#Additional Questions Leftists Cannot Answer

Was the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’ Socialist?

Was the ‘Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei’ Socialist?

Is the ‘Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela’ Socialist?

Is the ‘Partido Comunista de Cuba’ Communist?

Why do most shootings take place in “Gun Free” Zones?

Do you have the Commonsense Civil Right of Armed Self Defense?

If Socialism is so wonderful, why does it have to be imposed at the point of a Gun?

Where does the Government obtain the authority to control your property with Intergalactic Background Checks?

How are new laws supposed to control people who by definition do not obey the law in the first place?

Should the Government have control over it’s own constraints?

Who actually denies the existence of Climate?

Do you have a ‘right’ to healthcare?

Debunking the myth that the national socialist left actually cares about people.

“Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.” Milton Friedman

Recently the chairman of the DNC belched forth a profanity laced tirade that the Republicans “don’t give a s**t about people”:

This does engender the question with regard to the Left’s underlying motivations. Why is it always assumed that national socialist left really cares about people? A close examination of the results of their agenda in a few examples from recent history will prove it is they who are uncaring.

First of all, we will dispense with the socialist-left’s perennial excuse of having Good intentions for the repeated and abject failure of their agenda. At some point, one has to look at the cold hard reality of results instead of mere intent. Time and time again it can be shown that the Left’s socialist national agenda did nothing to help people, despite their repeated exhortations to the contrary. The fact that they have not changed to that which actually works shows that they are truly uncaring about the plight of the people under their rule.

Let us take a look at the results of the Left’s socialist national agenda this is ostensibly meant to help people and see if the truth of the situation bears this out.

Did LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ function as advertised?

Let’s look at the analysis from the Heritage Foundation: The War on Poverty After 50 Years

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

[Our emphasis]

The lens of history informs us this is not the case, despite the myriad promises put forth in the sale of the ‘War on Poverty’. Despite $22 trillion in wealth redistribution there hasn’t been any change for the nation’s poverty stricken.

Instead of actually caring and helping people, this ‘wealth transfer’ took opportunities for economic growth away that would have actually lifted the people out of poverty. But then again, had the people done this on their own they would no longer have any need for the nation’s socialist left.

More recently, how well did the people fair under Obamacare?

Again from the Heritage Foundation and the Daily signal:The Daily Signal Documents the Real-Life Consequences of Obamacare

Americans are struggling due to the failing health care law, and The Daily Signal’s stories are making their way into the national debate, in some cases because they have gone unreported or outright ignored by other media outlet.

Here is a sample of The Daily Signal’s unique and original reporting on the issue.

Meet 2 Hurting Americans Who Are Ready for Congress to Repeal Obamacare

In 6 Charts, the Rising Costs of Obamacare Rates

In 3 Years, His Insurance Premiums Double as Options Decline Under Obamacare

The 16th Obamacare Co-Op Has Collapsed. Here’s How Much Each Failed Co-Op Got in Taxpayer-Funded Loans.

Does that sampling even sound close to the national socialist left helping people with their much vaunted Obamacare?

Finally, there is the issue of Democratically run cities and People control.

Can anyone seriously argue that people have been helped in cities under decades of leftist rule? Can anyone make the case that depriving people of their civil right of self-defense has kept them safe? The nation’s socialist left can only offer an unending string of excuses for the abject failure of their policies in cities such as Detroit and Chicago.

From the Cato Institute on the causes of the destruction of Detroit: Government, Not Globalization, Destroyed Detroit

Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm blames “free trade” for the decline of Detroit’s auto industry and thus the city itself.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggests that “for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.”

Another MSNBC contributor, Michael Eric Dyson, suggests that “racial animus” was the real culprit.

Then there is the issue that should more aptly labelled people control. It’s always one of those amusing exercises to ask one of our esteemed members of the nation’s socialist left where their ideas of people control have actually worked. Most often the response will either be statistical lies or excuses for it’s failure in cities such as Chicago.

The fact is the Left’s theories on how the world should work redound badly on the lowest rung of the economic strata. It is the poor and downtrodden of the inner cities with strict gun control that bear the brunt of the magical thinking of the national socialist left with regard to one’s right of self defense. And once again we can see that if they really cared about those people, they would reverse their disastrous policies. But they refuse to do so even with the evidence staring them in the face.

Again from the Cato Institute: The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

At some point down through the decades, it should have occurred to the leftists that their socialist national agenda does not work. The evidence has been in front of everyone for years, and yet the left ignores or even denies it’s existence at times. Therefore, one can only draw the inescapable conclusion that they are unconcerned about the horrific results of their agenda on the people they profess to care about.

