October 23, 2019

The Myth of Compromise

CompromiseHave you ever noticed that both sides of an issue make the claim that the other side refuses to compromise? While remaining uncompromising, one claims the other is at fault because they will not offer a compromise on some emotional issue, like hunting.

However, the bottom of the barrel is revealed in such cases when the one screaming for compromise, while refusing to compromise, finds the other at fault, calling them names or at times, a faux intellectual will attempt to cast aspersions on individuals or groups because of their uncompromising nature.

Here’s a classic example. In an opinion piece, ie. propaganda nonsense, in the Maine Portland Press Herald, a writer, posing as being in support of Question One in the upcoming referendum to ban bear baiting, hounding and trapping, casts his censure onto the hunting community because they refuse to compromise and give this guy at least some of what he wants.

Through it all, I have often said the Achilles heel of the hunting lobby in Maine was the intransigent, no-compromise position they maintained while dismissing any criticism as the work of animal rights extremists.

The thought processes of a person of this nature is quite amazing to someone not so afflicted. This person believes that because he sees something differently than someone else does, it is their duty to at least give in some and let them have their way.

Do we ever see totalitarians, such as this person, compromising his beliefs? Of course not. He doesn’t have to. In his mind, he’s more intelligent than some dumb bear hunter.

Let’s understand this myth of compromise. Don’t get me wrong. There’s a time and a place for compromise and compromising the rock foundations of one’s beliefs, morals and heritage is not a time to implement compromise.

Let’s take one example that some people can understand. Those that can’t are of the thought process of the letter writer in question. Let’s take the Second Amendment as an example.

The Second Amendment, when written, was simple and direct: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. From the very moment that Bill of Right was published, totalitarian socialists have demanded compromise in order to get rid of it. And guess what? They have gotten a lot through compromise because the people have been mind controlled to think that compromise is a good thing; it “gets something done.” Look at where the Second Amendment is today. It doesn’t even resemble “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And when is the last time you saw anti gun lobbyists compromising to give American citizens back their full right to keep and bear arms?

So, here we have a man who thinks, no, he believes, that the “hunting lobby” should cede to him what he wants because he is right and the hunters are wrong?

This is one of the problems with democracy and a progressive lifestyle. Democracy is when the majority forces the minority to do something they don’t want to do. Obviously this letter writer doesn’t like democracy when it isn’t working well for him and therefore he demands compromise. And when democracy fails him, he resorts to all other means in order to get his way.

Hunters should never compromise on such issues because it tears at the heart of hunting’s entire existence. Unfortunately we live in a democracy, which actually more closely resembles totalitarian socialism and no more than hunters should seek to change their “intransigent” ways, neither should the letter writer. And herein, lies the real difference. Where I respect the rights and beliefs of this person but think he is a moron to believe that way, I certainly have no right to attempt to force him to not be able to be an animal rights activist.

Obviously, he and way too many others just like him, don’t feel the same way as I do. Therefore, compromise should never happen.

Share

Day 52 – No Executive Orders

OBLOQUY!

It is now Day 52 and still we find no executive orders on gun control posted on the White House website.

There are two things I would like readers to bear in mind. The first should be a constant reminder that disarming the American citizens is the last step in the complete overthrow of our country as we all know it. All aspects of American life have long ago left any semblance of republicanism behind and we see even democracy being replaced in rapid pace by totalitarianism and the push toward dictatorial reign. While all the infrastructure is mostly in place to administer a despotic takeover, the reality of millions and millions of guns in the hands of American citizens is a frightening prospect to those wanting a submissive people.

With that in mind, please also consider that I strongly believe that the ruling elite, yes, those seeking that long-planned New World Order under a One World Government will figure out a way to get Americans’ guns, even if it takes small incremental steps AND executive orders.

For 52 days I have dumped on President Obama for his Kabuki Theater, his dog and pony show, when he staged a fake event in which he used his puppeteers in the media to play along, that he was signing 23 executive orders to control guns. What President Obama actually presented to the people were 23 basic ideas of what he would like to see happen to implement his dictatorial takeover of our guns…..without any details.

We await the enumeration of those executive orders. And while we have waited, I have hinted that perhaps we would never see any executive orders and if we did they would come in the dark of night. I may still be accurate in that assessment. But consider the following information contained in an article written by Reid J. Epstein and published on Politico titled, How the White House silenced gun control groups.

Epstein’s thesis is that Barack Obama has cunningly orchestrated the unification of gun control advocate groups and individuals, including loud-mouthed politicians, into silence and a blind obedience to follow and support whatever the White House has planned for gun control laws.

Let me first say that there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama does not have the mental capacity nor the ambition it would require to pull something like this off. Nor does he have the political clout. However, that isn’t to say that there doesn’t exists powers much mightier than Barack Obama and his administration; that is those powers that want American’s disarmed more than anything else in this world, who have the global supremacy to manipulate these affairs as are suggested by Reid Epstein.

