Damn but I wish there was a real way to combat these socialists but they've enclaved themselves.
Yes, cities such as New York and Chicago, and states like California are havens for the absurd mavens of full frontal moonbat'ism, and as is the case with the staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment, a lot of folks simply move rather than fight the good fight from within.
What the Democratic Party once stood for is but a memory as they evolved into the Nanny Ninnies of the Nineties and are striving ever so hard to turn the country into the United Socialists of America, and maybe even do away with any reference to old Amerigo himself eventually. He was a White European, you see, and as such doesn't carry much weight with the Kennedy's and the Kerry's and the Boxer's and the Biden's.
But they take residence with likeminded folks and with the help of billionaires have built an impressive wall around their fortresses of sillytude. Ask yourself how a person might be pro-abortion yet make constant reference to saving the children. Ask yourself how a person might be anti-gun yet surround his or herself with armed guards. And the list goes on.
Not that most people aren't a touch of this and a touch of that, but I'm talking about the extremists who've managed to represent themselves as mainstream. Yes, it happens on the Right as well for we have the intelligent designers and their ilk who attack science, but I can't think of a time when a modern conservative actively fought to destroy the Constitution. Not that it hasn't happened I'm sure, but it's not something that we see every day and are constantly reminded of by the mainstream media.
And what are they fighting for, these uber-liberals? The country was founded with safeguards to protect the people from an oppressive government, and anyone can see why the Founders would be so touchy about this subject. Yet the far left continues to batter away at obvious rights while creating new ones seemingly on a daily basis.
Is obvious therefore in the eyes of the beholder? Yeah. But if 90% of the people agree that the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms they won't get much press... but the 10% who disagree will. But do they truly disagree? Knowing how the Founding Fathers thought, can they actually believe that the intent was NOT to allow the people the means by which to protect themselves? States that have the strictest gun controls have the most problems with guns because criminals don't pay much attention to the law, so the sort of gun control they want and have established in these enclaves doesn't work but is praised by them and their media lapdogs.
They don't trust us. It boils down to that. They're elitist, they know better, and feel that the average citizen needs as much protection from himself as from others. THEIR consituency cannot legally own firearms anyway, or are wealthy enough to hire others to do it for them, so where's the downside in attracting enough like-minded individuals to vote for them?
They adore accountability but want illegal aliens to cross the border at their leisure, so isn't this a contradiction? Short term thinking yes, but not in the long run. Who is a person going to vote for if and when they DO become a citizen...the politician who didn't want them to enter or the one that said it was fine to do so.
It's an investment, you see. And the families that ARE here legally get to offer asylum to many that are not, and THEY will of course cast a vote for the ones allowing them to assist in bringing over tens of thousands of undocumented individuals.
I've lived in various apartments in NYC, and in some neighborhoods, "good" neighborhoods to be sure, there were perhaps 70% legal aliens and 30% illegal friends and family they had assisted in entering and remaining in the country. And of course they supported politicans who would turn a blind eye to the matter. The ranks of the illegals swell, their sponsers look to the politicians for more help in preventing wholescale deportations, and it becomes a viable way for a liberal Congressman or Senator to get elected and stay elected. Why do you think they pay for ads in different languages? Only US citizens can vote, and to become a citizen one must learn the language, so why the brochures, and TV, Radio, and Newspaper money spent on the Spanish-speaking community? Yes it's a way of endearing oneself to a consituency, but it's also a way of reaching those that cannot speak English but have considerable influence with the ones that do. Advertisers do it all the time. Kids have virtually no money of their own but they have the pester-factor and influence those who do the buying.
So there's big money in keeping the borders open. There's big money in representing homosexuals and those who feel abortion is just another form of birth control. There were laws against abortion, laws against homosexuality, and laws against illegal immigration, but enough liberal democrats found enough support from these communities to establish their enclaves and had the local laws changed.
Then came Roe versus Wade and the laws of the entire nation were changed. They found like-minded jurists to essentially write and pass laws, laws the country as whole would NEVER have approved of, established a partnership with an agreeable media that presents Roe and other laws as established precedent, and when all else fails, as having been hidden in the Constitution under one "rights" clause or another to begin with.
It's going to be difficult to beat them. They slippery-sloped far too much passed our sleepy senses and taking back the Constitution is a battle we'll be fighting for decades to come. It's one of the reasons gun owners get riled when they see one seemingly innocuous law after another offered for consideration, because that's how we got into such a mess to begin with. We let them win, a little bit at a time. They eroded our genuine rights in favor of manufactured ones, ones their constituencies approved of, a little here, a little there, until the time was ripe for the mainstream media to pronounce that they'd actually been there all along.
What can we do? We can stop the erosion here and now. No more legislating from the bench, no more giving an inch so that they might take a mile, no more diplomacy for the sake of diplomacy. We have rights too, and it's past time for the country as a whole to battle for what the majority believes in.
The liberal democrats love saying that the President should have tried to unite the country by selecting "moderate" judges for the Supreme Court, but it's no longer the time to unite anything because we want OUR voices heard. We sat back long enough and watched the Ginsbergs of the world rise to the highest court in the land, and enough is enough.
The country already IS divided and it's past time for the majority to have their say too.
No comments:
Post a Comment