Obama and Hillary Clinton; Conman/ Con- Woman, Incompetent and Fascists

The following is a response to pair of liberal letters to the editor, this one from the elitists;
 The first;  A revelation from the current election campaign has been generally overlooked. For a democracy to succeed, its citizens have to be well educated, and in particular develop the ability of critical thinking, distinguishing facts from fiction. The fact that millions of our citizens can be deceived by a presidential candidate who is a con artist underscores the failure of our educational system.

The definition of a conman is someone that promises one thing and delivers either something else, something inferior or nothing. Considering Obama failed to follow through with any of his campaign promises and knowingly lied to the American People about his now failing government control of medical care in the US, Obama is certainly one of the biggest conman that has ever been. With Hillary being a congenital liar and ready to continue the Obama juggernaut, in she wins the presidency we will be replacing a conman for a con-woman. While Trump has tweeted some questionable facts, if he did not live up to his agreements, he would not have been so successful; this is what happens in the real world. If you are not dependable you will fail. In politics, being undependable to the people is sometimes a prerequisite, where lies are called having misspoke, or as Hillary said when called on not being a victim of sniper fire, "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement". WHAT? Being undependable is especially important when you are a Democrat promising more than one can ever deliver. With all his faults, Trump is not a politician and actually knows that the people want, rather than the likes of the Democrats telling the people they are too stupid for self government, so the government must ignore the will of the people, as Americans need to be coerced to give up their indivual rights, their culture, their love of country, their borders, their sovereignty and their right to self government, all in the name of globalism, as we bow to world governance. To paraphrase Harry Truman, Trump may be a son of a bit@h, but he's the peoples son of a bit@h, and not part of the political elite that wants to put an end to American exceptionalism.

The second is a liberal ignoring his own progressive embrace fascism, while falsely accusing him of the same, as he also demonizes Trump for his lack of political correctness;  If Trump represents anything it is Fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world. If that is what half of the US voters support then we are like Germany in the early 1930's and will suffer the consequences of our ignorance.

If any politician represents, "fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world", it is the Obama, the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. By all measures Hillary is an elitist, who not only "lack(s) of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US", the evidence is she really doesn't care. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 8 years ago, the result of Obama's incompetence. But his incompetence is a globalist agenda driven, while Hillary's incompetence continues to be driven corruption, with her seemingly unending need for wealth and power. It's interesting to note that Hillary rarely runs on her record as a senator and Sec. Of State, but rather demonizes Trump lack of political correctness, calling out his supposed xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and Islamophobia.

Most toss the word "fascism" around without really knowing what it means; it is not Nazism. Fascism is a close relationship between the government and the means of production. Benito Mussolini, considered one of the great socialist writers, saw fascism as a method to give an economic generator to socialism (nationalization of the means of production usually failed to produce national wealth, becasue the government had taken over as was trying to run the means of production ie manufacturing, even though they had no expertise or experience in production. Fascism allows the original non-government entities with expertise to remain running the means of production, but maintains control through regulations). We already see that Hillary has accepted millions from the corporate America, and there is little doubt their "donations" will be returned 10 fold.

Fascism also needs a strike force to respond to those that threaten the government and/or their control of the means of production. Prior to Obama the US did not have a civilian national security force, but now we do with the huge expanse of Homeland Security; "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama So Obama has laid down the framework with back office deals and numerous regulations, both designed to remove impediments to production while maintaining control of the economy.

The question is not will US voters vote to support an oppressive government, instead the question is will US voters continue to allow the growth of oppression that has been but in overdrive by Obama and will no doubt be continued by Hillary Clinton.

