"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Friday, July 25, 2014

Is America Trying to Start a War with Russia?

Will Malven

I just have to wonder, is the Obama Administration trying to start an actual shooting war with Russia, just to distract from the myriad of domestic problems that Americans currently face and to bolster dramatically sagging Democrat polling numbers?

The situation continues to deteriorate, with claims and counter-claims being traded and with the US apparently getting most of it's information from . . . social media.  Who knew that Twitter and Facebook postings were legitimate sources of intelligence upon which to base one's foreign policy strategies?

This whole Ukraine/Russia business began because the Obama Administration was funneling money and discussing take-over strategies with anti-Yanukovych opposition leaders, Klitschko, Yatseniuk, and Tyahnybok.

America sent $92 million in FY2013 State/USAID funds and $86 million in FY2014 funds including $11 million for "non-partisan election activities, including efforts to support voter education and civic participation,” we are providing an additional $50 million in technical assistance and the $1 billion dollar loan guarantee under the authority passed by Congress on April 1st.

When Russia (or whomever it was) released tapes of US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland discussing her activities and those of US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, in aiding anti-Yanukovich forces, the MSM focused most of their attention on Nuland's brief and obscene reference to our EU allies.

However, the really striking and most offensive aspect of this discussion isn't Ms. Nuland's language, it's the fact that they are on tape discussing plans for aiding in the overthrow of a legitimately elected government.

America was aiding in the overthrow of a duly (and twice) elected President of an independent nation. Yet somehow they are shocked that Russia reacted negatively to that.

America cannot actively seek to overthrow the legitimately elected government of a sovereign nation and not expect a reaction from those who oppose that action.

This whole business is the Obama Administration in full (and typically liberal) hypocrisy-mode.

It's not our business.  We don't have a dog in this hunt.  This entire Ukrainian mess of Obama's making is a matter for Europe and Russia to hash out.  Democrats didn't like it when Republican Administrations did this sort of thing, and now they're doing exactly the same.

George Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, and Obama . . . well Obama's been a foreign policy disaster from day one.  Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, now Gaza and Israel . . . they've been bumbling from one foreign policy failure to the next.

Now, Obama is engaged in his first real dealings with a major foreign adversary and he is being played by Putin like a fiddle.

The real threat Obama poses is that he, like most narcissistic leaders, might suddenly lash out simply so as not to appear weak.  Liberals consistently underestimate our adversaries and get embarrassed by them and this often leads them to make rash decisions.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Obama's Weak Reaction to Malasian Airliner Downing Window Into His Persona

Will Malven

America got a short glimpse into the heart of the true Obama Thursday, in his initial reaction to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. 
"Before I begin, obviously the world is watching reports of a downed passenger jet near the Russia-Ukraine border. And it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy. Right now we’re working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority.

"And I've directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian governemnt. The United States will offer any assistance we can to help determine what happened and why. And as a country, our thoughts and prayers are with all the families and passengers, wherever they call home."
"I want to thank Jeremie for that introduction' he said. 'Give Jeremie a big round of applause.
"It is great to be in the state that gave us Joe Biden. We’ve got actually some better-looking Bidens with us here today. We've got Beau and his wife, Hallie, are here. Give them a big round of applause. We love them."

The "great orator" demonstrated his inability to extemporaneously comment on the attack in any meaningful way.  This surreal seeming lack of real emotional reaction evoked an immediate and negative response, even from some of his most ardent admirers in the MSM.

Obama's problem?  His narcissism renders him unable to empathize with others.

As one expects from a pathological narcissist, he was unable to respond to the shooting down of the airliner as most people would, with genuine anger and sorrow. Obama cannot, as Bill Clinton famously said, ". . . feel your pain."

Any other President--Clinton, Bush, Carter, Kennedy--would have turned the fundraiser into a serious non-partisan speech about foreign policy and the threats America faces, called for calm and unity, and would have underscored the seriousness of this situation and suggested that Republicans and Democrats come together to find the best response and solution to the growing problems facing us.

He would have also suggested turning to faith for comfort and strength and called for Americans to pray for the families of the victims.

