Ben Carson - When Government looks more like foe than friend

Search

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens



  • [*]


    [*]Yes


    [*]


    [*]No


    [*]


    [*]Undecided


    [*]


    [*]Other


View results




The Bundy case in Nevada provides many insights into the state of our nation with respect to the relationship between the people and the government.
The Bundys appear to be honorable American citizens without adequate legal counsel to help resolve a federal land issue about which they disagree with the Bureau of Land Management. Without question, they violated some of the innumerable laws and regulations that continue to entangle every aspect of American life.

PHOTOS: Conservatives in Hollywood: Celebrities who lean right

Their violations could certainly have been handled through a multitude of less brutal means than those employed by our federal government, which through the mouthpiece of Sen. Harry Reid emphasizes how important it is for the government to enforce its laws.
It is quite interesting to see, though, that the same bureaucrats refuse to enforce some of our federal border-protection laws and other domestic policies with which they disagree. Perhaps Mr. Reid’s time could be better spent explaining why it is acceptable for the federal government to pick and choose which laws it wishes to enforce.
The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?
The massive show of federal force in the Bundy case is frightening because it gives us a brief glimpse of the totalitarian regime that awaits a sleeping populace that does not take seriously its voting responsibilities, and places in public office (and returns them to office) who do not represent traditional American values.
The fact that the ranchers were well armed and willing to literally fight for their rights probably tempered the enthusiasm of the federal forces to engage in further aggression. It was clear from the body language and some of the reported verbal responses of the government forces that they were not prepared to engage in lethal combat with fellow Americans.
Those Americans who are concerned about the possible future imposition of martial law after a financial collapse or some other event should take solace in knowing that many military and law enforcement personnel would likely refuse to obey commands inconsistent with freedom and American values. Such commands could emanate from any political party in the future, but it is likely that such a party would be one controlling an administration that selectively enforces laws and ignores or excuses corruption.

PHOTOS: Armed and liberal: Left-leaning celebrities who are pro-gun

Another important lesson from this incident is the value of a well-armed citizenry. The Second Amendment was crafted by wise citizens who recognized how quickly an enemy invasion could occur or how our own government could be deceived into thinking it had the right to dominate the people.
Such domination is considerably more difficult when people have arms and can put up significant resistance. This is the reason that brutal dictators like Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin tried to disarm the populace before imposing governmental control. Such domination could occur in America in the not-too-distant future if we are not vigilant.
We must be reasonable and willing to engage in conversation about how to limit the availability of dangerous weapons to criminals and very violent or insane people. In light of past worldwide atrocities committed by tyrants, though, to threaten the Second Amendment rights of ordinary American citizens is itself insanity. Those wishing to ban all assault weapons fail to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment.
Just as insidious as the attempt to limit weapons and ammunition to law-abiding citizens is the incessant invasion of privacy by the government. Unless there is reasonable cause for suspicion as determined by a court of law, there is no need for the government to know all the intimate details of our lives, including who we talk to, where we spend our time and money, or which weapons we own, provided we’re not purchasing tanks or fighter planes.
For our nation to once again be a thriving metropolis of freedom and innovation, the people and the government must peacefully coexist in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. This can only occur when laws are equally enforced and political favors are a thing of the past. When obvious governmental corruption is discovered, it must be swiftly and openly dealt with, and the perpetrators must face easily verifiable punishment.
This is just the opening salvo of what a trustworthy and honorable government should strive for. If we had such a government, border enforcement would be a given, the rights of the people would be respected, and events like the incident between the Bundys and the Bureau of Land Management would not occur.
We the people of the United States are the only ones capable of preventing uncontrolled government expansion and abuse. Like the ranchers in Nevada, Americans must find the courage and determination to maintain a free and vibrant nation. Government should be our friend and ally. When it is, we should support it wholeheartedly.







Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...nt-looks-more-like-foe-than-fr/#ixzz2zimPqu7E
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
"The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?" (from the above article)
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
"The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?" (from the above article)
That the Obama administration is fucked up.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
"The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?" (from the above article)

According to Guesser the Bundy's would probably be "domestic terrorists" and Bill Ayers would not be. LOL
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
2,924
Tokens
"The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?" (from the above article)

Hasan should be hung in the public square or should be stoned.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
2,924
Tokens


  • [*]

    [*]Yes

    [*]

    [*]No

    [*]

    [*]Undecided

    [*]

    [*]Other


View results




The Bundy case in Nevada provides many insights into the state of our nation with respect to the relationship between the people and the government.
The Bundys appear to be honorable American citizens without adequate legal counsel to help resolve a federal land issue about which they disagree with the Bureau of Land Management. Without question, they violated some of the innumerable laws and regulations that continue to entangle every aspect of American life.


