Category Archives: Progressives

Why the Anti-gun crowd can’t be trusted and why their arguments fail every time.

antiguns

This is by far the most brilliant article I have seen regarding the anti-gun crowd to date.   I’ve shared only a portion of it here.  You MUST read the entire thing by Barry Snell here.

 

Truth, treason and the empire of lies

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because suicide is the only human-inflicted leading cause of death in America, and that violent crime has been on the decline for decades. We also know that 10 people die daily in drownings, 87 people die daily by poisoning, more than 20,000 adults die from falls each year, someone dies in a fire every 169 minutes, nearly 31,000 people are killed in car accidents annually and almost 2,000 are stabbed to death. People even kill each other with hammers. Yet fewer than 14,000 people are killed by guns of any kind each year.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too.  We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they’re a bigger problem than they really are. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re busy riling up the emotions of the ignorant, who in turn direct their ire upon us, demonizing us because we object to the overreaction and focus on the wrong things, like the mentally ill people committing the crimes.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they look down on us for defending the Second Amendment as vigorously as they defend the First Amendment — a fight we too would stand side-by-side with them on otherwise. We don’t trust anti-gunners because someone defending the First Amendment is considered a hero, but a someone defending the Second Amendment is figured down with murderers and other lowlifes. Where the First Amendment has its very own day and week, both near-holy national celebrations beyond reproach, anti-gunners would use the First Amendment to ridicule any equivalent event for the Second Amendment, like they did for a recent local attempt at the University of Iowa.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.” We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.” One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn’t commit. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed — and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they’re fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they’re against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards —and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren’t important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford.”

Advertisements

Gun Control Advocates are waging a War on Women

?????????????????????

Gun control advocates have long demanded more restrictive gun control laws but after the horrific Newtown tragedy they have become more emotional, illogical and louder than ever. Governors and Legislators in many states are trying to enact ridiculous gun laws that only hurt law-abiding citizens. There’s a little known fact within the gun control crowd that criminals will not obey their laws. Legislators on the national level are also trying to put extremely strict gun laws into place, once again ignoring the fact that criminals do not obey their laws (including Obama and the DOJ – please see Fast and Furious). Some are even calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. The majority of these people are Democrats who refuse to use facts in order to back up their demands for stricter gun laws. They are using their emotions to wage a war on women that will create more victims.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that proves women can protect themselves from assailants if they have a gun. There is also plenty that shows what happens to women when they don’t have a gun to protect themselves – they become statistics. As more women choose to become gun owners in order to protect themselves, it’s clear that they are fighting to avoid becoming victims. Women are empowering themselves by protecting themselves. Some disturbing 911 calls below:

Women who called 911 and didn’t have firearms

Woman is sexually assaulted while on the phone with 911

Stalking victim murdered while on the phone with 911

Elderly woman murdered while on the phone with 911

Women who called 911 and had firearms

Georgia mother shoots intruder, doesn’t allow herself or her twins to become victims

Teen mother saves herself and her baby from attackers

Woman kills stalker while on the phone with 911

This is not a hit against 911 dispatchers or the police who respond to the calls. Both do an excellent job in the most extreme circumstances. The range of response time to a 911 call is 5.7 minutes to over 30 minutes in the United States. It takes an intruder less than 2 minutes to attack once he or she has gotten into your home. Despite these facts, some gun control advocates believe calling 911 is the first step in women’s defense.

Gun control advocates in several states across the country are trying to enact more strict gun control laws than currently exist. They do not base their actions on facts or statistics.

Colorado

In Colorado a Democrat legislator actually told a rape victim that a gun wouldn’t have helped her protect herself despite the fact that sexual assaults fell 90% on the Colorado Springs University once they allowed guns to be carried on campus. Another Colorado Democrat believes that call boxes and rape whistles will help women defend themselves. These Democrats are using “bogus data” to make their claims that women can’t defend themselves with guns. The fact that women are safer if they have a gun to protect themselves has already been proven at Colorado Springs but those pesky facts don’t get in the way of gun control advocates.