Only Obama is so self-focused as to reduce the thing to a passing sentence in his rush to bash political opponents.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

"Tolerant Liberals" Shout Down Republican Candidate in Newark

Will Malven

Looks like Cory Booker has his election thugs well organized to suppress all opposition.  Liberals have ever been champions of free speech . . . as long as it's their speech that's "free."
By Max Pizarro | September 17th, 2013 - 3:16pm
NEWARK – Street operatives chanting "Cory, Cory, Cory," this afternoon stampeded a press conference by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steve Lonegan outside the derelict former property owned by Newark Mayor Cory Booker on Court Street.

The Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, Booker gave the property away for $1 but not before drawing the ire of neighbors who say the mayor left the place abandoned and gave the local example of a poor steward.

“A tax deduction,” said Lonegan, “While he dumps this horrific piece of garbage on the city.”

The former mayor of Bogota stood at a lectern in front of the boarded up residential building, which he said has turned into a neighborhood crack house.
There is one group of American citizens who have been treated like children for so long that they don't know any other way to behave.

Thanks to entitlements, affirmative action, special programs, special treatment, special set-asides, and special allowances for bad behavior, the African America population has the maturity and education level of a bunch of 4th graders.

Blacks in America are spoiled, selfish, angry, resentful, entitled, discourteous, self-righteous, ignorant, amoral, undisciplined, and terribly immature.  Over 6 decades of liberal social and economic policies have made them that way.

Why would anyone be the least bit surprised by this sort of behavior?

Detroit is just the first of these artificially propped up disaster areas to finally collapse under the weight of liberal incompetence. There will be many more and Newark is well on it's way.  Yet, the same people who are most adversely affected will be the first who line up to support the very same leaders who get them where they are.

That ignorance and almost pathological gullibility is why liberals destroyed our education system.  An ignorant people are easily deceived and easily led.

Monday, September 16, 2013

America Broken Beyond Repair?

Will Malven

It's Time:  Impose Term Limits, Repeal Apportionment Act of 1911, and Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments

Our government is broken and I'm not certain it can be fixed.

We could make great strides in fixing what has been broken over the years were we to reverse many Congressional and Executive actions of the early 20th century.  During the first couple of decades, when "progressivism" was the catch phrase for all "enlightened" people, Congress passed a number of reforms and amendments that undid much of what our Founding Fathers created and that went against their intentions.

By granting themselves the power to tax income, they assured themselves of unlimited funds to pursue their pet projects.  This has led us to where we are now, with a 17 trillion dollar national debt, a trillion dollar a year deficit (even though federal income is at an all time high), and Congress and the Executive screaming for more money and more spending.

Another part of the problem is the 17th Amendment and the direct election of Senators. Rather than them being representatives of the individual states, they merely replicate the functions of the House now.  The Senate was intended to be the "House of Representatives for the states."  It was to represent the interests of the individual states, not be another democratically elected house of the people.

Then there is the Apportionment Act of 1911 when the House membership was locked down at 435. Being the elected representative of 30,000 citizens is a whole lot different than being the representative of 700,000 citizens.  Perhaps if the House now had 10,000 members and held session in a small arena, their egos wouldn't be quite so inflated and they wouldn't be so alienated from their constituents.

The most feeble argument these evil bastards make is that term-limits might lead to a "brain-drain" of our "brightest and best."  Having observed Congress for the past several decades, I vacillate between rage and laughter at the arrogance and presumption contained in such vapid argument.  Some of our elected representatives have a rather inflated image of their own importance.  Apparently they can't imagine that our nation could prosper without them . . . I CAN.

Our Founding Fathers had none of their "valuable experience" in the halls of government before they came together to create this nation. Certainly, some were politicians, but the bulk were professional men, businessmen, and farmers. Somehow those poor inexperienced neophytes managed to cobble together a document of some use.

In fact, those amateurs only managed to create the greatest governing document in history and then they managed to build an exceptional nation on the principles it enshrined.

Now I admit that the men of today are but a shadow of those brilliant patriots, but I'm sure we could muddle through without all of that "experience" (taking bribes, accepting "donations," sucking up to lobbiests, sucking up to the MSM, wimping out due to public pressure . . . how much ability can it require?)

Our Republican "leadership" (a questionable usage) is out of touch with the people they are supposed to be representing, spineless when we need them to be tough, and apparently just as venal and dishonest as the Democrat Party leadership.

Had they the wit, they would be out front on forcing Congress to live under Obamacare just as all (non-specially exempted) other citizens must.  They would be demanding that Democrats live by the same laws as those they purport of represent.  They would be going on every talk show, every news program, and giving daily press conferences attacking Democrats for their hypocrisy and for trying to force the American people into a healthcare system that they themselves aren't willing to put up with.