If anything in Epstein’s article is true, then consider some of his opening comments:

The implied rules, according to conversations with many of those involved: No infighting. No second-guessing in the press. Support whatever the president and Vice President Joe Biden propose. And most of all, don’t make waves or get ahead of the White House.

In exchange: a voice in the discussions, a role in whatever final agreement is made and weekly meetings at the White House with Biden’s chief of staff, Bruce Reed — provided they don’t discuss what happens there.

If there is someone forcing the actions here that is actually giving these anti-gun zealots access to the White House and a voice on what gets included in gun control issues, then perhaps we are seeing one of the reasons we have not realized any details of executive orders posted on the White House website.

I have said that perhaps President Obama didn’t want to publish the details of his executive orders in order to hide them from the public. That may still be true but then again, maybe it is the culminating of this effort of suppressing the actions of anti-gun groups, while amassing their recommendations on exactly how to pull off the 23 executive orders, that is holding up the finer details of President Obama’s executive orders.

Perhaps it’s the bigger plan to introduce the 23 executive orders (ideas), meeting with all anti-gun stakeholders, amass their plans and ideas, mesh them into Obama’s 23 notions and then begin implementation of the executive orders, while circumventing the Congress. Any additional anti-gun laws passed in Congress would just be a bonus. Also consider that the debate in Congress presently underway over “universal background checks,” may be just a diversionary tactic.

And while this is going on, John Hinderaker gives readers an explanation of how the old adage, statistics prove that statistics can prove anything, comes into play in our being subjected to “studies” that “show”. Studies, for the most part, are nothing more than contrived propaganda whose purpose is nothing more than to persuade public thought and effect change.

Two communists, Sen. Patrick Leahy from Vermont and Sen. Susan Collins from Maine, show us the art of compromise, the result of which is more and more destruction of Second Amendment rights. Hey, the brainwashing machination has effectively convinced Americans that the only way to get anything done, as if doing nothing is such a bad thing, is to COMPROMISE! Such an evil word.

liberallogic

Share

Day 22 – No Executive Orders

DOG and PONY SHOW

Absolutely nothing posted on White House website about 23 executive orders.

But be vigilant and watch carefully as the lying republicans, presenting themselves as the great protectors of our Second Amendment rights, begin to cave in on gun rights saying they are open to discussion on gun control issues like enhanced background checks. The media is doing their job of convincing the populace that the majority of people want stricter laws that do nothing to prevent violent crime and everything to do with disarming the people.

Remember what I have been saying. The last blockade to avoid total despotic rule is an armed populace. Once that is gone, so are we.

Historically, neither democrat or republican lie makers (not a typo) do as they say as both sides have the same agenda; they are just permitted to use different rhetoric in order to deceive the people.

We all have become victims of the biggest con game in Washington, D.C.: “We must come together in compromise to get something done.” That is progressive speak and has led to the destruction of this nation. But we fail to learn from history……by design.

Share

Why Elevating the Debate on Gun Control is Ceding Rights

Everywhere I go I hear and read the same old malarkey about how gun rights advocates will not “rationally” and “reasonably” join in a national debate to limit access to guns. Those making the demands for such “debate” as they wish to misrepresent their cause, attempt to paint a picture that anyone not wishing to lay down and play dead are “extremist” or “right wing”, along with many other descriptive titles of which I’ll refrain from posting. Gun rights is NOT a left/right issue. Even fascists like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg believe in THEIR right to guns for their own protection but seemingly aren’t interested in yours.

From an intelligent perspective, isn’t demanding that others join in THEIR debate on gun control akin to demanding that people sit down and rationally and reasonably debate the need to prohibit the police from entering your home at anytime for any reason just to have a look around? After all, if the police could come into your home anytime, people will be safer – won’t they? Of course the brainwashed masses will immediately say it’s not the same thing. But aren’t they?

Those who say the two are not related do so because they actually believe that because guns exist, mass murders occur. Isn’t that the same as saying that because private homes exist, they are subject to invasion, i.e. robbery, random crime, etc.? And one could further argue that if the people are disarmed, all the more reason cops should invade your home anytime they want because you are not capable of taking care of yourself; just as government wants it.

Most people who advocate for the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment believe this right is necessary for self protection and the warding off or tyrannical governments, both foreign and domestic and rightfully argue that the presence of guns, no matter the type, is not responsible for mass murders, or killings of any kind.

I’m not attempting to censor the free speech of those seeking bans on guns. It’s disingenuous to demonize people who strongly believe in their right to protection, while at the same time presenting themselves as somehow about the fray because they want to compromise away those rights. This tactic is common throughout all political debate and comes up when one side doesn’t have any fact, truth or data to support the eagerness for dictatorial rule, which is what they are advocating whether they know it or not.

I’m so tired of hearing the ignorance, cultivated through mind manipulation, that comprise is a necessary thing. Compromise is good for things like trying to decide what brand of soda pop to buy for the party but has no place when it comes to the fundamental and inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Before anyone should be talking about further destruction of the Bill of Rights, maybe the “rational” and “reasonable” debate should be about what has happened in our society that ends in things like Sandy Hook.