New York

New York Democrats wasted no time in passing even more strict gun laws than they had in place before Newtown (gun crime is relatively high in New York even with their previously existing strict gun laws). The law bans all AR-15s and “assault” type weapons from being sold in the state. A Democrat legislator actually believes that women are “too weak” to fire AR-15s. The people that are passing these laws have zero clue how the guns they are banning even work.

In their haste to rush through bad legislation, the Democrats neglected to exempt police from their draconian gun laws. And of course, Governor Cuomo is creating an exemption in the law for his Hollywood buddies, just in case they need it.

Massachusetts

The Governor of Massachusetts wants to enact more restrictive gun control laws than currently exist. Residents of the state are already treated like criminals if they dare apply for a License to Carry. What’s interesting in this case is that their neighbors in New Hampshire have some of the least strict gun laws in the country, yet Massachusetts has a much higher gun crime rate. These statistics should be telling to anyone who reads them but not if you are a gun control advocate or Democrat. Even a Harvard study shows that gun control is counterproductive. Democrats love to use Harvard studies, except when the studies disagree with their “emotional reasoning”.

New Hampshire

In 2010, with a Republican controlled legislature, the Stand Your Ground law was passed which allows women to defend themselves in public as well as in their homes and not be treated like criminals for doing so. Democrats said it would create a “wild west” environment (it didn’t). NowDemocrats are pushing to remove the part of Stand Your Ground that allows women to protect themselves in public. It’s okay to use deadly force in your home but if you are in public you have to run. Since New Hampshire already has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the country, Democrats have no reason to change the law. All it will do is turn victims into criminals and criminals into victims if a woman dares to protect herself using deadly force in public.

At the federal level, gun control advocates are seeking to enact very restrictive gun laws that will absolutely victimize more women. Senator Dianne Feinstein is behind the new laws that states would be expected to enforce (so much for states’ rights). Feinstein is such a loon that she actually makes the claim that it’s “legal to hunt humans”. The Obama Administration has already said they will back any gun control legislation that Congress may pass. An “assault ban” has already been tried in previous years in this country only it was proven that it did absolutely nothing to change crimes with “assault weapons”. That may be because criminals do not obey the laws, something that Democrats cannot seem to get through their thick skulls.

Gun control advocates consistently toss facts and gun crime statistics out the window. In the latest gun crime statistics report from the FBI, it’s pretty clear that states with the most restrictive gun laws have more crimes committed with guns than those with the least restrictive laws (New Hampshire being one of them). Criminals love gun control because the laws don’t apply to them. They will continue to get guns illegally and use them to commit crimes against women.

Gun control advocates reduce a woman’s ability to defend herself by either banning guns or making it far more difficult for a woman to legally own one. They are creating a “Sad Sisterhood of Victims“. Women who own guns are empowered because they can protect themselves. Women cannot rely on 911, rape whistles or restraining orders. Until there is a police officer at every woman’s door 24/7, women must be allowed to protect themselves if they choose to. By putting more restrictive gun laws into place, gun control advocates are aiding criminals while waging a war on women.

Originally posted on Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-control-advocates-are-waging-a-war-on-women?cid=db_articles


Elizabeth Warren’s ‘war on workers’

Elizabeth Warren likes to pretend she’s for ‘the little guy’ or worker yet her past history and record of supporting legislation that will necessarily hurt the ‘little guy’ proves otherwise. There’s also the fact she’s campaigning around Massachusetts with out-of-state unions. Since unions in Massachusetts make up less than 18% of the total workforce, just who is Warren planning on representing in her bid for the senate seat? In a report by the Associated Press yesterday, Warren touts her support for Obamacare despite the fact that it will raise taxes on medical device companies (which affects workers) that thrive in Massachusetts and despite the fact that it will increase costs on workers.