Conversely, if they really were concerned about people they would take responsibility for the effects of what they have done in the past and make changes to avoid these results in the future. Thus far they have not admitted to the culpability of their actions of the past, nor have they taken any steps to alter their socialist national agenda into something that actually works.

Good intentions mean nothing in the face of misery brought on by those who purport to care about people. The facts are clear, the socialist national agenda of the left hurts the people they supposedly want to help. If they truly cared they would change their ideology, the fact that they do not is prime fascia evidence that they.. in the words of Tom Perez: “don’t give a s***t about people”

Why Intergalactic Background Checks* are really Intergalactic Governmental Controls

*AKA “Universal Background Checks” or “Comprehensive Background Checks”

Given recent terrorist attacks, those who wish to destroy liberty are once again using these serious crises as a pretext to impose even more control over our lives. They would like us to trade some more of our freedom for the promise of ‘a little temporary Safety’ as Benjamin Franklin termed it.

This false promise is predicated on the belief that criminals and terrorists will somehow have a change of heart and abide the law in obtaining their tools of terror. Those who cannot deal with the fact that our rights are inalienable would like us to believe that they have a magical solution to keep the scum of the earth from obtaining weapons. That once and for all, criminals and terrorists will become good citizens of the world just because new laws have been implemented that control the possessions of the innocent.

Of course, those of us living in reality know that these new denigration’s of our common sense civil rights will do nothing in this regard. These new constrictions on liberty will only serve to incrementally take away those rights and empower those unencumbered with the law.

The issue is whether the government should have total control over your property. In this we have a profound difference between Right and Left, between those who support individual rights and those who have a collective mentality. There is the insidious presumption by the progressive Left to inexorably impose tighter and tighter controls over our lives simply for the greater good.

So why should the government have control over certain kinds of property for emotionally arbitrary reasons? The nation’s Socialist left simply asserts this should be the case because they’ve decreed certain inanimate objects to be dangerous.

Their insidious presumption is of collective ownership, that certain (if not all) property should be under the purview of the government. Consider that gun confiscation is usually couched as a mandatory “Buy back”. To those imbued with the precepts of individual liberty and freedom this phraseology makes no sense.

How can the government “Buy back” something it never owned?

It’s also doesn’t help that the Left loves to play fast and loose with the language. When polled on the issue, it’s phrased with regard to the innocuous sounding term ‘Background checks’ in connection to gun buyers. Sometimes the words ‘universal’ or ‘comprehensive’ are tossed into the mix, or they will talk of ‘expanded’ background checks, or of the ‘closing loopholes’.

But what would be the results of a poll that asked if the government should have total control over everyone’s property? That is the underlying issue here that is deliberately being concealed.

Often times these expansions of government power will have accompanying penalties for the failure to report a lost firearm. Why should this be a problem if the stated concern is about criminals buying guns?

This would only be a priority if they wanted total property control. If the Gun grabbers [Gun reformers as they like to mischaracterize themselves] primary concerns were as stated, then their control fetish should not exist.

It’s always a fun exercise to ask Leftists questions that they cannot honestly answer.

One of these is where the government obtains the authority to control everyone’s property with Intergalactic Background Checks.

This will flummox them because they won’t be able to cite the Constitutional justification and it sets out in stark relief their collectivist viewpoint. Their mindset is that government control of property is entirely justified without question. But they can’t exactly articulate this rationale without giving up the game on their world view, so they avoid the issue and gloss it over with emotionally laden talking points.

There is no Constitutional justification for Intergalactic Background Checks but that has never stopped those who want to assert complete control over the individual. In the case of a Federal Firearms License the argument is that the long abused ‘Commerce clause’ provides the answer, just as it has for just about every other government overreach.

Can one argue with a straight face that the founding fathers would have wanted the government to have this level of control over the people’s property? How is loaning a 12 gauge to a friend “Commerce.. among the several States”?

The larger philosophical point here is that that liberty depends on property rights, that if they control a person’s property, they control them. Their liberty is forfeit if someone has overarching control such that they can take that property at any time or decree what someone can do with said property. Ownership means that you don’t need someone else’s permission to buy, sell or even possess something.

Control is synonymous with ownership, governmental control means government ownership. It means you are merely the temporary possessor of property under government control. And this doesn’t even begin to touch the issue of taxation or the fact that these controls will lead to the Left’s ultimate goal of confiscation.

Where the left to attain their nirvana of controlling your property, they would move on to control other types of property for the greater good as well as making it more odious to defend yourself. They would not be able to resist their primal urge to tax your possessions and heap on all manner of red tape to make it as difficult and embarrassing to exercise your Constitutional rights.

History teaches us that these measures are never the last word, that there are always additional moves the Left will make based on their latest overreach. If you give the government new unprecedented powers over one aspect of your life, it won’t be long before they will want to take full advantage of the situation and expand that power everywhere else.