Guns have been prevalent in the United States at least since the Pilgrims used the blunderbust. Maybe the transformation of a God-fearing, respectful citizenry, founded with a sense of moral duty and responsibility, into a liberal, progressive, decadent, immoral, Sodom and Gomorrah-like culture has something to do with why. Dare we not address that?

Share

Rome Burns While Congress Struggles To Save Junk Mail

At what point in our history did it become a good thing to compromise everything good away? So many today lament that the United States Congress is so dysfunctional that it can’t compromise on anything and get anything done. I suppose this sort of thought goes hand in hand with comments made a few years ago by Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe when she stated that her job was to go to Washington and write bills.

Alas, the great divide, that nasty lack of compromise by members of the U.S. Congress. Perhaps if we had never acquired this fabricated “need” for compromise, a far lot less would have been “done” – defined better as destroyed – in Congress and we wouldn’t be finding ourselves in the messes we are currently. For certainly doing nothing is far superior than destroying the lives, liberties and happiness of others for the sake of “getting something done”. Senator Snowe labels herself a Republican, not that labels pertaining to party affiliation mean anything anymore, and yet she believes it’s her job to go to Washington and write bills. Probably a sensible person would have fingers left over uncounted if they named all the necessary laws that have been crafted since the signing of the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution. (Note: Almost nobody in America today would agree with that statement.) It is not taught, nor is it even recognized that for every bill Congress writes, that’s one less freedom you have and that much more power and control you have willingly ceded to a government that is untrustworthy.

Need I remind the people that the vast majority of those legislative measures get their roots from those who find a need to control others, expressing their lack of faith in their fellow man. Thomas Jefferson found considerable faith in his fellow man. Once, he and John Adams were arguing about the role of government’s power over the people. Jefferson said to Adams, “You have a disconcerting lack of faith in your fellow man Mr. Adams, and in yourself, if I may say.” Adams snapped back, “Yes, and you display a dangerous excess of faith in your fellow man, Mr. Jefferson.”

Perhaps Adams was right. Maybe Jefferson placed a bit too much faith in his fellow man but to maintain the sovereign independence of the human being, a person must retain the promise, as from God, the means in which to discover and appreciate such freedoms and inalienable rights without the interference of government. Thomas Jefferson, in a further expression of his certitude of man’s aptitude to do what’s right, wrote: “An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.”

And yet, the people of this day, the victims of Jefferson’s concerns over the tyranny of dishonest men exercising power over others, can seemingly only echo the moans of others who castigate the lack of compromise as reason for not taking more from government.

In America today, debt piles up at immeasurable speed. God told his people, “Owe no man anything.” I suppose one of the reasons for accumulated debt is the result of taking our eyes off God as a country. Very serious issues face the American people. I question how much any of them understand the extent of this seriousness and yet our Congress, every one, fight tooth and nail for themselves and only themselves. Why do we insist on thinking otherwise?

Recall, if you will, several years ago when the people of this country asked Congress if there was something that could be done about receiving unwanted telephone calls from telemarketers, etc. Our self-aggrandizing Congress crafted a law prohibiting such calls. It was even done giving people a choice to enlist in the program or not. However, I cannot fail to mention that Congress exempted themselves from any such law. This way they could, in their intrusive, selfish and disgusting ways, intrude on your privacy anytime they saw fit in order to promote their own lies and propaganda.

And today, while Congress fights and argues like spoiled rotten brats to save the Postal Service, make no mistake about the fact they will do everything in their power to screw you over and protect their own self interests. While Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins regurgitate and swallow again that there needs to be, “some kind of compromise on amendments”, Senator Harry Reid promised that senior citizens wouldn’t be denied their junk mail.

Sen. Reid, hiding behind a chameleonic lie, attempting to convince people he gives two pieces of a rat’s ass about senior citizens, I’m sure was doing as Doug Powers at MichelleMalkin.com said and, “Why am I guessing that the “junk mail” Reid is worried about being delivered to his elderly constituents are the letters from Harry Reid’s office?”

This appears about all our Congress is capable of doing, which may, in and of itself, be a good thing. While it’s too late now, I just wish there were never compromises made on 99.9% of anything. I was trying to explain this to my mother one day and so I put it in terms I thought she would understand. I hope some readers here can as well. I asked her if compromise is such a good thing in order to “get something done”, as she had worded it to me, then I suppose being a believer in God Almighty, a born again Christian and one who stands firmly on the word of God, you would be willing to compromise the promises of God in order that you can better get along with other religions?

For now, it is probably best that the president go on permanent vacation and send Congress home for recess, while suspending all of their pay. For we have reached a point where I certainly find greater solace in this government doing absolutely NOTHING, than to keep forcing onto me the compromises “in order to get something done”.

Tom Remington

Tom Remington

Share