They would be doing right and they would be trumping Democrats . . . but they're just too venal and corrupted to see the opportunity and take advantage of it . . . Why, they might lose some of their precious tax-payer funded perks.

Term limits (with no allowances for a return to Congress either as an elected representative or as a consultant or lobbiest) appear to be the only hope we have of "draining the swamp."

Repeal the Apportionment Act of 1911, strip our elected representatives of their unprecedented power, and return the House to it's original function of representing the people--local people that know their Representatives personally and can take them to task.

Repeal the both the 16th and 17th Amendments and return government to it's original charter.

Implement solid, unavoidable term limits.  No chance of return, no chance of becoming a lobbiest, no possibility of becoming a paid "consultant" or in serving in government or any entity under government contract . . . EVER.

Strip away their power and with it, their arrogance and disconnect with the citizens and return power to the people.  Remind them that they are our public servants, not our rulers

Friday, April 19, 2013

Why Conservative Moral Issues Remain Important And Why Republicans Cannot Compromise On Those Core Values

Will Malven

I no longer care if I am liked or disliked by those who disagree with my beliefs.  Some things are worth fighting for.  As William Penn once said:
Right is right even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is for it.
If you are a Republican who believes that, in order to win elections, we must accommodate Democrats on issues like gay marriage, abortion, immigration and other issues which entail compromising the core conservative values in which most of us claim to believe, then I feel sorry for you, because you have lost your way. You have been brainwashed by the media, the MSM, and the Democrat echo chamber to believe a lot of lies.

I don't blame you for your ignorance, you probably are the victim of our modern so-called "education system." You lack a firm grounding in history, philosophy, and understanding of how our system came to be and what made our nation exceptional--you may even have been convinced that the whole notion of American exceptionalism is a bad thing.

You are unable to see the lines connecting your core beliefs in free enterprise, capitalism, and fiscal responsibility (fiscal conservatism) and the strong moral, ethical, religious beliefs which characterize most traditional conservatives, and which our Founding Fathers held and which formed the basis of our nations founding.

I would suggest you go back and examine the Roman Empire, both its founding and more importantly the events leading up to its collapse.

Roman society turned its back on the very things which made it a great power, unity of purpose, strong families and strong family values, and close attachment to their religion (not Christianity, but a core of moral, philosophical, and ethical principles which united their culture).

Like all powerful societies throughout history, citizens grew complacent, they began to embrace behavior which lay outside the norm (suicide, sexual perversion, the celebration of death, etc), they turned their backs on their religion and began to deify their leaders, and they allowed the largess of the state to lull them into a false sense of security.

As their social mores declined, so did their need for diversion increase.  Entertainment became more extreme, wilder orgies, deeper perversions, and increasingly more violent and bloody.

The Roman poet and satirist, Juvenal, labeled it "Panem et Circenses" (bread and circuses).
The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now concerns itself no more, and longs eagerly for just two things - bread and circuses!
Rome also fell to unrestricted immigration.  Lacking sufficient people to populate their armies and defend their lands, they begin to look to foreign armies and citizens to build up their strength.  Eventually this led to the Sacking of Rome by various waves of barbarian hoardes.

Looking back over the past century, one can see the same pattern in America. Our culture ridicules those who hold strong religious beliefs. Welfare has rendered the traditional family redundant for many and fathers no longer hold value.

How many sitcoms today poke fun a fathers, portraying them as dumb, incompetent, lazy, selfish, uncaring, etc. Men are portrayed as predators, dangerous to women and young girls--even their daughters. You rarely see the same treatment of women. We are taught in our society that women are caring, compassionate, and nurturing. They are the smart ones in the family and at best, they are amused by their spouses antics.

Hedonism is portrayed as desirable, gays as a legitimate life-style with no negative consequences beyond the onerous burden a "hateful" society of bigots place on them, even though the truth is far, far different. Depression is common, self-loathing is common. suicide is common as it is in anyone whose behavior lies outside the norm.

This all plays to the moral fiber which runs through our society and which used to knit us together. Stalin said back in the early days of the USSR:
"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
Those on the left set about attempting to do that very thing and over the past century have succeeded very well.

Khrushchev echoed those same sentiments and predicted that America would collapse from within and they would use our own rights to do so.

