means we balance a right with other interests. The court notes that we don't
interpret rights this way stating “we know of no other enumerated
constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding
“interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes
out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee
subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all” (p.62-63). This doesn't mean that it is unlimited,
the same as all rights (more on that below). However, the court states that even though
gun violence is a problem to be taken seriously, “the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table"
(p.64).
6. The
Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny
You've
probably heard this. It's listed because this is one of those things about the
Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up.
The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free
state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are
trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny"
(p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted "that history showed that
the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men
was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms,
enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political
opponents" (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real
fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification
debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order
to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive"
(p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens' militia right
to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).
7. The
Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion
You
may find this one comical, but it's in there. The court notes one of many
reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling
invasions” (p.24). This provision, like tyranny, isn't an everyday
occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of
provision. A popular myth
from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial
Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no
evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during
WWII. Japan did invade Alaska,
which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there
are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is
that there are over 310
million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion
success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in
the world).
8. The
Second Amendment protects weapons "in common use at the time"
The
right to keep and bear arms isn't unlimited: “Like most rights, the right
secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (p. 54). The Court
upheld restrictions like the prohibition of arms by felons and the mentally
ill, and carrying in certain prohibited places like schools and courthouses. What
is protected are weapons "in common use of the time"
(p.55). This doesn't mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century. The Court said the
idea that it would is “frivolous” and that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,
to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in
existence at the time of the founding" (p.8). The Court's criteria
includes weapons in popular widespread use “that [are] overwhelmingly chosen by
American society" (p. 56), and “the most popular weapon chosen by
Americans” (p. 58).
9. The
Second Amendment might require full-blown military arms to fulfill the original
intent
The
Court didn't rule specifically on this in D.C. vs. Heller, but noting
that weapon technology has drastically changed (mentioning modern day bombers
and tanks), they stated “the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military
service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at
home to militia duty. It may well be
true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century,
would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large" (p. 55).
They
further added that “the fact that modern developments [in modern weaponry] have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot
change our interpretation of the right" (p. 56).
No comments:
Post a Comment