Why liberals and the far left are the way they are

I wrote about this many years ago, so I have lost the references. As I was preparing for work one day in 2003, I was watching TV and a story came on that showed the possibility of why liberals and far left democrats are the way they are.

It was about young children that came from an orphanage in Eastern Europe after the fall of communist Russia. The situation in the orphanage was that for every fifty or so children there was only one caregiver. Very few of the children were able to receive consistent love or care over years at a time. After many of the children were adopted to American parents, most younger children were able to respond to the loving care and adapted to becoming mostly normal children.  

But there were exceptions. Younger children had very little problem adapting. The older the child was, the less they were able to adapt. One girl in particular, age 12, had no response to the love and care she received from her new parents. The doctors performed PET scans of the child and the images revealed something I believe is what affects many of the far left adults today.

The PET scans of a normal child showed normal brain activity in most areas of the brain. Older children from the orphanage, who had received no love or care for all of their formative years, showed ‘no brain activity’ in areas where emotions and feelings normally exist. The conclusion of the story was: that if a child did not receive stimulation to certain areas of the brain in their younger years, that area would not develop as a normal person would. In this case, there was no development at all. The child was unable to reciprocate feelings of love and care. 

What do I conclude from this? For years, I was told of studies that showed the older a person was, the harder it was to evangelize or win that person to Christ. Thus, the importance has been put upon evangelizing children as early as possible. The faith areas of the brain need stimulation at a very young age. 

What would be other areas of the brain that don’t develop because of lack of stimulation? Common sense would be one. Two: People with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, but lacking in a sense of compassion and understanding of others. This would explain why people who overly obsess over certain issues beyond common sense and reasonable understanding.  Thus, we have far left groups, anarchist, communist, et al. and extreme far right groups that are just as bad.

This is also exemplified in hate groups. People, who from a young age, were taught or stimulated to hate another group. Hatred of blacks, whites, Jews, Christians, et al., hatred for no other reason than whom the person was. You can ask them why they hate, and they cannot tell you why. Because their brains have been developed or stimulated a certain way, it is nearly impossible to reason or use common sense on such a person. 

Thus, as Christians, it is more important to spend time influencing our children’s areas of faith. And for others, pray God will stimulate the areas of the brain with the gift of faith so they can be converted and saved.

About weapons of war

In the early 1700’s each state had its own militia. Men of fighting age, each having his own weapon, joined together to fight off indian attacks or whatever threat could arise. When the Revolutionary War began these militias joined and fought alongside the regular army to defeat the British. State militia continued to be used in the War of 1812 and even in the American Civil War. It was expected that men in the militia would fight alongside men in the military using the same weapons as those in the military.

Afterward, in the early 1900’s the National Guard was formed. Now each state has a reserve-trained military force that could be used similarly to the militia except it is connected to US military forces and can be called up for regular duty at any time.

So in early America, men in the militia had to use their own personal weapons in case of war or insurrection. They had weapons of war at the time. There was nothing to restrict men to own whatever weapon they wanted. Even cannons. At the time the Constitution was written and the second amendment was adopted, citizens had weapons of war.

Now the argument is, because things have changed and we have the National Guard, ordinary citizens do not need to have so-called “weapons of war”. Yes, things have changed. Different needs for a different times. But what if things change again? What if the military and national guard cannot do their primary function? There are many "what if" scenarios where things could change. So "just in case" we need to leave the Constitution and the 2nd amendment alone.

The other problem is: the term “Weapons of war” cannot be or has not been defined. Depending on the situation a knife is a weapon of war. As is a spear. Shotguns were used in Vietnam. Are they weapons of war or hunting weapons? The military uses a weapon similar to the commonly used AR-15 but the military would not use an AR-15 itself. The military uses an M16 with "select fire" of three-round bursts and full auto. The AR-15 does not have those features, nor the endurance of a standard military weapon. It's a semiautomatic. So technically, it cannot be called a “Weapon of War”. It is a citizen's self-defense weapon and hunting rifle. There are approximately 15 million AR-15s in use. The rare instances where a crazed individual uses an AR-15 to kill multiple people shouldn't be used to make the other 15 million people defenseless.