It is the essence of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals . . . carry everything to extremes, expect conservatives to be perfect and attack them for any deviation from that perfection, use freedom of speech as a tool to destroy us. Use ridicule to destroy icons of society (as I have pointed out above).

They then turn those tools to attack anyone who dissents with their economic agenda. If one espouses a conservative free-market agenda, then you are "heartless," "uncaring," "callous to the needs of those less fortunate."

They twist Christianity into a tool for their own agenda implying that government spending is better than private charity, when history proves the opposite to be true.

Charity is given from the heart, it is a form of selflessness with enriches the giver as well as the recipient. It is more often given with the added effort to not simply feed the indigent, but to lift them up so they no longer need charity.
Government has a vested interest in keeping the poor dependent on their largess. It serves no purpose for politicians to lift the poor out of poverty when they can guarantee their re-election by continuing to pour money into the needy hands.
"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."
--Georges Santayana
It is simple to see the repeated patterns throughout history of those societies which have moved from their rigidly held moral and social values and "evolved" to a more "reasonable, inclusive, COMPROMISED" vision of humanity.
In every case, when a society abandons those closely held values and "evolves," it sets itself on the road to destruction.

Our societies acceptance of what is defined as "normal" or "acceptable" has evolved.  Homosexuality, once considered a perversion, "the love that may not be named" has become not simply accepted, but encouraged.  Young girls are increasingly sexualized at earlier and earlier ages.

Games being played by our children have become more violent, more explicit, and bloody beyond reality.  Even our sporting events have embraced greater and greater levels of violence as boxing, once considered a bloody, violent sport, has devolved into cage matches of mixed martial arts, far more violent, far bloodier, far more savage.

Our once universal culture has become Balkanized as various ethnic and racial groups immigrating to our nation no longer seek to become part of our culture, but apart from our culture.  Earlier waves of immigration had one commonality, those who came here sought more than anything else . . . to become "Americans."

No longer.  Hispanics who arrive in America today refuse to adopt our language, refuse to acculturate and become a part of the whole.  In prior waves of immigration, there were no classes like "English as a second language," or "bi-lingual" education classes for the children of immigrants, children attended schools in which English was the sole language and they learned it or failed.

This process led to a unique blending of the traditional with the new inculcating such portions of the newer cultures as fit in well with the traditional.  These days, there is no such blending.  Children of Hispanic immigrants remain outside of the dominant culture, leaving them disenfranchised, discontent, and restless for opportunity which they denied themselves by refusing to become part of the whole.

Our politicians have ceased to work for the good of the nation and now seek only to further there own narrow political agendas and careers, pandering to the lowest common denominator and in the process lowering the standards for all.

Our Founding Fathers were very brilliant, well read, well educated men. They understood what I have stated. They knew and understood history. They understood human nature and they sought to create a form of government which would enable Americans to avoid those pitfalls of the past.

They were also men with rigidly held strong moral values. They were Puritans, Quakers, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Calvinists, and Evangelicals. Half of the states had state religions in their charters. Liberals like to point to men like Jefferson and Paine to assert that our nation wasn't founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but those men were the exceptions. The vast majority of Americans and of our Founding Fathers were men of faith.

All of the above is why conservatives are hostile to those seemingly insignificant changes in our society's laws. It's why we oppose "gay marriage." It's why we oppose abortion. Those issues cut to the core of what has historically made America great.

Our strength comes not from "diversity" or compromise, but from a commonality of culture and beliefs and when we abandon those principles, we abandon everything that built this nation.

Learn history and learn the lessons it teaches us. If you don't, then your continues ignorance is no longer excusable, but intentional.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Saturday, March 23, 2013

New Hampshire Women: You Will Have To Prove You Couldn't Escape Rapist

Will Malven

The liberal mentality is simply unfathomable.  Now in New Hampshire, a law has been proposed that would require any woman who chooses to defend herself or her children from an attacker to prove she was unable to escape.  Of course the law applies to both men and women, but just imagine a woman walking her baby down the street and two teens suddenly coming up to her and demanding money from her.

Yes, that situation just occurred in Georgia this week.  When informed that she had no money, the two teens then shot the woman and then shot the baby in the face.  If the woman had a concealed carry license and a firearm, she might have been able to save her baby's life and stop the teens.

But should this law pass, in New Hampshire, the woman would have faced the additional burden of having to decide if she could "retreat" out of danger before she could use her concealed firearm.

