USA: Founded By Wing Nuts, Destroyed By Commies

May 14, 2012 By 6 Comments

Thomas Jefferson SC USA: Founded By Wing Nuts, Destroyed By Commies

“Dear Mr. Lucente: You are a total wing nut.”

Do I really need to read the rest of the letter?

Actually, dear letter writer, I am a libertarian. Or, as I prefer, a classical liberal.

I consider myself a person of at least average intelligence. Still, I will simply never understand those who find the idea of liberty as “crazy” or “outside the mainstream,” and libertarians as “wing nuts.”

Usually such charges come from liberals, especially the radical leftists who have hijacked the Democratic Party in recent years.

And by radical leftists, I am talking about the communists, fascists and socialists, led by the communist-in-chief currently occupying the White House, at least until Jan. 20, who believe that government should take care of our every want, need and desire from the cradle to the grave.

That includes, of course, only those humans who actually are permitted to make it to the cradle. After all, this cradle-to-grave care does not include protecting humans who have not yet, through no fault of their own, left the womb.

Nor should we forget the death panels that will decide when we go to the grave.

If you don’t think government is capable of using abortion or geronticide as a means of controlling the population or balancing the budget, you are extremely naïve. We have plenty of historical examples of just such behavior. And we all know about China’s one-child, forced-abortion policy.

That is the glorious leap forward, dear readers. The liberal promise of a more enlightened future where inconvenient babies and the elderly are killed.

As a classical liberal, I subscribe to one very simple philosophy: People should be left alone to do whatever they want to do only so long as they don’t violate another person’s right to life, liberty or property through force or fraud. Or, in other words, the golden rule that one should behave toward others as one would want others to behave toward oneself.

That’s it. A very simple philosophy.

This is the same philosophy that drove the Founders to take the drastic measure of becoming traitors and taking up arms against their government.

It is the same philosophy behind those great words: “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.” It is to those words and the cause of liberty that 56 of this country’s greatest citizens signed their names and pledged their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Yet, to today’s modern liberal, they were simply 56 “wing nuts.”

I will never understand how any thinking person can be opposed to this philosophy. How can any sane person not advocate for the cause of liberty?

That, of course, is a rhetorical question because like those truths that were so self-evident to our forefathers, the answer is somewhat obvious. The majority of Americans are educated by the government. Do you really believe a government that strives to control our lives from cradle to grave is going to educate children to believe that is a bad thing?

Of course not.

The cause of liberty goes against the modern liberal worldview of cradle-to-grave governmental control and the conservative view of controlling our social lives and fighting endless wars.

Besides that, too many Americans lack either the ability or the will to think critically. That can’t seem to understand that for each liberty that is stolen in the name of some other “greater good,” we come closer to losing all our liberties.

Oh, the liberals and the conservatives will prattle about the idea of liberty, but in the end that is nothing but pure puffery for they see the cause of liberty as nothing but poppycock, balderdash and foolery.

Unfortunately, as we continue to travel down the road of European-style socialism, thanks to a mix of communal lethargy and communal ignorance, we should keep in mind a 1787 quotation from Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

Of course, he was just a libertarian wing nut.

 

Related posts:

  1. The Rise Of The ‘Right-Wing Nuts’ by Bobby Eberle, GOP USA Apparently, there is a large,…
  2. Rush: Obama Thinks People ‘got Screwed’ When U.S. Founded Radio giant Rush Limbaugh says President Obama holds the attitude…

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Obama Abusing Power In Re-Election Bid

April 30, 2012 By 13 Comments

obama crowd1 300x195 Obama Abusing Power In Re Election Bid

There he goes again.

We’ve all grown accustomed to President Barack Obama spending our money like water but most of the time it is for his communist … I mean liberal … political agenda of creating a single class — poor. Because that is what happens when government try to make everyone have the same amount of stuff. Look at China, Cuba or the former Soviet Union if you want real-world examples.

Now, though, he has taken his spending to a new level. He is spending our money to enrich himself.

On a recent trip to three battleground states, Obama, spending more than $179,000 an hour to make the trip, attended campaign-like rallies trying to drum up support for a faux battle over student loan interest rates. There was no dispute, mind you. Republicans and Democrats alike were not going to allow the rates to spike and were working on a solution in the Congress, without controversy, to prevent that from happening.

In fact, his chief rival for the White House, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, also supported a plan to keep the rates from spiking, as did GOP and Democratic leadership in the Congress.

That, however, did not stop Obama from visiting these three battleground states and pretend there was some issue at stake.

However, Obama looking like a fool is not what concerns me. He does that all the time.

