The tactic of placing blame.

Liberals are trapped having to live a life within their own flawed narrative. In the article “Let’s hope that the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American” David Sirota expresses his liberal wishful thinking, because he knows there would be a loss of support in pushing the liberal agenda with immigration, and gun control. He makes a point that there is a difference to how America deals with would be bombers / terrorists / conservatives.

There is a double standard: White terrorists are dealt with as lone wolves, Islamists are existential threats. In a piece by David Sirota in Salon.com

There is a problem with this kind of mind-set. It looks at the world by separating it into groups of color vs. white, the very same limited viewpoints that all racists possess. It is a piece that also attempts to shove conservative into the group of people that are unstable enough to cause terror through mass shootings or bombings like The Boston Marathon bombing, or the mass shooting in New Town.

He makes the assumption that white men are a bigger problem than people of a radical religious belief systems. Because he assumes that white men act out of hate of others, but never applies these same assumptions to radical religious groups, who have often openly stated their hatred of whatever, as their reasons for plotting or carrying out various terror attacks.

What is really the problem here is an attempt to change gradually the public’s mindset into one, that would be open to hate, hate of whites / or European decent people. David Sirota isn’t open to the ideas of judging people on content of their characters, but implies color is the only factors in making judgments. Another flawed ideal of anyone that leans towards racism.

Finley his piece applies that conservative people are more likely to act out in violence whether in mass shootings, or bombing. Sighting a picture of Timothy McVeigh as the one that had caused the Oklahoma City bombing, using the liberal misapplied definition of his belief system as being a conservative. When in fact he wasn’t really.

The liberal left never look at facts as plain facts, but look at them as tools to be manipulated, massaged, and distorted to fit into a narrative that pushes their liberal agenda along. The tactic of placing blame of such events on conservatives, being right or wrongfully so has its history with the progressive liberal left. They tend to jump to conclusions, planting the seed in the public mind that also tend to listen to any news in sound bits and bytes.

For instance on the mass shooting of the opening day of the movie of “Dark Night”, at the theaters in Colorado. The left leaning media accused the man of being part of the “Tea Party” movement. Yet they only had at that time, the name of the suspect, and an overzealous internet search of that same name as their proof that tied him to a conservative movement. As it would turn out another person had the same name. The same thing with the shooting of Travon Martin. It had to be a White on black violent attack in order to fit the narrative. In both cases they were wrong!

If liberals would only be open to use of hindsight glasses, over the willful self blinding sight of their self-proclaimed foresight glasses. They may then see realities that those glasses are broken, incapable of seeing truth. With out patience and applying impartial attitudes, like being unwilling to wait for facts of an investigation to take place, liberals will be stuck living a life in their fantasies that their narrative have already built.

The left leaning media and the liberal politicians seem to use whatever tragedy to push their agenda, an agenda that never stands alone on the principles of facts and truths. But tends to create distortion of facts, an evolved truth, a hidden lie, a massaged and manipulation of the public, as a cheap attempt in getting them to freely giving away their true power of the vote. In other words, the liberals are playing dirty for the purposes of gaining / seizing power. If this means reversed racism, or embracing the tenants of racism to push along an agenda, they will do it!

When it comes to senseless violence, terror attacks, or mass shootings, we must except that there is evil in the world or at the very least in the heart and minds of people. There is no regulation, or any power within those same regulations or laws presented by any politicians that will totally prevent another attack. Outlawing the tools of violence such as GUNS, will never end the senseless ambitions of evil. Pointing arbitrarily towards groups, or smaller portions within those same groups, overlooks the facts that there are radical elements in all groups of people. Not just in the conservative elements of such groups. To apply any other standards is in itself a type of evil, a self-deception.

When will we become an educated society, willing to view people not based on the color of one’s own skin, but having the unwavering principles of truthfully place judgments on the content of ones character?

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/ via @Salon

Advertisements

Third world transformation of the USA

Do you remember just what was meant when Mr. Obama said? “The transformation of America.”?

 Update Houston; an assistant U.S. Attorney who has been prosecuting 34 members of the white supremacist Aryan Brotherhood has suddenly announced he is withdrawing from the case because of what he called “security concerns.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Hileman didn’t say what those concerns were.

But a friend of his – who happens to be one of the lawyers for the defense in the case, thinks he’s probably worried about his family.

If government employees are in fear of doing their jobs, of prosecuting the worsted of the worsted in criminals because of personal threats, or “security concerns.” then where do all of the citizens of this country stand? How is it possible for the government to protect us?