Now this might--possibly--be considered--remotely--reasonable if there was an epidemic of New Hampshire citizens killing people on the street out of irrational fear . . . or even if it happened once . . . but this has not been a problem.  Yep, that's right, once more a liberal legislator is proposing passing a law to outlaw something that never happens . . . and has the potential to endanger women and their children by causing them to hesitate at a critical moment.

New Hampshire Bill Would Victimize Women If They Stand & Fight An Attacker

Second Amendment Sisters

Concord, NH - HB135 is not a bill of equality.

It looks to change a law that has not caused anyone harm. It looks to change the playing field to be in favor of the criminal and lessen the rights’ of women to not be victimized.

The prime sponsor was quoted as saying it is OK for women to defend themselves at home, but not on the street. We bear the burden to try and run from our assailants. If we do not, if we choose instead to protect ourselves or our children, in the court of law we have to prove we could not get away. The prosecution has no burden to prove otherwise.

Faced with a criminal intent on rape, robbery or kidnapping our children WE are faced with the choice to do what we must to save ourselves or our loved ones, knowing that we will be the ones in court. Being victimized a second time by the judiciary system that tells us we have to prove we could not escape.

[continued at webpage linked above]
Once again the liberal obsessive fear of their fellow citizens and of hypothetical situations has them trying to outlaw rational behavior and endangering the lives of the very people they, in their fevered little brains, are supposed to be trying to protect.

This is the antithesis of the "Castle Docrine" which many states (I would say "rational states") now have made law, which places the burden of proof on the state and the criminal that the use of a firearm for self-defense was not justified.

How irrational can one be. New Hampshire State Representative Merr Shurtleff has inadvertently granted us an example of just how irrational the average liberal legislator is and just how far liberals will go if they are allowed free reign.

Liberal-land is a looney-bin in which the law-abiding citizen is the enemy and the criminal the victim.  Here is the exact wording of the proposed bill:
1 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. Amend RSA 627:4, III to read as follows:

III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or herself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety:

(a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he or she is not required to retreat if he or she is within his or her dwelling[,] or its curtilage, [or anywhere he or she has a right to be,] and was not the initial aggressor; or

(b) Surrender property to a person asserting a claim of right thereto; or

(c) Comply with a demand that he or she abstain from performing an act which he or she is not obliged to perform; nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter; or

(d) If he or she is a law enforcement officer or a private person assisting the officer at the officer's direction and was acting pursuant to RSA 627:5, the person need not retreat.
Here we have a perfect example of liberal think. The citizen is the criminal. The citizen must evaluate the situation and figure out, not only if their reaction is justified, but if, in the eyes of the court or a jury, they could possibly escape the situation by surrendering their private property and run away.

In the first place, the point at which either requirement can be met has long since passed before most people who conceal-carry firearms are prepared to deploy their gun.  That thought process is drummed into the minds of everyone who obtains a CCL.  The use of a firearm is a last-resort action that all CCL holders hope they never reach.

In the second place, this law places an additional burden on a person who is already faced with a life-or-death decision . . . A citizen would have to ask himself or herself, "Will the courts or district attorney believe that I couldn't have escaped if I use my weapon?"

The hesitation this law would impose on victims, however brief, could cost them their lives.

Of course, the chances of this bill becoming law are minuscule. In a state like New Hampshire, which is one of the few open-carry states, such a bill is unlikely to attract many supporters, but it is another example of how liberalism turns the world on its head and places the burden of proof on the victim rather than the criminal.  It places any victim of a violent crime at greater risk, while solving no problem.

Again, this bill addresses a non-existent problem.

It does, however, show us why we can never give an inch to the gun-grabbers.  It demonstrates to what lengths they will go to strip us of our inherent, endowed rights. 

It shows just how dangerous liberals are to their fellow citizens.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Friday, March 22, 2013

"A Republic, Madam, If You Can Keep It."

Will Malven

The "reasonable" voices in the gun control debate are once more "re-branding" their arguments in an effort to restrict our rights . . . it's the same old song with different lyrics.

"Morning Joe" Scarborough, former congressman, self-righteous hypocrite and conservative in name only (CINO) was at it again this morning, erecting more strawman arguments to push his and his fellow liberals' radical anti-gun agenda.