Sitting during the Star Spangled Banner is a Gesture of Ignorance

The police did not cause the deplorable conditions that blacks must endure in Democrat run cities; it is the end product of Democrat social engineering and failed policies. Blacks today are f

The police did not cause the deplorable conditions that blacks must endure in Democrat run cities; it is the end product of Democrat social engineering and failed policies. Blacks today are forced on to "Uncle Sam's Plantation"* due mainly to their dependence on government and the destruction of the black family. The end result is high crime, to which the police are sent to keep order; but the Democrats and black racebaiters like Al Sharpton, try and do a very good job of transferring the anger to the police that are just doing their job. The reality is some 95% of blacks shot by police are armed, while the leading cause of death of black males is homicide by other blacks. IOW the problem is based in the government social engineering that paid black families more if the father was not living in the house and the Democrat propaganda that blacks can't make it in a white world, that blacks don't have to follow the law, and the police are slaughtering unarmed blacks by the thousands (again completely untrue). And the 49er that refused to stand for SSB, rather than making a statement of protest, he is making a statement of ignorance.

*Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation" Star Parker http://townhall.com/columnists...

SSB is and always has been a tribute to our brothers in arms, that fought, and the many that died, to win and preserve the freedom and liberties we as Americans have enjoyed since we declared our independence in 1776. To not honor our national anthem is to piss on the graves of all those that gave everything (and are unfortunately still giving), so we can live free. 

Hate Speech, Gabby Gifford and Democrat Hypocrisy

With the left falling all over  themselves trying to demonize Trump for his numerous off the cuff and non-politically correct comments, the left can not help itself railing against hate speech, even though it is so much the pot calling the kettle black. All one needs to do is look at the hateful and racist comments by Black Lives Matter, which is the only group in these contemporary times, who's real hate toward the white race and the police who's rhetoric has actually resulted in the shooting death of numerous police officers; just like slavery and eugenics,  real hate always comes from Democrats.

The Democrats' cry of Trump hate speech, has resulted in the left trying to lead us back to 2011when Democrats tried to reason that the wounding Rep Gabby Giffords and shooting deaths of 6 others by  a paranoid schizophrenic, was the result of political rhetoric by Sarah Palin, which they demonized as hate speech (apparently hoping that their trumping up of Sarah Palin hate speech was soundly debunked by facts of the case).  For one thing the murderer not only had a long standing hatred of Rep.Giffords, but also President Bush (43). The point being that the hate speech against President Bush while in office was legendary in it's vitriol; Top 10 Examples Of Liberal Hate 
(5) Bush Derangement Syndrome: Before it fades into history, the liberal hatred of President Bush should be recalled. Codepink, Michael Moore, rap stars and Hollywood comedians hurled vitriol against the President. A movie was made about his assassination. But as an example of violent rhetoric, special attention should be given to remarks made by New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who later apologized for describing fellow Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer as “the man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the President’s eyes if he could get away with it.”

 
The idea that any political rhetoric led to the shooting of Gabby Gifford is in itself hate speech by the left. The truth is the murderer of 6 people, that also shot Gifford was a paranoid schizophrenic who had threatened to kill Gifford 4 years prior the the shooting and of course well before Sarah Palin's political rhetoric. Further the same murderer also killed judge John Roll (nominated by President George H.W. Bush), a individual liberty/ limited government (Constitutional Liberal) that was often compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. This placed Judge Roll in direct opposition to the Obama Juggernaut, as he had already forced the rewriting of a far less intrusive Brady Bill than originally written (weakening the federal DOJ bullying for states to conform to the Brady Bill) and had already given a 'preliminary ruling' against a case that would have permitted Holder's Federal DOJ to seize citizens' assets without cause. Judge Roll has also received many death threats, usually from the left, which led to the belief by many that Roll was just as possible a target of the shooter as Gifford. Was Judge John Roll the actual target of the Giffords' shooting?
 
Perhaps those making that charge have forgotten the hatefulness and violent words coming from their own. Top 10 Examples Of Liberal Hate
"(1) Palin Derangement Syndrome: The Left’s obsessive hatred of Sarah Palin is well-chronicled and is often accompanied by violent rhetoric. Let these three examples suffice: (1) Keith Halloran, a New Hampshire Democratic candidate, said on a Facebook thread that he wished Palin had been aboard the Alaska plane that crashed, killing five including Sen. Ted Stevens; (2) Another New Hampshire Democrat, Timothy Horrigan resigned from the state legislature after writing this gem on Facebook: “Well a dead Palin wd be even more dangerous than a live one.. . . she is all about her myth & if she was dead she cldn’t commit any more gaffes”; and (3) foul-mouthed comedian Sandra Bernhard warned Palin she would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she tried coming to New York."