The problem is his complete disregard from the laws of this nations in doing so. The taxpayers footed the bill for this campaign trip, when it really should have been paid for by his re-election campaign.

His trip to college campuses in North Carolina, Iowa and Colorado was clearly not government business. It was obviously a campaign-related trip.

Apparently this is nothing new for Obama.

As a candidate, Obama pledged to strengthen the Federal Election Commission. Nearly four years later, he has not done so and, in fact, five of the six commissioners are serving on expired terms.

That’s because a strong elections law regimen would stand in the way of his blatantly skirting those laws.

Only in one case has he complained about campaign laws and that is the Supreme Court’s rightly decided decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which found that the First Amendment still matters.

He complains about the decision because it is going to make it harder for him to win re-election because corporations will be able to donate money to political action committees that will report on his activities. This would not be necessary if the media today did their jobs, but they don’t so it is incumbent on others to showcase the record, or lack thereof, of this clown in the White House.

As for Obama’s trips, he is claiming they are official travel.

But that doesn’t pass the smell test.

Or, as Speaker John Boehner said, “The president traveled across the country on taxpayers’ dime at a cost of $179,000 an hour insisting the Congress fix a problem that we were already working on. Frankly, I think this is beneath the dignity of the White House.”

What Boehner didn’t say, but probably knows, is that much of Obama’s official travel these days is taking place in swing states. CBS’s Mark Knoller reported that Obama has visited Ohio 20 times, Florida 16 times, Pennsylvania 15 times, Michigan 11 times, and North Carolina 10 times since filing for re-election.

Obama’s “official” travel has become so obviously campaigning that the Republican National Committee has filed a formal complaint, accusing his administration of potentially committing fraud by combining campaign and official business.

For presidents, there has always been mixing of official business with campaigning. It is probably unavoidable.

As former Republican National Committee Chairman Rich Bond told The Associated Press in 2004 when George W. Bush was under fire for the very same thing: “Using federal government assets is unavoidable in terms of having contact with everyday people and it’s a topic that White House lawyers from Ford to Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton and now to Bush have all struggled with to make sure that you don’t break the law.”

However, it appears Obama is taking it to a new level.

 

Related posts:

  1. Revealed By WikiLeaks: Obama Team Stole Election, Bribed Jesse Jackson And Took Russian Money In 2008 According to internal Emails circulated among the staff at Stratfor, an Austin…
  2. Karl Rove: If Election Were Held Today, Obama Would Win Mitt Romney has just clinched the Republican nomination, and according…

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The Lesson From The Trayvon Martin Shooting? Life Sucks

April 2, 2012 By 2 Comments

Trayvon Martin Protest 5 SC 300x240 The Lesson From The Trayvon Martin Shooting? Life Sucks

In light of the Feb. 26 Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Fla., apparently by George Zimmerman, Americans need a simple reminder: Life sucks.

To articulate that in a more professional manner, bad things happen. No amount of whining about the injustice of it all will change a single thing. Your parents were right when they said life is not fair.

What Americans, especially black Americans and those liberals suffering from white guilt, need to remember is that not everything is about race.

Unfortunately, President Barack Obama, with his irresponsible remarks, and other so-called black leaders have made this about race. How a violent clash between two minorities is a racial issue shows the illogic of the American left and the modern “civil rights” movement.

There are three comments that need made about the whole affair.

First, the behavior of Obama, the civil rights “leaders” and the national media have been disgraceful.

Obama, for his thoughtless remarks that, instead of quieting the growing racial unrest, blessed it with a presidential imprimatur.

The media for the inaccuracies and innuendo they keep spreading. The continued use of a photograph of Martin when he was a young boy instead of a more current picture can only be construed as a media attempt to garner sympathy for the dead lad and shows a callous disregard for basic journalistic standards.

Finally, the civil rights leaders. We have Spike Lee tweeting what he thought was George Zimmerman’s address, getting it wrong and forcing an elderly couple from their home, and then refusing to apologize. We have the New Black Panthers offering a bounty for Zimmerman, “dead or alive.” Such a bounty is illegal and should be prosecuted, but this administration has been unwilling to prosecute the group for past wrongs, such as voter intimidation in 2008 and 2010. It is essentially a terrorist organization.

Then there are the usual suspects, the not-so-Rev. Jessie Jackson and his blowhard colleague Al “I’m not above lying to keep the country racially divided because that is how I make a living” Sharpton, spreading their message of divisiveness.

How ironic is it that a class of people who were terrorized for years by lynch mobs have formed one of their own? Is this a new form of affirmative action? I’m curious how many of those gathering in Florida applauded when O.J. Simpson was acquitted.

