Reflections From a Murky Pond

A Southern education isn’t the the nearly same as what the Blue Bellies call education. It’s more pragmatic and focused more on common sense than on “book learning,” which is of somewhat less use in the still largely agrarian South.

This can cause odd events when outsiders such as Obama seek to interact with Southern school children in the course of furthering their political agendas.

At a recent visit to a rural elementary school in South Carolina, President Obama asked the children for total quiet.

He started to slowly clap his hands once every few seconds, holding the audience in total silence.

Then he dramatically intoned into the microphone, “Children, every time I clap my hands together, a child in America dies from gun violence.”

The kids looked horrified, except for a little boy sitting in the back row.

With a proud South Carolina drawl, Little Johnny pierced the silence and said: “Well, Dumbass, stop clapping!”

And so wise Little Johnny totally schooled Obama, and so, as well, precocious Little Johnny got his daddy audit by the IRS because Obama didn’t enjoy a Southern Education. 😆

Explaining Conservatism is actually easy. At its foundation Conservatism is a political philosophy predicated upon a person’s ability to differentiate between progress and change.

Sadly, it is useless and frustrating to attempt to explain it to Liberals because they cannot differentiate between progress and change. Trying to explain Conservatism to them is very much akin to trying to explain the color blue to a born-blind person.

Of I and Them, Obama’s Defining Narrative

Obama is a creature of words and, as such, his words provide the definition of the boy who would be America’s ruler and who has been foolishly installed as the POTUS. Most telling of the words that define Obama are, “I” and the variant forms of, “Them,” and how he uses them to define the narrative surrounding himself and, extension, how the boy seeks to define himself and his place in history and the American narrative.

Obama loves to use “I” whenever someone does something that is laudable in order to insinuate himself into the situation and take credit for it’s happening. Conversely, he will always speak of “Them” whenever something is unpleasant, wrong, or criminal in order to shield himself from any blame being attached to him.

That’s Obama’s defining narrative. Taking all the credit and none of the blame, in both cases whether deserved or not.

The Liberals and Progressives do not truly believe in the absolute authority of the Constitution. They, in their quest to disarm large segments of the American citizenry, constantly strive for there to be enacted “reasonable restrictions” upon the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

— US Constitution, 2nd Amendment

Liberals and Progressives just can’t seem to understand the meaning of either, “the People” or “Shall not be infringed.”

To be fair, social conservatives & the religious right have an equally poor understanding of, “Bear arms” and “Shall not be infringed” when it comes to queers and women in the military.

The Left is, not wholly undeservedly, shocked and appalled by the violent crime rates in America and the force multiplier that firearms provide to the criminal classes. Hence, they are more than willing to violate the natural rights of Americans in order to provide the appearance of greater security to the people as a whole.

[sic]…if there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should take that step.

— Barack Obama
January 14, 2013

This is, at its core, a case of consequentialism trumping deontology. It is also a case of blaming the tools for actions of those who use them. Worse, it doesn’t even begin to address the underlying problems of violence and crime within America’s borders.

Their logic would be better used, insofar as utility and effect is concerned, by apply the Liberals’ and Progressives’ pogrom to the “Black Community.” Blacks, who only make up approximately 13% of the US population, are disproportionately represented in the “criminal classes.” They consistently account for:

• 50% of the homicides;
• 45% of the violent crimes;
• 39% of the overall crimes in the US;
• and 28% of the repeat / career criminals.

Given these figures, if “reasonable restrictions” are going to be placed upon Constitutional rights, America would be far better served by restricting the freedoms enumerate in the 13 Amendment as opposed to the 2nd Amendment.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

— US Constitution, 13th Amendment, Section 1

America could slash its crime rate, especially its violent crime rate, by simply utilizing penal servitude and putting the criminal Blacks back in chains and putting them to the work that Americans instead rely upon illegal immigrants and foreign labor to perform.

Even better, unlike the Left’s attacks upon the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment, no such attack upon the 13th Amendment is needed. It already contains the exception that the government, be it Federal or State, continues to have the right to hold slaves if such slavery was enacted as a punishment for a crime.

If there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happens regularly in Chicago, we should take that step.

— jonolan
June 03, 2013

There is no reasonable and/or rational doubt that, if we’re to abridge the liberties enumerated in- and protected by the Constitution for the laudable sake of public safety and security, such abridgements need to be effective. Returning those Blacks who cannot or will not become a viable facet of American society to slavery would be vastly more effective than trying to disarm law abiding American citizens.

And, once again in order to drive home one the more salient points of this argument, these proposed “reasonable restriction” on the freedoms Blacks enjoy thanks to the 13th Amendment don’t require that the amendment in question be changed or violated.

Are You Offended?

If you’re an American – or a total foreigner to America reading this article from afar – and you’re offended by it, I’m glad; it’s an utterly offensive though, likely, effective idea. Conversely, if you’re on of America’s domestic enemies, the Liberals and Progressives, you’ve neither the right nor the privilege of being offended by it as this is just the application of your own logic to a different Amendment of the Constitution than the ones you and your sort normally attack.