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know." Donald Trump

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton are obviously scared. Expect more firestorms based on throw away lines by Trump. Trump was talking about Clinton picking judges that will infringe on the 2nd Amendment (something prohibited). Then he says the 2nd Amendment people (which is really the citizenry of the US) may be able to do something about it.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So who exactly are the 2nd Amendment people? I would say they are those that believe the right of the people to bear arms are necessary for a free state.

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat; as a matter of fact, unless you believe that a call for 2nd Amendment advocates to vote against Hillary Clinton is a threat, what Trump said was not a threat at all) Below is the Corpus of CA 422 PC criminal threats.

"Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made 
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety".

BTW the Secret Service has pretty much ignored Trumps remarks, assuming it is just political rhetoric (contrary to CNN's reporting Trump has not been contacted by the Secret Service). As this former Secret Service explains to Hillary supporter Don Lemon of CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So here you have CNN trumping up an off the cuff remark by lying this issue is so important the Secret Service has contacted Trump, then Lemon of CNN completely losing his mind when someone with experience in such matters, calls the idea that Trump had made a threat of violence against Hillary, laughable (which it is).

Christians are Just as Violent and God Awful as Muslims; No they are not

It is amazing the depths the left will go trying to legitimize their flawed world view; in this case it is the demonization of Christianity, it is classic Saul Alinky: never argue the liberal world view on it's merits, rather demonize your opponents to try and silence them.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Hitler was a murderous, narcissistic psychopath that talked of his Christianity  in a primarily Christian Germany, until he was elected Chancellor, and then immediately renounced Christianity. In it's place he created a new religion based on the worship of him and the state, the left says the horrors of WWII  is somehow the result of his Christianity. Do you know that Hitler put thousands of priests and pastors in the Dachau concentration camp?     

 "Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped. Hitler expected his followers to worship the Nazi ideology. Since Catholic priests and Christian pastors were often influential leaders in their community, they were sought out by the Nazis very early. Thousands of Catholic priests and Christian pastors were forced into concentration camps. A special barracks was set up at Dachau, the camp near Munich, Germany, for clergymen. A few survived; some were executed, but most were allowed to die slowly of starvation or disease.http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/NonJewishVictims.html"

As far as the KKK, in the post Civil War America, over 95% of the citizenry was christian; from the North anti-slavery citizens to the south pro-slavery/ Jim Crow citizens, even most the newly freed previous slaves were converted to Christianity. The KKK was originally created by Southern Democrats to terrorize blacks, not becasue they were Christians, but becasue the Southern Democrats were racists.

Weaons Bans? Do the Math

There are those that really believe that a ban on the future sales of semi-auto mag fed rifles. would suddenly cause Islamic terrorist to stop their killing, or at least mitigate their killing, but they can't explain how that would work. First SAMFR account for less deaths than any other weapon, so even if all these SAMFR suddenly disappeared from the US, it would have practically no affect on gun crimes. However, that is not the plan, as the ban would only affect future sales, leaving 3-4 million of these rifles available. It is simply a war on reality that such a ban would save any lives for a very long time to come; if ever; and this not just my opinion, it is an opinion that is universally accepted by anyone the can look at these issues objectively, Following this ban there are usually laws that would require those with SAMFR to register them, but since the sole purpose of this registration is for later confiscation, the compliance level where it has been tried is less than 5%. My question is simple, I ask anyone that is for a banning SAMFR, to explain how it would stop any criminal from acquiring one. And it is not so simple as a ban would limit the number of SAMFR available to criminals and terrorist. In the US there has been 14 deadly Islamic terrorists attacks, some of which didn't even involve a SAMFR, however even if one assumes that that each attack SAMFRs, that would mean that over 6 years, 28 assault rifles used. Even if one accepts that the number of Islamic terrorists attacks will will increase to double the current rate, a ban would need to stop 10 SAMFR @ year (or 100 over the next 10 years) out of the 3-4 million available, to fall into criminal Islamic Terrorists hands; that doesn't include the estimated 1000's of SAMFRs (specifically Russian AK-47's since Obama's ban) smuggled into the US. We also know that with relatively free/open borders, if Americans want something and are willing to pay the price, someone will make them available (look at alcohol use during the Prohibition, and the failure of stopping illegal drug use).