Obama promised that premiums would go down once Obamacare was put into place but they have actually risen by $3,000 a year for workers. Obamacare will tax workers who have a ‘cadillac insurance plan’ in the upcoming years. This means millions of workers will have to pay an excise tax on good health insurance plans provided by their employers, necessarily affecting union workers the most. There are 5 new taxes in Obamacare that will affect workers in 2013 alone. Warren will claim Obamacare will keep people from going bankrupt but her medical bankruptcy myth was debunked years ago. Her medical bankruptcy claim is just another of her list of lies and fraudulent claims.

Warren’s war on workers doesn’t end with Obamacare. Warren’s history as a legal consultant for large companies against workers is becoming infamous. William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, an Associate Clinical Professor at Cornell University, has been writing about Warren’s extensive involvement in lawsuits in which she helped large companies get out of paying monies owed to workers. Yesterday he posted how Warren helped Traveler’s Insurance get out of paying asbestos victims. Previously he has pointed out that “Warren represented Dow Chemical at a time it was denying any liability for breast implant claims.” Since Warren was representing Dow Chemical as her client, she clearly was working against the women who were suing them. Jacobson also reports on Warren’s involvement in the destruction of a small rural electric cooperative while representing a large utility. Of course this would kill jobs and hurt workers, namely ‘the little guys’.

And of course, as previously reported, Elizabeth Warren is campaigning around Massachusetts with an out-of-state union. Who exactly is Warren planning on representing in the Senate – union workers only; union workers from out-of-state or simply those who agree with her far left wing progressive ideology? Since union workers represent a small portion of the Massachusetts workforce and Warren is clearly emboldened to them (they will pay for her to be elected and then she will have to pay them back with votes to raise taxes and grow government), how exactly is Warren representing ‘the little guy’, the regular worker? Simply, she isn’t.

Warren has proven that she will continue to rail against workers with legislation and take note union members – that includes against you as well in Obamacare. While union leaders from out-of-state continue to spend union members’ dues to elect Elizabeth Warren, she continues her ‘war on workers’ with her ideology. Since Warren has a past of fighting against ‘the little guy’, it’s pretty obvious she’ll continue that modus operandi if she were to be elected. The only people who can stop Elizabeth Warren’s ‘war on workers’ are the workers themselves at the voting booth.

Originally published at Examiner.com:  http://www.examiner.com/article/elizabeth-warren-s-war-on-workers


Maggie Hassan isn’t happy over another ad about her record of raising taxes

The RGA (Republican Governor’s Association) has put out a new ad that hits Maggie where it hurts, taxes. Hassan lives in the Principal’s home at Phillips Exeter Academy because her husband is thePrincipal. That’s all well and good except she doesn’t have to pay property taxes on that home. The ad claims that while Hassan raised taxes throughout her stint as a New Hampshire state legislator, she didn’t feel the same pain as others who actually pay property taxes. Hassan is claiming the ad is misleading and a personal attack as reported by Ben Leubsdorf in the Concord Monitor yesterday.

Taxes are a personal matter. Everyone gets hit with them in some shape or form andMaggie Hassan loves to raise them. Taxes affect the poor, working and middle classes the most. This fact doesn’t seem to bother Hassan because it really doesn’t affect her as much as the ‘little guy’ since she pays no property tax and is part of the top ‘1%’. Hassan has a very long track record of raising taxes on New Hampshire families. It’s part of her voting record. Hassan raised taxes and fees many times as a legislator. It’s simply a fact.

While the RGA ad does not explain why Hassan does not pay property taxes, the ad is factual by saying she doesn’t and by saying she raised them. The ad is factual by saying raising taxes doesn’t affect Hassan or her family as much as it does everyone else because she doesn’t have to pay those property taxes like everyone else (even renters pay this in the form of rent because property owners work this into the price of the rent). So Hassan can whine that this ad is misleading but it’s not. Hassan can whine that it’s a personal attack but it’s not. What is a personal attack isthe fact that Hassan will raise taxes. That affects everyone in New Hampshire but it affects those who can least afford it the most.