Repealing the Second Amendment

With all the talk and actions about repealing the second amendment or banning various guns, one big factor is overlooked. The right to self-defense is a natural right. It is a given that your natural reaction to a threat is to defend and protect yourself and your family. The Supreme Court affirmed this right a few years ago. Per the second amendment, you have a right to be armed and defend yourself anywhere you are. There are a lot of municipalities that infringe on this right and they are wrong.

Picture this scenario: An enemy country hacks into our electrical grid (like the Russians did a short time ago) but this time they are able to completely shut down our electrical grid. Now we are without electricity for weeks or even months. Or perhaps an enemy detonates an EMP bomb in our atmosphere permanently taking out all our electronics and electrical grid. So now we have no phones, no electricity, no internet, and no 911.

With no access to 911, police, fire, or other emergency responders, gangs of thugs (they are out there) start roaming the street looking to rob, rape and kill anyone they desire. Now you are faced with a dilemma. Your natural rights say you need to protect yourself and your family, but you are an anti-gunner. You voted to eliminate the second amendment. You don’t believe in guns. You were depending on the government to protect you. (gag).

You have several choices: 1. You can become religious and pray that the thugs will ignore you. MAYBE they won’t rape your wife and daughter, kill you and take all your stuff. 2. Or, stand your ground and die for what you believe in, that no civilian should have a gun 

3. Run to your neighbor and hope he still has an AR-15 hiding in his closet.

If you think such a scenario cannot happen, well no one thought the 9/11 attacks could happen. Nor Columbine, or Parkland in South Florida, or the Las Vegas shooting could happen. The difference is we didn’t know in advance that the former would or could happen. We do know that our enemies are trying to destroy our electrical grid because it will destroy our civilization. Our only way to keep any sense of a civilized society is that good people to have enough guns and ammo to keep law and order

One of the rants is that “guns are for killing”, implying that guns can only kill good people. I agree that guns are designed to kill. The function of a gun is to kill. Big guns, and little guns are all designed to kill. They kill game for food. They kill game to reduce the overpopulation of various species. Guns are used to kill varmints. Varmints that kill farm animals, destroy crops, and attack humans. Law-abiding citizens buy guns to do all of the above. Most importantly, law-abiding citizens buy guns to defend themselves against bad guys who would do them harm. It is estimated that law-abiding citizens use guns about 1,600,000 times a year to defend themselves either by using the gun or often just showing a bad guy that he has a gun works. So, the possibility that up to 1,600,000 more people would be killed or harmed if you took away the ability to defend themselves by limiting or repealing the second amendment. And don’t forget, the police use guns to keep the law.

When you talk about the “common sense gun laws” that limit people’s right to defend themselves, there is no common sense in that discussion. Those “Common sense gun laws” are exampled in Chicago and they have one of the highest murder rates in the country. You can have your “common sense gun laws” as long as you are not one of the people getting shot. Me, I rather have my gun.

To fix the federal government and put it back to where it should be

To fix the federal government and put it back to where it should be we need:

First a Convention of States. A Convention of States bypasses all the existing corruption, elitist establishment, and all who resist the change to fix anything that benefits the American people.

Second: repeal the 16^th amendment and eliminate the IRS. The government can find more honest and fair ways to collect money. The Fair Tax is one.

Third: repeal the seventeenth amendment. The founding fathers understood that by each state appointing their senators then the senators would be beholden to the state’s best interest, not their individual parties as they are today. Parties will raise monies to give to individuals to get reelected. Favorite senators get more money. less favorite senators get less or none. This makes the candidates beholden to the party's wishes. What we have now is a corrupt system of using tax dollars to buy people's votes in both houses of Congress and it is impossible to break that power hold on the people.

Fourth: and most important: define the “General Welfare” clause to its original meaning. Originally it meant that government could only act for the general welfare of the people within the confines of its defined responsibilities and powers listed in the Constitution. So, the government was restricted in what it could do, per design. In 1933 the Supreme Court said that the “General Welfare” could mean whatever Congress decided it meant. This gave Congress the wildcard it needed to take over anything it wanted as long as it could say it was for the General Welfare of the people. Thus, we have all these different agencies and departments regulating the people and businesses with very few limits. If based on the original constitutional concept these agencies would have never existed in the first place. Remember, Obamacare’s constitutionality was based solely on the General Welfare Clause and even then it had to be called a tax. A 22,000-page tax? Right!

