I have long said that the Constitution is my guide, that I will never accept another, except God. It's fortunate that the Constitution is based upon, and follows, God's Law faithfully. Well, it does when it's followed the way it was intended to be followed.
I believe that - as Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence, and is codified in the Constitution - that all mankind are created equal and are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - these thing mean something very real to me, and others like me. There's a reason the United States, still one of the youngest nations on the planet, became so powerful, so rich, so influential as quickly as she did. That reason - the freedoms guaranteed us by the Constitution.
No nation of which I am aware has a Constitution like ours. People flocked to our shores BECAUSE our Constitution guaranteed the rights their home countries would not. People STILL come here for that reason.
This is the only nation on Earth where someone who took the Oath of Citizenship an hour ago be considered just as much a part of the nation as someone whose family has been here since the 1600's - because America is an idea just as much, if not more, than a nation of borders.
This nation, this great experiment in self-governance, was built upon the foundation of the Constitution. On that foundation, two cornerstones were laid - individual liberty and the Rule of Law. These two cornerstones are interrelated, or they used to be, because of one thing - personal responsibility.
Sadly, however, a great number of people no longer believe in personal responsibility, individual liberty, and the Rule of Law. Where we were once a moral people, a nation based on Judeo-Christian values with a strong moral code, we are a nation of moral relativism, moral ambiguity.
More and more people have the view that individual liberty must be supplanted by the "greater good." What this means - to me, anyway - is that the many count more than the few, or the one. But who decides what's best for the many?
I utterly reject the notion that the majority is greater than the individual. In a morally strong society, what's best for the individual is also what's best for the group. When all are individually strong, the whole is made stronger. What's best for group is all too often NOT what's best for the individual.
We, as a nation, have to reestablish the principles of individual liberty and adherence to the Rule of Law. We must enforce the idea of personal responsibility - that ALL people are responsible for their own life, their own liberty, their own happiness, and not to depend on the government for everything.
We are failing the future generations of this nation. We have not been good stewards of what we were given. We have allowed too many people to muck about for far too long and change things that should never have been changed.
We stand upon the precipice. We are on the brink of losing everything. We sit on the verge of a failure so huge the world may never recover. We can either watch it happen and lament its happening, or we can do something about it.
What's it going to be, America? We're running out of time. ~ Hunter
Yesterday, while I was exercising my "white privilege" at work, I was listening to my local talk radio station, and the host was interviewing a black lawyer who says that - and I'm paraphrasing - the United States, after slavery ended, essentially criminalized "being black." Jim Crow, segregation, etc., is the reason that the black community, as a whole, acts the way it does.
I almost lost my breakfast...
The white man keeps oppressing the black man by taking fathers out of the home (by putting them in jail for committing a crime). She actually said this - and she was serious.
Lawyer or not, this woman is an idiot, plain and simple. The totality of the black population in the United States makes up just under thirteen percent of the total population of the U.S.
From that thirteen percent comes approximately SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of all violent crime in this country. Nearly ninety percent of black males killed in the U.S. are killed by other black males. Let's not mention drug offenses, etc.
Here's a hint, dumbass - if you commit a crime and get caught, you should probably expect to do some time in prison. I would say the exact same thing if the criminal was white, Hispanic, Asian, whatever. It's simple cause and effect.
Listen up, lady - it's time to stop blaming the "white establishment" for your community's ills. Black people have more opportunity to get ahead in the country than any other ethnicity. That's a fact.
It's time to start looking within your community. Don't lionize the bad actors, don't make them out to be "heroes." When people have to worry about speaking out about the crime in their neighborhoods, the thugs win.
Don't put down those who are trying to better themselves. They're not acting "white" - they're just trying to make things better for themselves.
Most importantly, look to those you elect to office. They haven't helped your community. Particularly in the inner cities, it's the liberal demoKKKrats who "keep you down." It's those same liberal demoKKKrats who were responsible for Jim Crow, segregation, lynchings, etc.
Welfare, Affirmative Action, even minimum wage are the "soft racism" that have replaced the hard racism of the past. Do you personally enjoy when someone tells you that you can't do something on your own simply because of who you are? Why, then, is it perfectly acceptable for demoKKKrats to tell everyone with your skin tone essentially the same thing by offering special deals and favors thru various programs like Affirmative Action?
I don't care what your skin color is - you can get where you want to go by your own hard work. If you haven't figured that out by now, there might just be no hope for you at all.
For those who might be offended by this - I don't do "politically correct." - it's a colossal waste of time, mine and yours. I call things as I see them, and what I see is the destruction of the black community from within, not from anything ordinary "white America" is doing.
In a recent article, the brilliant Thomas Sowell encapsulates everything I just wrote in a single sentence: "You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large." ~ Hunter
King DingleBarry is mulling tax increases by Imperial Decree (read: Executive Order).