Originally posted at Examiner.com: http://www.examiner.com/article/maggie-hassan-isn-t-happy-over-another-ad-about-her-record-of-raising-taxes


Despicable Democrat ad lies to seniors to scare them for votes

In an ad just released by the DCCC(Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) for far left wing candidate Ann Kuster (NH Congressional District 2),Democrats stoop to an all knew low with their lies about Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. In the video, they claim that people who have worked hard and paid into Medicare are going to lose it and Charlie Bass (Republican candidate in NH Congressional District 2) voted for it. Every single person represented in the video is obviously elderly. Ryan’s plan does not affect anyone over 55 and it isn’t going to end Medicare either.

As if Democrats can’t sink any lower, they now sink to elder abuse, because there is nothing like fear mongering the elderly. This ad is egregious and Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. If they want to disagree with Ryan’s plan, feel free, that is what political parties do, but do not scare an entire segment of the country because you so desperately want to win an election. It’s reprehensible and Kuster spreads the same lies. Not only is this ad despicable but it shows the lack of respect Democrats have for seniors. Apparently Democrats believe that anyone 55 and older must be too stupid to read or actually look into legislation that may affect their lives.

Despicable ad by Democrats lies to scare seniors
Video: DCCC

Kuster pretends to care about seniors. If she she truly does, she’ll demand the DCCC take this false ad down because it is despicable. If she doesn’t, it proves yet again that she will do whatever Democrats tell her rather than what her constituents want. Democrats have already proven they are desperate during this election cycle but scaring senors to gain votes is beyond disgusting.

Originally posted here: http://www.examiner.com/article/despicable-democrat-ad-lies-to-seniors-to-scare-them-for-votes?cid=db_articles


Kennedy will never understand working or middle class struggles

In another debate held yesterday for theMassachusetts Congressional District 4 seat,Sean Bielat (Republican) and Joe Kennedy III(Democrat) met to discuss the issues. The debate was only an hour but it was crystal clear at the end the differences between the candidates. Kennedy believes that government is the solution and Bielat believes that people are the solution. Kennedy will raise taxes and grow government while Bielat will shrink government and keep taxes low. Those are pretty typical of Democrat vs. Republican issues. Democrats have a history of growing government and raising taxes while Republicans have a history (well normally) of keeping government small and taxes low.

What really struck a chord was when one of the panel members brought up the stark difference between Kennedy and Bielat when it comes to their financial disclosures. Kennedy is a multi-millionaire while Bielat has a mountain of student loan debt. It’s nice that Kennedy’s family left him millions of dollars; most families would love to have the privilege of doing that. It’s great that both Bielat and his wife have furthered their education to further the well-being of themselves and their family; many people continue their education even with the astronomical costs of higher education these days.

Kennedy’s resume is extremely short. He has only ever held a ‘real job’ for 2.5 years and that was in the public sector. He’s never worked one day in the private sector. Kennedy touts his stint in the Peace Corps in a foreign country but why didn’t he join an organization in the United States and help Americans? Kennedy has never worried a day in his life how he will pay the rent, the mortgage, the oil bill or if he’ll have enough money to put food on the table. Kennedy has never had to choose between paying the electric bill and paying the car payment. As much as he likes to pretend he is ‘for the working man’, he has no clue the struggles of any working men or women.

Bielat is part of the middle class. Not only is he a Marine Reservist fighting for the United States but he wants to continue fighting for Americans in Congress. Bielat understands the struggles of working men and women because he is one of them. He understands how difficult times are right now and knows what it will take to truly change the economic environment from the cliff Obama and Democrats have put it on. Bielat’s years of experience as a leader in the private sector show that he knows what drives business and what a good economy means for families across the country and in his district.

Bielat is the only candidate in the 4th Congressional District who will fight for the working and middle classes. There are already too many ‘Kennedy types’ in Congress – those who are multi-millionaires and make laws increasing the size of government and raising taxes without realizing the massive ramifications that ideology has on the very people they claim to represent. If Kennedy’s last name was Smith, he wouldn’t even be in this race.