Fifth: Put limits on the spending and commerce clause. The government has no business being in business, picking winners and losers, and funding any business unless, of course, it has to do with national defense. Defense spending would and should be the only exception. And that should only be under strict supervision.

We could add term limits, limitations on salaries, and retirement. Remember, originally being in Congress was a part-time responsibility. They still had to earn their own living and retirement was just as we have now. Every man for himself. In fact, a number of the founders died broke. Congress was not meant to be a full-time job. If retirement is provided then it should be available only after they turn 65 and prorated on years of service with a maximum limit just like the rest of us. If term limits are set at twelve years and they serve six, they should only get half of the max retirement value. My social security has a limit, and so should their retirement.

Finally: every, and I mean every, regulation, tax, or bureaucrat proposal should come back to Congress and be voted on by elected officials. This way they cannot pass the responsibility by saying "I didn't vote for that". Or the teenage response: "Not my fault" or "I didn't do it".

When it comes to fixing the government we should look for the simplest and most straightforward ideas that wipe out most of the damage that the progressives have done over the last one hundred years. I think the five points listed above will do just that.

An important view of the Bill of Rights

An important view of the Bill of Rights that receives little attention is why do we have a Bill of Rights? What was the original intent? You may wonder why the first ten amendments are even listed to begin with. Many erroneously believe the government gives us these rights because they are listed in the amendments. But no, the government does not give us rights. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights were initially considered “natural rights” or God-given rights. Being that these rights were considered God-given (based on years of legal writings at the time) they originally didn’t see the need to list them. The Constitution gave the government limited rights and specific powers. All other rights were given to the states and the people. If the government was given no right or power to take away our God-given rights then why bother to list them.

After the Constitution was adopted the debate continued and eventually, the Bill of Rights was written specifying the God-given natural rights government COULD NOT TAKE AWAY and was supposed to protect.

Today we are facing a battle to take away our second amendment rights based on emotional events that have happened in recent years. Much of the emotion has been stirred in part by the media enhancement of these events. But the fact is that if the government decides it has the power to eliminate the God-given right of self-defense then also has the power to take away any of the other protected rights.

The goal of progressives is to confiscate all guns. Only government (and criminals) will have guns and therefore the world will be peaceful. This was the argument of Hitler. By taking all the guns there would be peace he argued. The result, of course, was that millions of people were defenseless and died at the hand of Hitler. This is the type of situation the founding fathers saw and sought to prevent by listing our specific rights.

When you hear the phrase “For the greater good” or “We need to do it for the children” or use children spokespersons while they are asking you to give up your natural rights, beware, be very aware. The freedom of your children, grandchildren, and all that follow is at stake.

Get Back to The Basics and Fundamentals

    In football, teams that win consistently do one thing, stick to the basics. Losing for them usually comes from a breakdown in the basic fundamentals of blocking, tackling, and catching the ball. Often you will hear a coach say after a loss, ‘We need to get back to the basics’. The same goes for our country. When society and the culture start going haywire There are two fundamental things we need to do to restore our country to what it should be.

    The first is to return to God. Repent means to turn around from doing wrong and choosing to do right. This nation needs to repent and turn back to God for forgiveness, guidance, and blessings.

The second is to return to the original purpose of the Constitution. The progressives have over time, eroded the Constitution so that its original meaning and purpose are lost. Free speech is lost to politically correct speech. Freedom of the press is lost to propaganda and an agenda-driven press. Now warrantless searches and seizures, wiretapping, etc. Freedom of religion is lost to freedom of worship (keep your religion to yourself). And of course, today the cry is to limit or end the 2nd amendment.

    I drove by the capital building in Atlanta this morning (because I didn’t listen to my GPS) and I encountered hundreds of students (not in school) and adults protesting gun violence and crying for more gun control. Guns are already one of the most highly regulated products on the market. There are plenty of gun laws. Enforcement of those laws varies across the country. For some reason, where gun laws are the greatest, gun violence is also greater. Logic will tell you that strict gun laws in those jurisdictions do not prevent crime and murder. 

It is obvious to say most laws only apply after a crime has been committed. 'That felon shouldn't have had a gun, but he did. Or, 'he sould not have passed a background check, but he still got a gun.' 

    Again, let’s talk about the fundamentals and constitutional basics. Many progressives will tell you that the Constitution is old and outdated because it was written in a different time and things and technology have moved us past that. Not so. The Constitution was written in a unique period of time where they could look back at 2000 years of history and at the success and failure of governments over that time. The Constitution was not written based on technology or technical advancements, it was written based on observing 2000 years of human nature. The Constitution is about the nature of man and how he relates to government and has no basis in time. The nature of man has not changed no matter how much technology does. The writers saw that man could not be trusted so they created a Constitution to limit what men in governments could do. 

To start with they created three branches to counterbalance each other. It put limits on the size and what government could do and left everything else to the people and the states. They listed the basic natural human rights that people should have and that the government should not be able to take away. Now, over the years congress has eroded these rights as I listed above. The government we have today would be totally unacceptable to the founders today. The solution to what ails Americans is to return to the basics and do what the writers intended.

With all the talk about guns, the 2nd amendment is a clear example of that erosion. It clearly says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed”. Yet we have many cities and states that have severe restrictions on guns and who can have them. This is definitely an infringement and many liberal courts have supported that errant position. They interpret the Constitution according to what they wished it to say. They have over time, taken away the right to freely keep and bear arms and that leaves us no alternative but to have to trust the government to be our protector and safe keeper. People have come to believe that someone else is responsible for their safety and they should be totally passive and wait for help. The basic right to self-defense is replaced and you have no right to protect yourself without government help.

We have reached the point where people believe it is not their responsibility to protect and defend themselves. The memory of that right is gone and the students that are protesting today, totally believe it is the government’s job to keep them safe and provide for their defense. The problem is not more guns or fewer guns. The problem is knowing and understanding our rights and being able to defend our rights and ourselves. Parents need to demand that schools enforce the right to keep and bear arms and equip the schools with whatever force necessary to prevent whatever harm might try to come their way. This is not a federal government thing. This is a local thing where parents demand that their child will be safe and the 2nd amendment affirms the right to do that.

 It is reported that criminals fear people with guns. That is why they pick areas and people who look like easy targets (gun-free zones maybe). A nation that is truly free and allowed to keep and bear arms will have criminals fearful and look for less harmful ways to do their evil deeds.

    Governments, dictators, and tyrants also fear a well-armed nation. We need to keep them fearful, very fearful. When the government fears the people, we are free. When the people fear the government, we are no longer free. Tell me, right now, who is fearing who?
It is often said that the 2nd amendment is the protector of the 1st amendment rights. As we look at our society and culture we can see that we are losing many of our rights. We need to take our country back and return it to our roots, the basics, and the fundamentals. We need to return to God, and the Constitution and start protecting our rights. A single man will not make America great again. It will take millions of God-fearing, Constitutional freedom-loving people to make America great again. Otherwise, the alternatives are not good.

More thought on the Florida shooting and the subsequent protest by students

One more thought based on the Florida shooting and the subsequent protest by students. Students are crying for more gun control and an end to violence. They are protesting in their hometowns, in DC, and in the Florida capital. The same old cry is “Government do something”. "Government please fix my problem." "Government please take care of me." Someone told them that they should depend on the government for all their needs so now they blame the government, the president and anyone else they think should their provider and protector. These kids have missed a very important lesson in life. You are responsible for yourself. You are responsible for your own safety. In early America, nearly everyone had a gun or some means of self-defense. The Constitution guaranteed you that right. Reality has not changed but the education of our children has created a utopia concept that they don’t have to worry about evil anymore, the government will protect them and provide for them.

In the real world, you know that real thing, they are still responsible for themselves. Evil is not going away. Maybe in the utopia fantasyland evil does not exist but in the real world, it does. People die every day. In my high school days if a student died from a car wreck or whatever, we just dealt with it. Today a flood of counselors is required because the utopian bubble has a leak. Kids shouldn’t have to experience bad things like death and all that.

But to the main point: we are responsible for ourselves. Something that is lost on many American kids today, is being self-responsible and being self-reliant. Our Constitution and our freedoms are dependent on people who are self-responsible and self-reliant. So, when it comes to protecting our kids it is up to us to do it or demand the institution we send them to do it. Whether it is armed guards, concealed weapon carriers, reinforced barriers, or any other means, it is not the Federal government's job to do what you need to do at your local level. Here in Georgia, the state has passed a law to allow concealed carry on campus. Who is against it? Every school board in the state and the teacher’s unions. So, who is going to protect your kids? That sign says, “Gun Free Zone”. Is that sign going to keep your kids alive? Parents need to take actions that work. Crying for some law that just might, maybe, slightly possibly keep some bad guy from getting a gun all the while it only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to get guns to protect them and their children.

I’ve posted below some real common-sense solutions to protect your children at school. They are not the “if we take guns away from everybody then the bad guy will be nice and leave us alone” utopian dream.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2018/02/18/how-to-eliminate-school-shootings-overnight-n2450380

Parents, if you want to really protect your children then do something that works. Remember, the 2^nd amendment gives you the right to protect yourself and your loved ones by being armed. If you choose to not exercise that right that is your choice. Don’t blame the government.

 

Another thought about these advocates for more gun control

Another thought about these advocates for more gun control. These guys want the government to pass some sort of (they call common sense [senseless to me]) gun laws to stop gun violence. Would that be the same government that hired the armed school security guard that never encountered the school shooter? Or would that be the government that provides the police that can help you maybe five minutes from now? I’m not bad-mouthing the police but the reality is they can’t be where you need them when you need them, but they are usually only just a few minutes away.

Would you want the government that put the FBI in charge of protecting us when they failed to follow their own procedures that would have prevented the killer from taking action? Or maybe the government could get the FBI to put in a little more effort in finding a person who claims he wants to be a “professional school shooter”. Is that the government you want to protect you?

Or maybe you want to put your trust in the government that fails to report a domestic abuser so that person can kill 23 innocent churchgoers.

Maybe someday the governments above can fix all those problems I listed, but then what is the next dot that they fail to connect. More laws mean there is more work to do. More work means more opportunities to fail. There will be a next time, and another and another. Each time someone will be blamed for their failure. Each time there will be calls for more and more laws which means more failure. Over time the only thing that will be reduced won’t be the violence, it will be our freedoms.

Ultimately the government cannot save you. When your house is on fire you don’t wait for the fire department to pull you outside. You get yourself and your family out as soon as you can. If your spouse’s heart stops you can’t wait for the EMTs, you must do CPR now. In most of life, we must learn to take care of ourselves until help arrives. We take safety classes, first-aid, and CPR all because we cannot just wait for someone from the government to take care of us at the moment we need them. When it comes to self-defense the same thing applies and that is what the 2^nd amendment provides for us, the natural right to take of ourselves until other help arrives. The natural right to defend ourselves against a threat when we need to, right now in this moment, not later.

Oh, and about this banning AR15s. The old saying “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight”. Well, don’t bring a little gun to a big gun fight. If the bad guy has a 30-round AR15 (legally or illegally), I don’t want the government limiting me to a 10-round magazine because they think it makes “US” safer. The only person they have made safer is the bad guy. While I’m trying to reload he is still shooting at me. I want to be able to have as big a gun and as many rounds as the bad guy does. If he only brings a little gun with a limited magazine that’s his problem, not mine.

The reality is, ultimately, we, you and me, are responsible for our own self-protection. Most of the time the police arrive after the crime has been committed or at best at the end of a crime and chase the bad guy down. If you want to protect your children, your family, and loved ones, YOU are the one responsible. Your only real option is to have more good people with guns in more places than bad guys with guns. How you make that happen is up to you. Because if you don’t, next week will be no different than last week. It could happen all over again.

About the massacre that occurred last week at the high school in Florida

The massacre that occurred last week at the high school in Florida was as horrific as it can possibly get for the parents, friends, students, and teachers. Many of the angry students are venting their anger and the media is using it to their advantage to promote their leftist agenda. Instead of blaming the shooter (the actual evil person who perpetuated the act), the FBI who failed to act, or the school for not doing some common-sense safeguards, especially after the warning signs so clearly given by this student, the students now blame President Trump. Now where would the students get the idea that it is President’s Trump fault? That somehow, because he didn’t focus on gun control laws in his first year in office, it is his fault that 17 students and teachers died? Is some leftist coaching involved here?

So now the cry is “gun control”, “gun control “and more “gun control”. Another cry is “stop the violence” (like we haven’t wanted that since the beginning of time). Does that mean we don’t have enough gun control already (http://thehill.com/…/359363-What-if-there-were-serious-gun-…). There are already plenty of gun laws on the books.
 
The problem with laws is 1. They are usually for punishment after the fact. We already have laws that make killing illegal, carrying guns on campus is illegal, and making terroristic threats is illegal. None of these had an impact on the young mentally disturbed student who wanted to kill people. We even have some laws that prevent mentally ill people from buying guns but that doesn’t stop them from getting them illegally. Until we have the power to predict the future of what every potential individual lawbreaker will do, we cannot stop violent and evil people from doing violent and evil acts. In Minority Report, the movie, they did predict the future of evil acts. That was fantasy of course but then a lot of what the left does is fantasy.


Problem #2, is with more gun laws or making certain guns or even all guns illegal, doesn’t stop lawless individuals from breaking the law. Never has, never will. France has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and that didn’t stop evil people from killing over 100+ people a couple of years back.


Let’s compare what leftists want to do with actual reality. We have laws against drug trafficking. Is that working to perfection or do we still have drug trafficking? We have laws against human and sex trafficking. Is that working to perfection or do we still have problems with trafficking, especially across the southern border? We have laws against many crimes. Does that stop people from committing crimes? Not so much. Again, the laws usually dictate what punishment will be given after a crime has happened. Just as the young shooter will probably face life in prison or the death penalty for killing 17 people. The laws against killing never crossed his mind.

The far-far left will want to go even further and call for repealing the 2nd amendment. They are those who are totally ignorant of history or they are openly bent on destroying America. The primary reason for the 2nd amendment is for the security of America. To maintain a free country and prevent totalitarianism. In today’s world, it is socialism, communism, and many other forms of Marxism that would like to replace American freedom with their tyranny. An armed citizenry is the prime reason some communists or dictators cannot take over this country.

The secondary reason is self-defense. The creators of our Constitution recognized that there we certain inalienable rights due to free men. You can say the most important were listed in order of appearance. The first of these rights was freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of the (honest) press, to gather and confront the government with grievances. The 2nd was the right to bear arms. The right to defend yourself against greater odds, bigger or multiple thugs who would do you harm. This is a God-given natural right, not man-given. The government takes this right away as we so clearly saw last week in a "gun-free zone". There was one armed guard on campus last week but he never encountered the shooter. Had the people (teachers and coaches) had the unfettered right to arm and defend themselves there may have been a few of them that could have cut short the rampage and the killing. Possibly more children would have come home to their parents that day. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who take away this sacred god given natural right.

A local school union leader here complained that you could have some teachers who have issues (mental maybe?) and might start shooting students. The answer there is first, anyone with a concealed carry permit will undergo an FBI (FBI, oops) background check. Then as any teacher does in education, undergo further training not only in how to deal with school and crowd shooting situations but also continuous vetting to make sure they are ready and able to deal with not only mass shootings but the days to day encounters they might have with violent students without the need to shoot everyone.

So, to end this paper I would like to suggest something. More gun laws are not going to do anything to stop violence. Thousands of years of history prove this. Nothing will stop violent people from becoming violent. That is the reality of life. If it were possible to totally eliminate guns then that would be something else, but then men always create new ways to work around laws to accomplish what they want to do. Bans don't work. Banning alcohol didn’t work. Anything you ban will create an underground black market for the same. Another reality of life. Thousands of years of history prove that too.

The job of the police is to protect and serve. But if they are not where you are when you need them then you are on your own. If you want to protect your children the one sure thing that works that does not deal with fantasy or wishful thinking is to have good people with guns ready to protect people from bad guys with guns. The more the better. That is the only answer that works. That is the 2nd amendment answer. You have the natural right to defend yourself and your loved ones. Put that in place in our school and you will see fewer students and teachers dying at the hands of madmen.