WHERE DOES THE PROGRESSIVE LOGIC ORIGINATE?

 

  So as I sit and contemplate the recent legislative actions both by New York State and by the federal government I cannot help but wonder how their thought process works. I wonder if they really believe what they are saying or if they are intentionally misleading the public with propaganda and half-truths.

  There have been numerous mass shootings in the last few years; however, violent crime has decreased over the past 20 years (FBI crime statistics). Each time a person commits a violent crime with a firearm, unless it happens in the Presidents home town of Chicago where by the way there have been more people killed with firearms than U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan, politicians and the mainstream media spare no effort to disparage the gun owners of America. There is always an effort made to exploit the tragedy to further the Progressive agenda of disarming America by politicians and the media.

  I think what bothers me the most about Progressives is the way they try to promote their agenda. They don’t want an open debate about their views; they always use rhetoric and emotion to sway the people. It is obvious they hate the constitution by the way they demonize anyone who thinks it should be the supreme law of the land. When the President says the kind of things he said during the 2008 campaign it is obvious, to some of us at least, he thinks those of us who have a belief and faith in God and own guns are out of the main stream of America. When in 1995 Rep. Diane Feinstein says to a reporter if she could get the votes needed in congress to confiscate all of our guns it would be “Hand them ALL over Mr. and Mrs. America” it becomes clear they want to do away with the 2nd amendment. Why then will they not have an open debate about repealing the 2^nd amendment?  Let’s have an open and honest debate about whether or not the Constitution is still valid today and whether it indeed is the foundation of American society.

  Instead of discussing things with logic and reason it is always the same response, make more laws! Never mind the fact that the afore mentioned city of Chicago along with Washington D.C. have the strictest gun laws in the country and yet they also have the highest gun related crimes, we just don’t want to bring that up.

  Everyone ‘should’ know and understand that criminals do not pay attention to gun laws, yet making new laws that only affect law abiding citizens is all the government ever dose to stop violent crime. So how is that working for them, why not just make crime illegal! I ask any thinking person to explain to me or anyone else how keeping me from having an AR15 will stop a criminal from having one. And please, while you are explaining that to me, tell me how disarming me and leaving only criminals with “illegal firearms” will make me safer than I am as an armed citizen.

  What the Progressives are making their argument with is non-sense and if you or I were to go before the public and say the kind of things they are saying we could very well be made to see a mental health doctor. Using their logic I could expect that if I were to stop eating candy and other sweets Al Gore and Michael Moore would lose weight. Or if the President or Nancy Pelosi were to take an aspirin my head ache would leave. Maybe I’m nuts but this line of thinking is absurd to me.

  So I go back to my original question of where does Progressive logic originate. I suggest that there are only two possible answers to that question; either they believe what they are saying, which if true means they are incompetent and therefore unqualified to hold public office. The other is that they are using propaganda to further their agenda, which if true means they would have been breaking the law and should be charged and tried for treason, but they had the foresight to repeal said law in May 2012. Propaganda was outlawed after the 2^nd world war in light of what the Nazis did to the German people, however, said law was “updated” to allow the practice (The US government is trying to unbind the legal regulations against using propaganda against foreign audiences and American citizens. The intention is to sway public opinion by using television, radio, newspapers, and social media targeting the American and foreign people in controlled psy-ops.

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987.

These laws made propaganda used to influence foreigners and US citizens illegal. Without these laws, disinformation could run rampant throughout our information junkets.

SMA defines the prohibition of domestic access to influence information through a variety of means, from broadcast to publishing of books, media, and online sources by restricting the State Department). The fact politicians voted to allow the use of propaganda against American citizens should send a shudder of fear into the hearts of us all. This action by the federal government reveals to the thinking public that there is a hidden agenda to “fundamentally transform America”. It is sad and frightening that the enemy of America is actually the government itself.

  SAVING AMERICA just got much more difficult!