Continue Reading here:  http://www.examiner.com/article/kennedy-will-never-understand-working-or-middle-class-struggles?cid=db_articles


Kuster Parrots Debunked Talking points and Lies

The final debate in WBIN’s series was held last night between Ann Kuster (Democrat) and Charles Bas (Republican Incumbent) running for New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District. Again the panel questions were excellent as well as the moderator. Kuster behaved in a far better manner than at a previous debate where she actually took the microphone from Bass during his closing statement. Apparently being on live television forced Kuster to act like an adult rather than a petulant child – something that she’s become known for throughout New Hampshire. Each candidate touted their stances on the issues and fired back at one another when comments were made as is par for the course in debates; however, Kuster seemed to really just parrot Democratic talking points and lies rather than think for herself. A few of the highlights are below.

  • Kuster is for a single payer government controlled healthcare plan but lied during the debate and said she meant ‘via insurance companies’. She apparently hasn’t read Obamacare because she didn’t seem to understand that there are many new taxes in the bill that will necessarily hurt the working and middle classes.
  • Of course Kuster parroted the same $6,400 Medicare lie that all Democrats seem to be repeating. It’s a lie, it’s been debunked and it shows she doesn’t bother doing her research and simply believes whatever Obama and company tell her.
  • Kuster also tried to frame Bass as a ‘party line’ voter except his record proves that he doesn’t vote with Republicans all of the time. Bass has voted along with Democrats on many bi-partisan bills in Congress. Apparently Kuster ignores his voting record when it doesn’t agree with the false picture she’s trying to present.
  • Kuster’s biggest whopper of the night that she kept repeating over and over that it was thanks to the Tea Party and Republicans that nothing has gotten done in Congress. In reality, the House has gotten many bills passed in a bi-partisan manner but it’s Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid who refuses to even bring these bills to a vote. These bills include many job creating bills. Senate Democrats simply don’t want any bills to pass that will help the economy. In fact, the most bi-partisan votes in Congress since Obama’s election have been against Obama’s far left wing agenda. Kuster can keep repeating this lie over and over but it will never make it true. It’s just another Democrat talking point.
  • Another ridiculous parrot by Kuster is the ‘huge tax incentive for companies who ship jobs overseas’. Americans have heard this from Obama and many Democrats who apparently know nothing about business. The truth is that it is only a minor tax deduction for moving costs . It would only bring in $168 million over 10 years if taken away. There are far more serious ramifications for overseas operations but those don’t seem to fit into the talking points rhetoric of Democrats, especially since under Obama the United States now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Continue Reading here: http://www.examiner.com/article/kuster-parrots-debunked-talking-points-and-lies-during-debate?cid=db_articles


There are Two Paths – Retire Obama


Who would You hire – Kennedy vs Bielat – Compare Resumes

A new video has been created by the Bielat Campaign comparing the resumes of Sean Bielat and his opponent Joseph Kennedy III in the Massachusetts District 4 Congressional race. It’s painfully obvious that Bielat has far more experience than Kennedy. Kennedy literally only has a few years of experience working in the public sector. He has spent the majority of his life in school and living at home with Mommy. Bielat has many years of experience running successful businesses in the private sector and as a Marine Reservist.

Get an Exclusive sneak peek at the new video here.

Sean Bielat understands the struggles of the middle class in his everyday life because he is part of the middle class. Kennedy is a trust fund baby who just recently moved out of his Mother’s house in order to run for office.

Kennedy believes that Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel and he has the gall to believe that taxpayers will really like it when he raises taxes on them. Bielat understands the support that America needs to provide Israel and knows that raising taxes in this economy is absolute insanity. Kennedy doesn’t have a grasp on reality. His beliefs are that big government is the answer. Bielat lives in reality. He believes that ‘we, the people’ are the answer. Kennedy believes that we ‘belong to the government.’. Bielat believes that the ‘government belongs to us.’

Continue Reading here:  http://www.examiner.com/article/new-video-by-the-bielat-campaign-compares-resumes?cid=db_articles


Damn You Chic-Fil-A