I’m personally tired of the government or their spokes puppets standing at the podium and calling for new gun regulations, like back ground checks for the law-abiding citizen who wish to purchase a legal and 2nd amendment protected gun. Not that I’m against regulation, but what I’m against is an increase of regulations, and over regulation, like that of also implementing a national data base that can and more than likely will be abused by government at some point in time in the future.

I seem to remember what Washington said of the government, ” It is evil, but sadly a necessary evil.”

The government puppet and chief said the other day (paraphrased) “We need to have back ground checks to make the country safer from gun violence….” They (as in the liberal mind-set) still see the “GUN” as the problem? When the problem is with people possessing a normal state of mind. The criminal element is a small segment of society, which has a false belief in the tenants of unrestrained ability’s in their actions against others.

Think of it–the government thinks it can keep its citizenry safe from all kinds of dangers, by eliminating guns! But the problem is not with the implementation of some regulation/law/limitation. But the problem is with some of the population that will not ever subjugate themselves to following laws, and regulations of the land. Who are these people? How will the government best control these people, while protecting the freedoms and liberties of the law-abiding? There isn’t any population testing available in make any determinations, who will act within the laws of the land or who will not, until a law is broken?

In third world country’s law-abiding people are in-between a rock and a hard place. The government who makes the laws and the criminal elements who act with little concern for them. In this update from Houston, it shows that there is fear within the government legal justice system, whose job it is to in force the laws of the land. But violent criminal elements are acting out to intimidate the system in their favor. Stories like this are all too often recurring in any third world country. Google any third world country, and see for yourself. Of course you will also see that in these country’s people have lost their rights to protect themselves, depending totally on the government. Would you trust the Mexican legal justice system? Remembering just who has the weapons, and who does not have them, and whether the government is or isn’t corrupt. Does it surprise anyone why people come across the border illegally into the USA?

Why would we then trust in a government in this country saying, for all intents and purposes “We the government will protect you.” This same body of political puppets will not protect you by securing the borders, but demands of you to give up your own protection of yourself. Have we forgotten that no one will ever arrive from the government just in the nick of time, just before an act of violence towards you is committed?

It seems we have all kinds of money to barrow, and waste, yet not enough to pay for a super hero like super-man who always arrived in a nick of time, along with his can of whip-ass, as his weapon to swiftly dispensed swift justice towards those armed criminals of the day. Until that day, let the criminal element worry what is behind closed doors? Because it certainly isn’t super-man. With this story out of Houston they point towards a more violent criminal element as being responsible…

“In fact, there are experts who say this looks more like the work of a Mexican drug cartel. But whatever it is, to see this kind of violence happening here in America, it’s like we suddenly woke up in a third world country – except with better plumbing.”

The more we change ourselves into a governmental protected class, the less protection we will have. The more we have politicians espousing the abilities of protecting you so you don’t have to. We will resemble a third world nation where protection comes at a price no matter who’s supposedly offering it.

If the government could protect anyone except from a military conflict of some kind. Why wouldn’t they choose to protect their own employees involved in the legal justice system, from violent crime before it could happen to them? It is hard to ask the government to protect us, when we have stories like this one, which demonstrate they usually arrive after the fact.

What country IS this& http://mynw.me/YVCaFC

Guns, Rifles, knifes, hammers, and knee-jerk-reactions!

On the stupidity scale, brain-dead politician take the golden scale awards. Alow me. Because there is a real need to keep the public safe from all dangers in life. The government must get involved in everybody’s lives to protect them from themselves. We all know the dangers of guns in the publics hands, and out in public? Because of gun deaths of children in schools of late. So it is only natural for the government to have a knee-jerk-reaction. Or is it?

Well lets see. Kids are getting killed in school, kids getting to fat in school (leading to diabetics)… in turn early health haszerds….even death. In both of these cases state governments, federal government got involved. On the kids getting diabetes… by drinking too much soda! Solution ban large and supper size soft drinks, like New York did. but soda isn’t the only thing that leads to being over weight. Besides drinking smaller drinks, but more of them doesn’t accomplish much either. But the public perception is government cares about the smallest of all Americans. Though that perception is false, it doesn’t solve anything or control anyone in changing their behaviours.

Banning guns doesn’t solve issues with safety in schools either. The lawless don’t follow laws, don’t care about rules, and find the easiest victims in gun free zones… like schools.

When governments local, state, and federal make regulations, laws, that do little to promote a change of choice in people who have already chosen to be lawless. There is no increase of safety! In fact there is a decrease of safety. Because the law enforcement can’t be everywhere at the same time, there is a lag in reaction by law-enforcement in confronting criminals.

