Saturday, April 25, 2015
Is the Constitution Sexist?
Now comes yet another attack on the Constitution of the United States, all because they use the term “men” to mean ALL PEOPLE, including women. It's a typical “cheap shot” by the liberals to lessen the importance of the Constitution as a factor “limiting” them in their efforts to take away ALL our rights. But it ain't gonna work. We're NOT going to scrap the Constitution as we have other things because they call it “sexist,” or “racist.” They can take that idea and stick it up their tailpipe.
“PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?” Fox's Bill O'Reilly says we ought to give the Clintons “the presumption of innocence.” What for? They're as guilty as hell. And that “presumption of innocence” is for COURT ACTION, not politics. We KNOW they're as crooked as a dog's hind leg and have used politics to make $BILLIONS for their own back pockets. If it ever goes to court, it will be proven, unless they can see to it “the fix is in” because they “know where the bodies are buried,” having probably even buried a few themselves. O'Reilly is fast discrediting himself with people of intelligence.
GOING TOO FAR: It's one thing to decide murdering innocent infants still in the womb is legal, but quite another to blatantly violate the Constitution by trying to FORCE religious organizations that are violently AGAINST abortion to PAY for it. If Obama WANTS to cause a revolution, this is how to do it. The first AMERICAN revolution was caused by Britain attempting gun control in the Colonies, (which our own government has continued ever since). Who thinks something this serious won't start another?
“THERE'S NO EVIDENCE”: When Obama's chief liar, Josh Earnest, was asked about Hillary getting a bribe to help facilitate the newest scandal, Russia's attempt to “corner” the uranium market, instead of the one word answer, yes or no, he read a 50,000 word essay that boiled down to, “there's no evidence she did.” Not that she did or didn't. Which is how politicians usually get away with avoiding “prickly” questions.
“MOMS” WRONG AGAIN: What would you do if “MOMS” Against Guns (or some such) had succeeded in getting Kroger Stores to ban guns on their property and you were unarmed and saw SEVEN guys beating on an old man who was, himself, unarmed? Let them beat him to death while waiting...and waiting...and waiting, for the cops to arrive? What would you be ABLE to do beyond testifying at the trial of the KILLERS of this defenseless old man after they beat him to death? “MOMS” weren't able to convince Kroger and they told them to “stick it,” so the guy in this story HAD a legal gun and was able to stop the beating. If MOMS had prevailed, he'd be DEAD.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND! The people pushing so-called "gun control laws" are assumed to be otherwise intelligent people. Why then, can't they seem to understand the simplest of concepts, such as, making a LAW will not stop CRIMINALS, who don't OBEY laws, from carrying, and using guns in the commission of their crimes? Or that "gun-free zones" are "open invitations" to criminals to come in and bring their guns because there are not likely to be guns here pointed at them? Why are these people so STUPID?