Living Large in America

Sticking with original American values since 1989

A Synopsis of Liberalism

  • All you know about American history is that Columbus killed the Indians, slavery is unforgivable, and the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets
  • The adversity of 3% of the population should be borne by 100% with laws to enforce that everyone cares and complies
  • Weather = Climate change
  • Denmark, Sweden, and Canada are way better than the U.S., yet you still haven’t moved
  • You can’t believe a book written by the omnipotent God, but you’ll believe one written by fallible man
  • Women should have a choice, but babies should not

First They Came for Our Guns

“First they came for the socialists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

 Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

 Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

 Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.”

This now famous quote was written by a German pastor named Martin Niemöller, who had been imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp from 1941 to 1945. When the Nazis began rounding up their prisoners, racking up one demographic after the next, Niemöller didn’t initially fit any of these mentioned descriptions, rendering him safe from the death camps. But, as we discover by the end of this ominous poetic quote,

“Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

While we aren’t being hauled away on trains to a miserable existence of malnourishment, abuse, and death yet, a correlation can be drawn to how Hitler gathered up the people of Europe to how our U.S. government is treating our rights today.

Since the massacre of twenty children and six teachers in Newtown, Connecticut was perpetrated by a mentally ill youth this past December, Hollywood pawns, liberal agitators, and communist Democrats alike have been demanding stricter gun control laws. Even you may have even been guilty of wanting to limit gun sales, heavily tax ammunition, or tighten up the laws so we could prevent another Newtown tragedy. But I think we all could admit the biggest reason, and the one liberal politicians love to play on, for taking such a stance was our emotions. No one in their sane mind wants to imagine the possibility of innocent children being shot and murdered, so when it does happen, both anger and sadness put a chokehold on our heartstrings. Our first thoughts are for the safety of our children and how to prevent this from ever happening again – and it is these emotions that are blood in the water for liberals.

By now we all know the story that guns are bad, they kill people all by themselves, and the person who pulled the trigger should be held blameless. Yeah, we get it. But maybe you didn’t know just how serious the backlash of this situation has become. For starters, the Democratic senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, has feverishly written up a proposal for a new and improved gun ban, a subject Ms. Feinstein is no stranger to. She initially crafted one in 1994, which became the law of the land for a decade, but this time around she’s taking no prisoners… well actually, she may be taking a lot of prisoners by the time this is all over.

I urge you to read the summary that has been posted on this proposed legislation, but the short of it goes like this: essentially, any firearm that looks, walks, talks, and quacks like an “assault weapon” will be banned, with 120 specifically named models already making the list. Additionally, the definition of “assault weapon” explicitly includes any firearm that is compatible with a detachable magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds. For those of you who remain clueless, this includes almost every gun being produced today including American’s favorite weapon of choice, the handgun.

What this law would really be doing, though, is stopping just short of repealing the Second Amendment. But, you tell me; if we no longer can purchase guns or have to jump through more hoops than a ‘Best in Show’ poodle to own a water-downed version of a Glock, haven’t our gun ownership rights essentially been dissolved? This will almost certainly be the case in all respects except, of course, on paper – precisely the way this administration loves to operate.

In addition to the Washington gun grabbers, you also have the maniacs who propose that the president of the National Rifle Association should have his kids murdered in front of him just to prove how bad guns really are. Sick, huh? What these unstable and uninformed Twitter fanatics fail to realize, however, is that most violent, gun-toting criminals aren’t members of the NRA. Sadly, they spend their $35 registration fee on more smack so they can be in a total trance when they march into a crowded mall or movie theater wearing full body armor and unload on dozens of innocent people with unlawfully obtained weapons. And even if these killers were lifetime members of the NRA, it’s not as if the group has classes called, “Killing in Cold Blood 101,” or “Bypassing Elementary School Security for Dummies.” Blaming the NRA for gun violence is like blaming AAA for car accidents. It’s preposterous, yet when emotions are at the wheel, common sense is stuffed in the trunk.

Bearing arms is a Constitutional right granted to us by the kind folks who helped set this country up for prosperity only limited by our imagination. While it is true that we had state militias during that time, thus warranting a need and right to own a gun, I honestly don’t believe that the Founder’s failed to foresee a time when that wouldn’t be the case. This is evidenced by the inclusion of directions on what to do with state representation if and when the nation expanded. It is obvious they knew great things were on the horizon, yet somehow they didn’t anticipate a need for a national military to protect the world’s greatest power? If you don’t consider this as a possibility, don’t forget common sense is still locked in the trunk.