Gerry Grimes stated; "Now, would banning them stop all future mass murders — absolutely not. Would it significantly reduce their death/injury toll — absolutely". However the poster doesn't explain how this "absolutely" would happen. To even mitigate the killings done by Islamic terrorists, would necessitate, 10 of the remaining millions SAMFRs left in circulation from falling into the wrong hands; it's ludicrous. Since Islamic terrorists and mass killers usually have very well planned attacks, the fact they may have to spend a little more time finding the right weapon, will certainly not mitigate the lethalology. Once it becomes obvious that ban on future sales accomplished nothing, the next push will be to confiscate SAMFRs, as it is the only reason the government would wants to register these rifles in the first place) rifles still in civilian hands (which also explains the historic near zero compliance), However, regardless of the oppressive nature of anti-gun zealots, it is pretty much accepted that any gun confiscated program would cause such civil unrest, that the deaths resulting from Islamic terrorism in the US, would be dwarfed by a factor of a 1000 or 10,000, making the saving of lives by banning SAMFRs, a moot point.

We know now that US intelligence had identified the last two Islamic terrorist attacks, but due to political correctness, they ignored them, instead their pushing for gun bans that have no past record of of working.  It's almost like the Administration is simply waiting for these Islamic terrorist attacks, so they can use them for fodder to ban guns, As Maureen Dowd would say, Sick Sick Sick!

When the People Ignore the Law

A ban on the future sale of Semi-Automatic Mag Fed Rifles (SAMFR), would have no affect on public safety; even if it actually stopped the citizenry from accruing these rifles, and a terrorist was locked into using only a SAMFR, there would still be 3-4 million SAMFR available to buy, beg, borrow or steal. Further thousands of these rifles are bought by law enforcement every year, and as we have seen in Salinas, stealing weapons from the police continues to be a big problem; and of course the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment. If we want to stop the violence we need to concentrate on the criminals and terrorists, not guns. As mention France has strict assault rifle possession bands, but that didn't stop the massacres on French soil. The Administration needs to get serious about protecting the us from Islamic Terrorism. Instead DHS has orders not to concentrate on Muslims and a prohibition of investigating mosques, unless a member ask them to. The result is the the US did a good job of identifying suspected terrorist, but were stopped from maintaining their investigation becasue of political correctness.

But there is a larger issue; and that is current owners of SAMFR and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds have simply decided not to comply with these anti-gun laws. Connecticut instituted mandatory registration for SAMFR, compliance was less than 5% and it was also discovered law enforcement officers were the main culprit. Los Angeles and Colorado instituted a law that forbid hi-capacity magazine ownership, compliance in Colorado was less than 5 % and in Los Angeles it was 0%. In a Democracy, the vast majority of the people need to voluntarily comply with the laws (punishment is only meant for the less 1% that are sociopaths). If not, a large section of the population will ignore the law, the result of which is devastating to a representative government.
So what are we fighting for? Let our country's investigative agencies do their job! Don't tie their hands with rules of engagement based on political correctness! The anti-gun zealots tell us he have a gun violence epidemic, when gun violence has been on a decline since the 1970 (50%). The fact that SAMFR continue to be the least used firearm in criminal activity should be a clue that those calling for their ban are not doing so to increase public safety.