The FBI came out with a report that stated that other weapons are more dangerous than guns. Why? Why hasn’t government also engaged the public in debate on these new dangers? Read the report below:

FBI: MORE PEOPLE KILLED WITH HAMMERS, CLUBS EACH YEAR THAN RIFLES

By AWR HAWKINS, Breitbart.com

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats’ feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

While the FBI makes is clear that some of the “murder by rifle” numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein’s dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

So should we outlaw blunt force trauma objects/weapons or the hands that would deliver the blow to the victim? Taking all of the firing pins from weapons that the public has, leaving them with the possession of their beloved weapons, could also leave them with a more lethal weapon by statistical comparison if used as a club.

Yet with knee-jerk-reactions silly arguments are often made to make a point, that results in a pointless, meaningless, statistical outcome. Look to prohibition in history. The results were a higher crime rate, more societal problems, and a re in statement of the legalization of alcohol. Even with all of the drunk drivers in the world still today, that are also killing people at an ever higher rate then guns or rifles at least. The governments answer to this problem is taxation, the profit motive, over public safety. Even a week knee-jerk-reaction of outlawing parking lots at bars would be better to give a concerned perception of public safety.

statically speaking; the government isn’t going to do anything that wouldn’t also increase their power over the people as a whole. safety be damned! Because there is no provision in the constitution to being able to take the people’s weapons by the government. Any such law would be unconstitutional. Unless the people would volunteer to give up their weapons. Aw! The motivation for government to use any tools at their disposal to change the publics minds with emotional pressures, in changing the total mindset.

Remember that all law enforcement agency’s have the policies of takeing control of a dangerous situation by meeting force with force of equal or superior means. In the time that it takes for law enforcement to arrive after your 911 call. What weapon of choice would you like to use, in meeting any criminal force against you, or your family? A knife in a gun fight? Fists of furry against a saturday-night-special? Or being able to freely choose for yourself, meeting force with force of equal or superior means by the weapon of your choosing? No matter what your personal choices may be.

To have a weapon or not! We must always remember the right to bare arms was to protect us against a criminal acting government using the power of ternary to rule the day over us.

If motivation is to protect our kids in school as the motivating factor by government to do anything. Let them put law enforcement into schools to keep the peace. After all having law enforcement in any city doesn’t eliminate crime…. it reduces it!!! Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens makes an unarmed victim of opportunity for the lawless! Just ask the victims family’s of crime in Chicago how crime has been reduced because of the gun laws?

No need to have a knee-jerk-reaction with all of the deaths caused by blunt force trauma then. Or we may get a government willing to support mass amputations of hands, or at least opposable thumbs, in the name of public safety!

Resident evil! The Newtown massacre, tattooed onto the tapestry of our minds.

The massacre in Newtown has been tattooed onto the tapestry of our minds memories to a point that we cannot escape the horror of it, are we just trying to exorcise it from our minds by affirming our mutual sorrow and rage over what evil has been done, by now misplacing our emotions with collective rage?

Too many of us waste our time standing in the darkness of a cold world. Forgetting our childhood upbringing, the ones our parents made their best attempts at teaching us through some religious values, while introducing us to the concept of taking personal responsibility’s. Afraid of the darkness society has become paralyzed with fear from entering the light of enlightenment while accepting the personal responsibility for one’s self in choosing between good over that of evil. As mortals, coming to realize that we do not battle against flesh and blood, but rather we battle within ourselves a great battle of “Good vs EVIL”. That hidden little secret, that dirty something, within our own thoughts that has lasted throughout all time—- over every generations past to present, at times is harder than we think to fashionably except. Evil resides in us all.

It is easier to blame something, or someone, in making excuses or in giving an impression of being out of control. Maybe if we believe in an out of control world there is less of a case we have to make in taking some control of our lives, or even with our own actions, decisions, or choices…ECT.

Recently Joe Scarborough passionately stated that his views have changed on both the 2nd and the 1st Amendments (he appears to want action against violent video games and movies). I am sure that some games, movies and TV, is harmful (especially for the already disturbed mind), I am not so convinced there is a government solution to any problems of society that involves people having to make a choice of what will influence them to action between good vs evil.

People who embrace the ideas of doing evil will always pick the easiest victim, giving them the best chance to survive to do it again. So banning the  gun or even all guns of any kind does nothing to change the thoughts within the minds of any prudential killers. Of course, there is no necessary cause-effect relationship of gun bans and a reduction in gun related deaths ( Chicago is just one such example ). Nor is there any examples of government being able to regulate effectively thoughts out of the minds of its citizenry. In affect banning evil thoughts in anyones mind vs. popular mind control of the weak-minded. Convincing people of the “evil” of an inanimate object.

