Answering a Liberal Left Commenter

By Douglas V. Gibbs

First, the image to the left is not completely accurate.  President Barack Obama seems to be a failure from the point of view of those that are of a more conservative tilt, but in his eyes, he is anything but a failure.  As for my opinions, or the opinions of the writers on this website, we tend to be conservative, and view the issues through the lens of the United States Constitution.  I usually care less about liberal left commenters, because they not only don't understand the complexities of the issues they are commenting on, but they are approaching the issue from an entirely different direction - a flawed premise.  You can reason with the unreasonable.

One of the writers on this website, JASmius, wrote an article titled, "
Obama Sees Poll Calling Him A Disaster On Terrorism, Rushes Out To Reinforce That Sentiment".

A Democrat familiar* decided to respond with an incredibly uninformed and hateful comment, which beckons a response.  Here's his comment (Note: the comment was left as anonymous.  Interesting how these people love to hide behind the blanket of anonymity):

"No surprise that the pathetic racist, bigoted, black-hating POS have a problem with what the President is saying. the pathetic racist, bigoted, black-hating POS ALWAYS have a problem with what the negro in the WHite House is saying.

Lone wolf terrorist attacks is not any Presidents fault....
The president has issued his recommendations on gun laws...
The same law changes that those parents agree to...

So you're sitting trying to find a single parent not agreeing me vs listening and accepting what the majority of the ones that do....

Do you see how twisted your mindset is?

No, I'm not saying every single one agrees to gun law changes....
But a lot of them do...
But that's not important to you is it?

You and your friends enjoy bashing Obama vs offering real solutions or helping fixing things..
This is all fun and games for you and your party here...

It's all about laughter and jokes... Who can say the funniest insult about Obama...

Does that make you feel good?

And which candidate are you rooting for by the way?"

-- Okay, thanks for commenting.  Let me now take the time to dismantle your argument.

First, I noted that the commenter's writing skills were not even as good as my 8-year old grandson's, so excuse his poor grammar with the understanding he is likely the product or our failed public school system that began going downhill the moment government stuck its fingers into the system.

First, he (or, I suppose, it could be a she), like most leftists, automatically assumes, since I and JASmius write in opposition to the policies of the current administration, that we must be a bunch of racists.  Racism is usually a last ditch name-calling effort of someone that has no substance to their argument and really does not understand the issues:

"No surprise that the pathetic racist, bigoted, black-hating POS have a problem with what the President is saying. the pathetic racist, bigoted, black-hating POS ALWAYS have a problem with what the negro in the WHite House is saying."

I don't care if Barack's daddy is black.  I am actually more concerned that his white mama was a communist, and his mentors were communist Frank Marshall Davis and terrorist Bill Ayers.  The policies of the President are a mess, and in complete opposition to the principles penned in the United States Constitution, and that is my primary concern.  As for me, personally, being called a racist, bigoted, black-hating POS, understand that I grew up during my elementary school years in places like North Long Beach (Snoop Dog's old home), my wife was born in Mexico, and my grandchildren contain in their blood various ethnicities such as Filipino, and Puerto Rican.  The people I respect are also of various colors and ethnicities, chosen not because of the color of their skin, but because of the content of their character and the political positions as they pertain to the U.S. Constitution.  Meanwhile, 95% of the black population voted for Obama, and video after video after video reveals that many of them did so simply because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character.  Martin Luther King Jr. would be ashamed of you.

The commenter also wrote: "Lone wolf terrorist attacks is not any Presidents fault...."

Did the commenter feel that way while George W. Bush was President of the United States?  Though the President may not be directly at fault for lone wolf terrorist attacks, his policies can definitely encourage them - especially when it comes to Islam.  Terrorist attacks, be they by a well-funded terrorist organization, or a lone wolf, will happen no matter who is President because of the nature of Islam.  However, the number and frequency increases as the Muslim population numbers in a host nation increases (which is being accomplished based on Obama's immigration policies, and his policy to import terrorists who are intermingled among the "migrants" and "refugees"), and the number and frequency of attacks increase when obstacles are removed (gun control would put less guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, encouraging terrorist attacks because the terrorists will believe they are at less of a risk to be stopped by armed persons).  So, while a lone wolf terrorist attack may not be directly any President's fault, they are indirectly his fault based on his policies that encourage these attacks.

"The president has issued his recommendations on gun laws...
The same law changes that those parents agree to..."

President Obama does not issue "recommendations."  He has repeatedly acted in an unconstitutional manner, putting his policies into play without Congress, and despite the protests of the American voting public.  Obama's recommendations on gun laws are completely illegal/unconstitutional, for the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed."  That is a direct order by the Constitution against any federal gun laws.  All federal gun laws are unconstitutional.  As for the same laws that "those parents agree to," I don't know what parents you are referring to, but statistics are showing that gun purchases are at an all-time high, and I am sure a good number of those new gun owners are parents.  As for gun shootings, if teachers and the security guards were armed, the end result of those shootings would have been very different.  Stricter gun laws don't take the guns out of the hands of evil people.  Stricter gun laws take guns out of the hands of the good guys that would be able to stop these shootings, if only they were allowed to be armed.

"So you're sitting trying to find a single parent not agreeing me vs listening and accepting what the majority of the ones that do...."