Make no mistake; the Founder’s granted us a right to bear arms because they knew it would be the only way to prevent the uprising of a tyrannical government. And you know what? I think our current leaders know this and view the millions of lawful, freedom-loving gun owners in this country as a major hindrance to their socialist agenda. Think about it. If you were planning to slowly remove a nation’s freedoms one by one, rendering everyone powerless before the almighty federal government, what would be the one thing that could stop you? This is the same reason Germany, Russia, and China removed guns before their reigns of terror swept over much of the world, killing 100 million people and counting. It may sound conspiratorial, but common sense will tell you it is all too probable. That is, if you’ve let him out for air by now.

To conclude, if you’re the kind of person that doesn’t own a gun or is ambivalent either way, then the erosion of the Second Amendment probably doesn’t keep you up at night. But know this: much like our other rights guaranteed in the Constitution, bearing arms is every bit as important as the right to free speech or to the press. When the government realizes that they can remove one right by using popular argument or pandering to their old stand-by – emotions – what‘s to stop them from using the same tactics when it comes to speech? Or if alleged criminals become guilty until proven innocent and are tried without the aid of a jury? Or if states are no longer deemed responsible enough to make their own local decisions? Eventually they will come after something that you hold dear, but by then no one will be left to speak for you. Think about it. How much persuading would it really take on the part of the government to make us believe our system is broken, one amendment at a time? The process has already begun and doing it once will only make it easier the next time around.

First they came for our guns.

An Open Letter to Atheists at Christmas Time

To the atheist in the room,

As I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention, the Christmas season is once again upon us, and I can’t help but notice that you and your band of misfits still find pleasure arguing for the removal of Christ from Christmas or Christ from Christmas tree and so on and blah blah. However, you who simply “want to be included,” are seemingly missing the most elementary and obvious flaw in your attempt to destroy Christianity: Christ is the reason that we celebrate Christmas! I mean, you practically incriminate yourselves when you make the redundant argument of removing Christ from everything. You clearly understand that Christ is the integral, in fact necessary, element in our celebration of Christmas, so why futilely attempt to remove Him?

We all know that, thanks to Michelle Obama, our president wants to fundamentally transform our history, so maybe the bold attempts to revise Christmas’ meaning stem from this. But if we are to believe that the atheists simply want to be included in the joyous holiday of Christmas (have you ever been told you couldn’t celebrate Christmas in your own way in America?), why don’t you just do what you want and we’ll keep doing what we want and have been doing for centuries? We’ll all retain our freedom of speech, you can continue to deny God’s existence, and Christians will continue to rejoice with celebration the day of our, and your, Savior’s birth.

But, if you can find the time when you’re not busy worshipping the universe, remind me again who exactly is attacking or denying your rights to refute God?

I’m sorry; I can’t hear your response over all the crickets. One more time please…

Notice that no one is trying to stifle the atheist point of view, but instead it is Christian beliefs being constantly harassed. Just who are the victims here again?

So as the Winter Solstice fast approaches and you’re trimming your Holiday tree… oh wait. That reminds me. You do know that a pine tree has no religious significance, right? The Christmas tree is called just that because it is used during the holiday known as Christmas. Did you catch all that? Allow me to reiterate: baby Jesus wasn’t born under a sturdy pine with multi-color lights and an angel certainly wasn’t perched atop one on that Silent Night. A Christmas tree is recognized as a secular symbol of Christmas by those both religious and not so much.

To put this in perspective for you, allow me to conclude with this:

You like presents, right?

You like Christmas Holiday carols, right?

You enjoy waiting up for Santa, right?

Well guess what? All of these traditions can trace their roots to the very first Christmas Day celebrated some two thousand years ago. Not the Winter Solstice and not some spontaneous gift giving period that just so happened to develop around December 25th. No. While Christmas has taken a largely secular turn, it is still celebrated and exists only because Christ was born.

So please, by all means, go about your atheist ways. Last time I checked, no one is hindering your belief system, as much you like to imagine that somebody is. But don’t think you can trample all over what I or millions of others believe just so you can feel “included.” We’re all included because we’re all Americans. Be grateful you have that assurance… at least for now.

Merry Christmas

Post Navigation