If placing a well-meaning ban, or governmental regulation is the answer, then why not ban Drugs, and alcohol which has damaged more people’s health through disease or early death by car accident, and acts of violence (no matter what weapon was used) while under the influence. But then you say we tried that once and look what happened. Besides that, it was a long time ago; back when we all had a greater tendency towards traditional or religious beliefs. Why did it not work then, and why should it work now? The problem with legislating evil out of existence when it has never ever not at any time in history ever worked. Is asking evil to consume itself.

Might there be some restrictions or ways in which we could improve safety and stop killers? I would listen to any well thought out plan that could actually keep kids safer and stop evil monsters of this kind.  But I will not aid in turning law-abiding people into criminals simply for appearances sake in the name of “doing something” if it doesn’t actually stop killers and criminals. So I’ll keep on supporting the 2nd Amendment.

The best way in protecting our kids in school is to have armed police officers there, doing the jobs of protecting those kids. The police can’t be everywhere all at once, but by placing them at a point of what evil minds have already determined as being the easiest of targets is a deterrent to evil actions. At least it would remove from evil the ability to easily find unarmed victims to exploit.

Anyone who would then make this kind of statement “We need to work on, so this kind of tragedy will never happen again!”, a statement that the NRA president said the other day is just foolish! The gun isn’t the evil we battle against, it is the evil that starts out as a small thought, nurtured into action by someone who has given into the evil within themselves. In other words people with some evil intent within their minds are everywhere; they just don’t give into those impulses without making a choice. We can never outlaw evil, or limit it and the thought there of, by regulations and laws. It is the evil within that says to any person who entertains it, ” Laws don’t apply!” For these kinds of regulated false hopes only open the doors wider for an even greater evil to enter into society.

What strikes me when I hear the media pundits conversation on  finding “solutions” so far is that instead of wanting to discuss it and hear what might actually work (and what choices might work better than others), these media pundits and politicians seem more eager in supporting emotional legislation to “get something done” so that they can put the issue behind them. Over really doing the tough job of having to recognize the battle isn’t between flesh and blood. We can not give into the do something disease, and do the unnecessary three times faster in the hopes to defeat evil within the minds and thoughts of men and women.

We may all have the common belief that people are mostly good at heart. But we must never fail to also recognize that people never pre-announce their evil intent to do evil unarmed. Why is that? If “GUN CONTROL” was the simple answer to this problem of the mind, why is the “City of Chicago” struggling to come to grips with the almost daily gun-shot victims and needless deaths of their youth. While also having the toughest “Gun Control” laws on the books in the country. clearly “Gun Control” laws, regulations, and emotional legislations aren’t the answer then.

The real issue in “GUN CONTROL” is not the gun; it is in the ability to choose for one’s self to control one’s self. Placing an evil gun in the hands of any police officer, doesn’t prevent evil in someone’s mind to then follow through with evil intent on exploiting the unexpected victims of opportunity. Clearly it is the issue of choice! The choice of government through the influences of evil, presenting the case that it doesn’t trust any citizen to choose for themselves between good actions over evil ones. Over those choices made by this country’s citizenry in recognizing good intentions are the paving stones to the highway to hell! Good intentions are the obstacles to preserving freedom of choice!

The almost daily gun-shot victims and needless deaths that the people of Chicago are experiencing shouldn’t be the extinguishing acts that puts out the fires of common sense. Too many of us are waste our time standing in the darkness of a cold world totally forgetting why it has become so cold in the first place. The massacre in Newtown should not be tattooed onto the tapestry of our minds memories with paralyzing horror. Society shouldn’t ever be patronized into excepting reaction over that of that of common sense pro-action. What should be more horrific to us is that we cannot escape totally the evil of people when they choose to alow evil thoughts to take over their ability to act in a good way towards others. We should be more afraid of the darkness in society who chooses a command and control government to legislate, and regulate emotional controlling laws. In affect never letting a crisis go to waste. It will be at that time when true evil exists, when we become paralyzed with fear from entering the light of enlightenment, being only able to choose to accept progressive personal responsibility for one’s self out of emotional reaction.

There has never been through time a legislated emotional well-meaning law that hasn’t also become the mother’s milk of tyranny, the pure energy of evil. Nor is there any evidence of reduced violence by demanding compliance to it. It is just plain impossible for any government to control the “Resident Evil” that resides in us all.