In the same paragraph. I don't know how anyone can deem one as an honorable American citizen when they admittedly do not recognize the US federal government as existing. Is this a joke? Calling the Bundy's terrorists was from Reid not Obama, I wouldn't label them terrorist, I don't know what to label them to be honest, but their actions and the feds backing down is not a win by any means, I hope this does not encourage others to do the same especially when they are in the wrong. Is this author justifying the Bundy's actions because the administration is not referring Hasan as a terrorist? That would be a weak argument to justify.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
2,924
Tokens
"The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?" (from the above article)

Do you think it's just the current administration that wouldn't refer him as a domestic terrorist or do you think any administration would do the same under the circumstances. I hope the author doesn't feel that Obama and the Dems have remorse for this man.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
2,924
Tokens
That the Obama administration is fucked up.

Gee whiz Obama administration hasn't labeled Hasan as a domestic terrorist. I don't believe any administration would, not because I don't believe he one but because no president would admit to having a terrorist attack on own soil during presidency. This is petty.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Gee whiz Obama administration hasn't labeled Hasan as a domestic terrorist. I don't believe any administration would, not because I don't believe he one but because no president would admit to having a terrorist attack on own soil during presidency. This is petty.
Well, you certainly are untitled to your 1st amendment rights.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
Do you think it's just the current administration that wouldn't refer him as a domestic terrorist or do you think any administration would do the same under the circumstances. I hope the author doesn't feel that Obama and the Dems have remorse for this man.

Bush's administration would not have identified Hasan as anything but a terrorist. It was not work place violence. He had been in contact with a high level well known terrorist before that all came down. You picked the word remorse for some reason. Not about remorse. It is about calling a spade a spade and doing away with all that political incorrectness that the Dem/Libs preach. It is what it is.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
2,924
Tokens
Bush's administration would not have identified Hasan as anything but a terrorist. It was not work place violence. He had been in contact with a high level well known terrorist before that all came down. You picked the word remorse for some reason. Not about remorse. It is about calling a spade a spade and doing away with all that political incorrectness that the Dem/Libs preach. It is what it is.

I call bullshit to that. I don't think Bush or any president would admit to having a terrorist attack on US soil under his presidency. JMO. Do I believe it was a terrorist attack? You betcha, but politicians will label it as criminal
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Bush's administration would not have identified Hasan as anything but a terrorist. It was not work place violence. He had been in contact with a high level well known terrorist before that all came down. You picked the word remorse for some reason. Not about remorse. It is about calling a spade a spade and doing away with all that political incorrectness that the Dem/Libs preach. It is what it is.
This is what it is.

head_in_the_sand-461x307.jpg
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
I call bullshit to that. I don't think Bush or any president would admit to having a terrorist attack on US soil under his presidency. JMO. Do I believe it was a terrorist attack? You betcha, but politicians will label it as criminal

It was an individual doing his thing in the name of Islam, is that work place violence. It was planned and it was condoned by a high ranking terrorist leader. You cannot prevent stuff like this as the more recent attack proved. Labeling is too politically incorrect (there is nothing correct about politics today). Call it bull shit but Bush would not have given in and that event took place in his home state. No way.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
2,924
Tokens
It was an individual doing his thing in the name of Islam, is that work place violence. It was planned and it was condoned by a high ranking terrorist leader. You cannot prevent stuff like this as the more recent attack proved. Labeling is too politically incorrect (there is nothing correct about politics today). Call it bull shit but Bush would not have given in and that event took place in his home state. No way.

We will have to agree to disagree about what he would of called it. I do think O should call him one though.
 

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
10,180
Tokens
And yet Bush was okay with the outsourcing of manufacturing to China . :)And had no courage to stand up to China as it pegged its currency . He bent over for Wall Street. And watched China rape ur country .


Yucky , Russ. Sorry. ........lets blame ..........anybody but country !! :)......
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
6,748
Tokens
And yet Bush was okay with the outsourcing of manufacturing to China . :)And had no courage to stand up to China as it pegged its currency . He bent over for Wall Street. And watched China rape ur country .


Yucky , Russ. Sorry. ........lets blame ..........anybody but country !! :)......

huh?
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
And yet Bush was okay with the outsourcing of manufacturing to China . :)And had no courage to stand up to China as it pegged its currency . He bent over for Wall Street. And watched China rape ur country .


Yucky , Russ. Sorry. ........lets blame ..........anybody but country !! :)......

You are absolutely right, he should have gone to China and bowed down to everyone he met. LOL
2014-04-24T111324Z_1272560593_GM1EA4O15BV01_RTRMADP_3_JAPAN-USA-OBAMA.JPG
 

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
18,212
Tokens
Or Bush should have sent his family over for a vacation. Get real.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,533
Members
100,877
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com