The entirety of this administration shows its bountiful jackassery by skipping Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before a joint session of Congress, calling that speech "dangerous" and "destructive." I guess Iran getting nuclear weapons is not "dangerous" or "destructive."
No less than fifty-five demoKKKrats skip the speech, with those that attended calling it "political theater" and other ridiculous things, never once touching upon the actual substance of the speech.
The Constant Campaigner has recently declared himself above anything Congress does, saying, in effect, that it doesn't matter if Congress - which, need I remind you, is a co-equal branch of government - votes to deny his Royal Edict (and massive overreach) on illegal immigration and its essential amnesty for people whose very first action in our nation is to break the law; he's going to do it anyway - displaying a complete disregard and utter contempt for this country and our history/traditions/culture.
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive demoKKKrat presidential nominee for 2016, is currently under fire as it's now known that the Clinton Foundation took donations from foreign governments - while she was Secretary of State, no less - with, shall we say, less than stellar human rights' records, particularly regarding WOMEN'S rights (which she proclaims to champion). Oh yeah, did I mention that we also learned today that she never used a government email account - which is REQUIRED BY LAW - while conducting official State Department business?
Aaannnddd to top today off, we find out that the Republicans bowed down, ONCE AGAIN, and passed a clean bill funding the Department of Homeland Security - which includes funding King DingleBarry's de facto amnesty executive order. Never mind that the Republicans control both houses of Congress and nothing should get through that isn't approved by said Republicans.
Anyone else feeling a tad..............BETRAYED? ~ Hunter
First, let me apologize for not writing as frequently as I'd planned. Life has had an annoying habit of getting in the way lately, as well as some of the fire being burned out of me due to some infighting with people I thought were friends and fellow conservatives - turns out they were neither. Go figure...
Every once in a while, however, along comes a story that just deserves to get ridiculed, and this is one of them.
The socialist utopia formerly known as the state of California has proposed a new tax. That's not all that shocking, I admit, until you learn just what they're going to tax - fuel efficient cars. They won't be taxing the cars themselves, per se. After all, who would buy the ugly Prius if it got taxed more than that much nicer looking - and almost as fuel efficient - Corolla sitting next to it in the dealership's lot? The government would never do anything quite so........gauche... Would they?
Not when they can tax how many miles you drive every year, they wouldn't. That's right, folks - California State Senator, Mark Desaulnier (a democrat), has proposed a tax....on the miles Californians drive...in their more fuel efficient cars, hybrids, or just plain electric cars...that the environmentalists and the government pushed so hard for people to drive...
Why? Well, as in all things having to do with economics, liberals aren't as smart as they profess themselves to be. See, even with California's ridiculously huge gas tax of almost $0.53 a gallon (but it's the greedy oil companies that are price gouging you, don't ya know?), because hybrids and their ilk are becoming more prevalent and using less gas, the state isn't getting as much revenue from their huge tax. Yes, liberals, that's right - if you tax something that people use, they tend to use less of it, which leads to less tax revenue - which in Liberal-Land apparently means new and/or higher taxes are needed.
Well, we certainly can't ask the government to do with less, can we?
It's difficult to understand how - in a state with roughly 30 million registered vehicles - slightly less than one million of these cars could affect their bottom line so much that a new tax is needed.
Liberals never cease to amaze, do they? Their answers to everything they deem problematic always seem to be one of three options, with very little variation:
Option 1: We just haven't spent enough money on that problem/issue. Let's create yet another government agency to do the same things that this "failed" agency couldn't get done. We need to raise taxes.
Option 2: The government hasn't even tried to fix this problem/issue, so we need to create a new government agency to look into creating a different new government agency that can look into the possibility of thinking about launching a study that might bring about the probability that pondering the possible solutions to this problem/issue would actually solve this problem/issue. We need to raise taxes.
Option 3: We need to raise taxes...
On second thought, they really only have the one option, don't they? ~ Hunter
I am
sick unto death hearing about the “Clinton surplus.” It was a
*M*Y*T*H* - created by smoke and mirrors, accounting tricks that
would get you and me thrown in prison with lengthy sentences, and
out-and-out LIES by the MSM, which have persisted to this day. It's
time to expose those lies. ~ Hunter
Clinton ran deficits
through both of his terms, and one can go to the US Treasury
Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding
debt through Clinton's presidency.
Every year Clinton was in
office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Clinton
managed to claim a surplus even as the general operating budgets ran
deficits, Clinton borrowed from numerous “trust funds” to cover
said deficits.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B
surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B
from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal
Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment
Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from
Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance &
Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
A true surplus will
decrease the national debt, which only INCREASED during the Clinton
administration.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