The second comment that needs to be made is that Martin’s death, while tragic, pales in comparison to the attack on our judicial system that mob justice represents.

We have a judicial system in place. It has served us well for more than two centuries. Let it work. The investigation is ongoing. A grand jury is scheduled to determine if charges are warranted. That is how we do things. Grand juries have been around since 1166. They work. Let it unravel at its own pace.

The final comment is that I have come to the conclusion that those who want to deify Martin and crucify Zimmerman are ignoring facts and relying on rumors.

We don’t know all the facts, but we certainly know a great deal. What it boils down to is that two flawed individuals crossed paths on a fateful February evening. One of the two responded to the encounter in a violent fashion. One died from a gunshot wound at point-blank range.

Those are the only facts that are LEGALLY relevant.

Much has been made of the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin before the confrontation.

This was a gated community that had suffered a string of burglaries. Martin was a young black man. In America, young black men commit a disproportionate amount of crime (the real tragedy that Jackson, et al., should be fighting is the number of young black men dying every day from black-on-black violence). Zimmerman, who was on neighborhood watch, was rightfully suspicious. He did call the police, but we all know you can’t always count on the police showing up for a complaint of a suspicious person walking through a neighborhood.

Photo Credit: werthmedia Creative Commons

Related posts:

  1. New Claims Cast Trayvon Martin As The Aggressor A slain Florida teenager and the neighborhood watch captain who…
  2. Witness: Trayvon Martin Attacked Zimmerman   ORLANDO – A witness we haven’t heard from before…

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With:

A Transvaginal Sonogram Is Not ‘Rape’

February 27, 2012 By Leave a Comment

30lith.184 A Transvaginal Sonogram Is Not Rape

Dahlia Lithwick, of Slate, who described new Virginia law as "Mandated Rape"

LIMA, Ohio — I don’t understand how the liberal mind is wired. Sometimes it is truly alien to me.

Take, for example, a proposed law in Virginia that would have required some women to undergo a little discomfort with transvaginal sonograms before brutally killing their children.

In a transvaginal sonogram, a wand is inserted in the vagina to yield an image of the fetus. The procedure differs from an abdominal sonogram, in which a wand is rubbed over the woman’s belly.

To the undisciplined liberal mind, this is, as one female lawmaker in Virginia put it, “state-mandated rape.”

Only liberals would take a common medical procedure and try to convince the public that it is the equivalent of rape. And not just a moral or figurative equivalent, but literal rape. And they do so as a way of defending the abhorrent practice of killing unborn children.

Dahlia Lithwick, an editor with “Slate” who also writes about legal issues, claimed, wrongly of course, that the law meets the federal definition of rape.

The new federal definition of rape, put in place just last month, is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

When I first heard her defending this position on the radio, I thought it was a joke, so I went to Slate’s website, and sure enough it was a real article.

How disgusting.

Her piece was an abomination and a slap in the face to all rape victims.

And, of course, it fails logically because the penetration has to be “without the consent of the victim.”

She insisted that the transvaginal probe was to be administered without the consent of the woman.

Nonsense.

In her mind, crazed doctors are grabbing pregnant women off the streets, strapping them down to gurneys, and forcibly conducting transvaginal sonograms on them for no reason.

In reality, the woman does consent. She consents when she chooses to kill her child. The sonogram would simply have been a part of that procedure. No one was forcing her to do anything. She could always choose not to kill her child. Or she could choose to go to a different state to kill her child.

Regardless, she was clearly consenting to the procedure.

Besides, only a liberal can find it logical to take offense to an invasive procedure just before getting an abortion. Last I checked, abortion is a pretty invasive procedure itself. Such protestations are meaningless when taken in the proper context.

Unfortunately, the only thing more predictable than faulty liberal thinking is the lack of courage from conservatives.

Comedian Jon Stewart likened the procedure to women getting “a TSA patdown inside their vagina.” On Feb. 11, “Saturday Night Live” ridiculed the Virginia General Assembly and the bill, with Amy Poehler saying “transvaginal” was her “favorite airline.”

That was enough to send the Virginia conservatives cowering faster than you could say “Susan G. Komen,” and the bill was killed.

That is unfortunate for two reasons.

First, voluntarily killing another human being, not in self-defense, is wrong, and the government should prohibit that behavior. Given that the Supreme Court has yet to come to its senses and reverse itself, any law that makes it more difficult to get an abortion should be welcomed. The idea that abortions should be cheap and easy is sickening.

Second, the law made sense. Before undergoing any medical procedure as invasive as an abortion, the patient must not only consent to the procedure, but must make informed consent.

The law would have only required the transvaginal sonogram for women in the first trimester because an abdominal sonogram does not produce the detailed image needed during the first-trimester.

This procedure would give women the information they need before making the serious decision to have an abortion.

Ironically, those people protesting this law most loudly, as an unwarranted intrusion of the state into the medical profession, are also the same ones who think ObamaCare is a good idea.

What’s more invasive than the federal government taking over the health care system? Now that is akin to rape, figuratively speaking, of course.

 

No related posts.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports

Obama Diktat Not About Birth Control, Just Control

February 17, 2012 By 2 Comments

kathleen sebelius6544 Obama Diktat Not About Birth Control, Just Control

LIMA, Ohio — After an outcry from the nation’s Catholics, President Barack Obama modified his unconstitutional attempt to provide free birth control to women. The situation has now gone from bad to worse in a way that has little to do with birth control or religion.

Originally, Obama’s plan was to force religious groups to pay for behavior that violates their core beliefs. That is, he wanted religious organizations to pay for free birth control for their employees.

The revised diktat shifts the cost of contraceptive coverage to insurers when the faith-based employer morally objects.

While Obama’s change might have appeased some Catholics — especially liberal and moderate ones — by essentially giving the church political cover while achieving the same result, the rule is still bad.

A common complaint heard from the libs on this matter is that the Catholic Church’s proscription against birth control is antiquated and should be changed. The church, their illogic goes, should conform to liberal mores.

This goes to the very definition of religion. The church has a set of core beliefs. It preaches those beliefs and people choose to follow or not follow. If the polls are any indication, a majority of Catholics, at least those of the American variety, choose not to follow, at least on this point.

Still, that does not give anyone the right to try to use the force of law to make the church change its beliefs. That is called religious liberty.

I think the ban on birth control by the church is wrong. I also find it wrong, or simply silly (no disrespect intended), that Jews won’t eat cheeseburgers, Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t take blood transfusions, and Mormons choose to wear long underwear on the hottest days of the year.

Yet it would be wrong for society to tell those faiths they should be eating cheeseburgers, taking blood transfusions and dispensing with the long underwear. It would also be wrong to force them to pay for someone else’s cheeseburgers, blood transfusions and boxers.

However, Obama’s rule has little to do with birth control and everything to do with control.

Obama is essentially forcing insurance companies to provide, at no cost to users, birth control. Where in the Constitution does the president think he has the authority to force someone to pay for someone else’s birth control?

Will liberals please explain how, in a free country, it is acceptable for the federal government to put a gun to the head of an insurance CEO and force him or her to provide to the people, without charge, birth control?

This is no different than if Obama forced automakers to give Americans free cars. Or force you to give your television to your neighbor.

We are talking about contraception, not cancer treatment, AIDS medicine, or influenza vaccines.

There is no reason people should not pay for their own birth control. Anyone with a job can afford contraception. If they can afford iPods and cellphones, they can afford pills and condoms. That’s the crowd we are talking about because those without health insurance and jobs are unaffected by this rule.

I understand the argument that there is a social burden associated with unwanted pregnancies. But sacrificing our basic principles of religious and personal liberty is not the solution. If the government wants to subsidize birth control, then it should do so directly with a tax. At least then there will be accountability to the voters.

Finally, the Obama diktat is just another example of his economic ignorance. What it does is force all of us, through higher insurance premiums, to pay for contraceptives for a group of women that can afford to buy it themselves if they wanted to. Not only should churches be free of this coercion, we all should be.

What procedures insurers cover should be an economic decision based on market principles, not a political one based on the liberal infatuation with sex. In the end, sex is a voluntary choice and contraception is a discretionary medical expense. Covering birth control is akin to auto insurance covering oil changes.

Do you really want to live in a country where the federal government has the power to order insurance companies to give free oil changes?

Thomas J. Lucente Jr. is a columnist with The Lima (Ohio) News, a Freedom Communications newspaper. He is also a veteran of the Iraq war and a law student at the University of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio. Visit his blog at http://www.lucente.org. Readers may write to him at The Lima News, 3515 Elida Road, Lima, Ohio 45807-1538, or e-mail him at tlucente@limanews.com. His telephone number is 800-686-9924, ext. 2095. Follow him on Twitter at http://tho.lu/twitter, Google+ at http://tho.lu/google, and Facebook at http://tho.lu/facebook.

Related posts:

  1. Top Republican Wants Vote On Birth Control Mandate Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says President Barack Obama’s compromise…
  2. Shocker: Public Backs Obama In Birth Control Fight It’s not even close: By a lopsided margin of 66…

Filed Under: Floyd Reports
« Older Posts