According to them, anyone who believes that an expansion of background checks would be a dangerous prelude to confiscation, because it means de facto registration, anyone who believes that an expansion of background checks would have no effect on criminal use of firearms, must automatically believe "we must protect the right of rapists to own guns," "criminals must be allowed to buy guns in gun shows," and "criminals and rapists must be allowed to buy guns on the internet."

People like Joe and his fellow gun-grabbers understand nothing about our Constitution or our natural, inherent rights.  They understand nothing about how a constitutional republic functions, and they understand nothing about what our Founding Fathers intended.

So, for "Morning Joe" and Dianne Feinstein and old Chuck "Microphone Moth" Schumer and for all of you other ignorant, gun-grabbing fools who believe government is only out to help you and has never and will never represent a threat to your freedom, here is a little primer on what a constitutional republic is.
  • A constitutional republic doesn't restrict the rights of all citizens because of the bad actions of a few malcontents. 

    Our system was designed to protect, to the maximum extent possible, the rights and freedoms of all citizens and to impose as few restrictions as possible on the actions of each.  If we were to pass a law based on every possible criminal contingency, then investors would be outlawed, because some choose to invest by fraudulent means.  Salesmen would be outlawed, because some salesmen choose to behave in an unethical manner, doctors would be outlawed, because some choose to write illegal prescriptions or perform unnecessary procedures.

    We seek to have a government which has the least possible negative impact on the lives of of as many citizens as possible.

  • A constitutional republic protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    One would think liberals would know this since it has been used to ensure that minorities are not discriminated against. It has also been used by liberals to promote feminism (even though women are a majority), Title 9 entitlements, the "gay" rights agenda, and virtually the entire menu of leftist social causes.

    Of course we all know that such principles are only valid in the minds of liberals if they enable or promote leftist/statist causes.

  • A constitutional republic doesn't pass laws based on the results of opinion polls.

  • We are constantly being bombarded with polling data about the issues of the day and we are informed that X-percent of Americans believe that such-and-such law should be passed, so Congress needs to do so. Again, the principle of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority applies here. Just because a majority of people think that Congress should ban so-called "assault-weapons" or high capacity magazines doesn't automatically mean that it is good policy to do so. Just because some percentage of Americans believe that gay marriage should be legal, doesn't make it wise or legitimate for Congress to pass laws making it legal.

    The wisdom of our Founding Fathers is self-evident in this principle.

  • A constitutional republic doesn't pass laws riding the crest of a wave of emotions. 

    Our system was designed intentionally to avoid such an eventuality.  Laws passed on the basis of the ebb and flow of the emotions of voters invariably are bad laws.  One of the most glaring examples of this was the 18th Amendment--"Prohibition."

    Part of the problem here rests in the passage of the 17th Amendment, removing a layer of political insulation between the voters and the Senate. The Senate was intended to represent the interests of the various states. It was the most "republican" portion of our constitutional republic. With the passage of the 17th Amendment, America moved closer to the abyss of democracy and away from the protections which were designed into our system by our Founding Fathers.
America isn't a democracy and that fact seems to escape most Democrats, most mainstream journalists, and many of our fellow citizens. To revisit an old saying, "democracy" is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.

Liberals are quick to denounce laws which restrict presumed "rights" of those whom they currently favor as "oppressed minorities (as in the case of gay marriage),"  but in their hypocrisy, avidly seek to impose restrictions on actual rights of citizens when those rights are inconvenient to their agenda.

America is a constitutional republic.  We elect representatives in whom we place our trust to exercise caution and restraint in passing laws.

Laws are not the result of a popularity contest, but should be the result of careful, fact-based, deliberation and consideration.  We should never rush to pass laws in the heat of the moment.

The actions of politicians like Andrew Cuomo and other Democrat Party leaders following a tragedy like Sandy Hook are examples of opportunism, not careful deliberation and such laws inevitably result in all Americans having fewer rights, less freedom, and more government interfering in their lives.

When advocates of laws which restrict our rights are reduced to using straw man arguments, lies, and emotional arguments, you can bet their agenda has nothing to do with  the causes they espouse and everything to do with seizing greater power over our lives . . . that or they're just plain stupid, like "Morning Joe" Scarborough.

Famously (and apocryphally), Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady as he left the Constitutional Convention, "Well Mr. Franklin, what have you left us, a democracy or a monarchy?" 

Franklin stated: "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

Sad to say, America is well on the road to becoming a democracy rather than the republic our Founding Fathers left us.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!