Again, you are falling for the Democrat Party's propaganda.  Cities with stricter gun laws, such as Chicago, Washington D.C., and Detroit have greater incidents of violent gun-related crime than cities with more lenient gun laws.  Once you set aside the dishonest numbers the manipulate the results, the truth is clear.  For example, when gun deaths are calculated, suicides account for 2/3 of those deaths.  If someone is that determined to commit a suicide, if no gun is available, they will likely still achieve their goal with another weapon of choice.  So, suicides should be removed from the numbers we are given regarding gun deaths.  Ultimately, when reviewing everything, there is no evidence that points in any direction, and so we must also take into account other factors, such as to whether or not the society in question is virtuous, properly educated regarding firearms, whether or not the area has a gang problem.  While there is no simple answer, one remains clear and true: In a gun fight, if the bad guy has a gun, and the good guy doesn't, the good guy will lose.  Strict gun laws, then, using simple common sense, takes away from the citizen the opportunity to defend oneself against an armed criminal.  So, we can argue about if the parents agree or disagree, and to be honest, either side can probably find a survey somewhere to support their argument.  Your argument, my commenting friend, is a straw man argument, because the answer to your accusation is "it depends."  Now, that all said, the number one concern for a parent is often regarding protecting their child.  The shootings all happened at schools with a "gun-free zone" policy in place.  How do you think the situation would have wound up if the teachers were armed?  And if someone is that determined to kill, would stricter gun laws have stopped the shooter?

"Do you see how twisted your mindset is?"

Which mindset is more twisted?  The one that wants to take away guns from the populace while the criminals will still find a way to be armed, and the government remains armed?  Or the mindset that wants to give the average citizen a fighting chance to survive?  Historical perspective says that in history, among the first actions by dictators have always been to disarm the population.  So, based on that historical perspective, the twisted mindset is the one pushing for stronger gun control.

"No, I'm not saying every single one agrees to gun law changes....
But a lot of them do...
But that's not important to you is it?"

You have a little backpedaling going on there.  But here's the thing.  Your argument is based on what "a lot of them" think.  The will of the people, right?  Majority wins.  The Founding Fathers set up our system as a republic, placing checks and balances against too much power being in any one location, including in the hands of the populace.  In other words, we are not a democracy, despite what you are being told, and we don't want to be one.  Do you really want to be forced to do what the majority wants?  That is mob-rule.  And if the mob believes you should lose your home, or have your children taken away, or vote that anyone of a particular color of skin should be killed, should we blindly follow what "a lot of them" think, then?

"You and your friends enjoy bashing Obama vs offering real solutions or helping fixing things..
This is all fun and games for you and your party here..."

This is not an Obama bashing site.  It is a site that takes a serious look at the issues, and Obama tends to always be on the wrong side of the issues.  He has completely disregarded the Constitution, and his policies have proven to be destructive to our American System that has prospered based on a philosophy of limited government.  And yes, we offer real solutions.  But, folks like you don't notice those solutions because you believe the propaganda that right-wingers are only racist, bigoted, black-haters that simply oppose Obama because he's half-black.

Here's a few of the solutions:

Restore constitutional principles, which means that the executive branch does not have the powers the Obama regime claims.  According to Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, all legislative powers belong to Congress.  The President cannot act without Congress, and cannot ignore the laws that are on the books (Article II, Section 3).  And then, when it comes to guns, we can quote the 2nd Amendment.  All federal gun laws are unconstitutional.  An armed populace is a free populace.  When it comes to the open borders, we can quote Article IV. Section 4 where the Constitution tasks the federal government to protect the States from invasion.  We can use the 10th Amendment when talking about the federal government forcing refugees upon the States.  There is no authority in the Constitution allowing the federal government to do what they are doing, nor is there any prohibition to the States regarding this issue, which means it is the States' decision on if to accept these people, not the federal government's authority for force these  people upon the States.  Article I, Section 9 says that it is the job of Congress, if they so desire, to write law prohibiting certain persons from migrating into the United States.  Nothing is said about allowing them to force the States to accept anyone.  Despite the Supreme Court opinion, there is no authority in the Constitution to the federal government regarding heath care, so Obamacare is illegal and unconstitutional.  There is not authority given to the federal government regarding banking, so the Dodd-Frank law is unconstitutional.  As for the thought that interpreting the Constitution is the court's job, that, too, is a false idea.  The Constitution, including in Article III, does not give the courts that authority.  They seized that power for themselves, using the opinion of John Marshall as their excuse.  Unconstitutional laws must be addressed by Congress, and by the States (nullification).  In short, the solution to fix our problems is to go back to constitutional principles.  That, my friend, is something, unfortunately, our President has no intention of doing.

"It's all about laughter and jokes... Who can say the funniest insult about Obama..."

Obama is the joke.  He is the most unconstitutional President in history.  His policies are destructive and anti-American.  To be honest, he is no laughing matter.

"Does that make you feel good?"

What would make me feel good would be to end the horror we are experiencing under the Democrat Party's leftist policies that are shredding the United States Constitution.  The arrogance, and unconstitutional actions, of President Obama have set this country back a century, not only when it comes to the American System, but in race relations.  Your racism is a great example.  Your racism was apparent early on, since you decided my opinions must be based on race.  Could it be that yours are?  See the division Obama has created?  I thought he was supposed to be the post-racial president.  His policies have inflamed racial tensions that have set us back more than a hundred years.

And which candidate are you rooting for by the way?

Scott Walker was my choice.  I am not too thrilled by who is left over.  Nonetheless, I will vote for the candidate whose policies are closest to what is Constitutional, despite their color or party.  Chances are, however, based on what I've seen, the Republican nominee will be closer to the Constitution than the Democrat.

Note: * From Blade Wikia: Familiars are human beings that have devoted themselves to the vampire nation and pledged themselves to a house or specific vampire leader.  Since Democrats are political blood suckers, the term for their mindless sheep seems appropriate.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary