Reality Check or Something More (edited)?

Russ Steele

Jon McNaughton, a controversial artist who often mixes religion and politics in his work, has released a new painting.

In ‘One Nation Under Socialism’ President Obama holds the U.S. Constitution as it burns.

One has to wonder if this painting was a little over the top, but then again this is a President that:

-Sent the Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) to Congress to put them on notice that despite the explicitness of the Constitution, the consent of the Congress to wage war will neither be solicited nor required by the Commander in Chief or his regime. The CiC and SECDEF may, if they feel like it and can find the time, MAY inform the Congress of “kinetic military actions” henceforth.

-Declared the First Amendment null and void by mandating that every American must, as a condition of legal residency in the United States, pay for abortions. . . . 

-Committed acts of war upon the sovereign nation of Mexico and her people, willfully arming narco-terrorists with the intent of using the optics of hundreds if not thousands of brutally murdered Mexicans in order to stir up and justify the overthrow of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is textbook sedition.

-Has coordinated with regime cronies in the Legislative Branch to enable the Obama regime to operate for an entire term WITH NO BUDGET WHATSOEVER. In this time, the Obama regime has looted the United States Treasury and debased the currency of the United States to the tune of SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS, or roughly one-half the gross domestic product.

H/T to the Western Rifle Shooters for the above list.


About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

27 Responses to Reality Check or Something More (edited)?

  1. Romney will trounce him. No worries.

    • Dena says:

      While Romney is the most conservative of the bunch(not counting Ron Paul), his past indicates he could be more of a RINO than the country could take. This election appears to be the lesser of two evils. I hope I am wrong and Romney has learned from his past but the danger remains that we may continue along the same path but at a slower rate.

  2. E Peritzd says:

    You guys are a bunch of yahoos who don’t have a clue as to the history behind the formation of the 2nd amendmend and how the founders meant it to be applied. True enough, Thomas Jefferson favored protection of individual right to bear arms for self defence, but he was in France, and his view was not shared by those men that actually participated in drafting the Constitution and later, the addition of the Bill of Rights.

    Russ Replies: I suggest that you provide more evidence than your opinion. Can you cite letters and papers from the time to support your opinion. Thomas Jefferson was not the only voice for personal freedom, and the right to self protection.

    • E Peritz says:

      Sure, but it will have to be later today, maybe not til tomorrow. Not an excuse, just have much to do after some days of incapacitation. Don’t normally engage in calling people Yahoos, but am currently exchanging post with friends in TX who sell AR-15’s in such a way that it is legal, yet will land in hands od those Mexican narcolords, but are staunch Bushites and haven’t a clue to the meanings of the Constitution, much less the 2nd Amendment. BTW, I’m a gun owner, combat Marine from Vietnam, and don’t want anyone taking my big game rifle away.

      I Shall Return. Ed

  3. Todd Juvinall says:

    Obviously EdP has never read the Federalist Papers. Uninformed liberals are truly the best example of the lefty eduction system run amok.

    • E Peritz says:

      I wasn’t talking to you. I’ll match my wits and life experience against you anytime wingwaxer. And, in overall world history, I’ll eat you up. You nsay shi_ like that w/o even knowing nothing. You aren’t worth the effort. I guess I won’t bother to respond. Did they kick you out of the air force cuz you were turned down for the eagle.

      • E Peritz says:

        One more thing, TJ, you won’t find the seeds of the second amendment in the Federalist Papers because it evolved from the fears of the Anti-Federalists and their concerns of a central government having a standing army–thus, under the doctrine of states rights, they demanded assurances of protection for members of their well regulated militias to bear arms, as was the LAW prior to Independence.

      • Oops, struck a nerve with the lib eh? You need to read more than Wiki to be competitive in these blogs. You are out of your league, but we all get a good laugh at you uninformed libs. What a hoot!

        What is iy about libs they like to swear? Tell us Edward.

      • Anonymous says:

        No Name, not E-mail, no post!

      • Here is a quote from Federalist 29 (Hamilton). Please explain this Ed.

        This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

        I kind of like the words, “who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” Maybe the “right to bear arms”? By the individual? There is more, but I don’t wish to embarrass you any further.

      • Anonymous says:

        No Name, no e-mail, not post!

  4. E Peritz says:

    Looks like my response was edeited out–like Stalin would have done. But, my blinded by the right wing comrade, you embarass yourself, not the more informed person you feebly try to demean. You, in all your pendantictry, fail to comprehend that the Federalist Papers are not and never were documents that comprised any part of the legal framework of this country. As you should know, they were just essays, a few written by Jay, the rest by Hamilton and Madison with the purpose of persuading the the required number of states to ratify the proposed constitution. Nothing written in them was law. What you quote above is only an attempt by Hamilton to address concerns of the Anti-federalists, which brings us back to the point I made before. The 2nd Amendmend sprung from the Anti-federalists. Mr. Steele, will you be afraid to print this reply, too,

  5. EdP, it appears your comprehensive abilities are very limited so I will speak very slowly for you. The Fed Papers were the intent of the the Founders of the Constitution and the BOR. Every law has intent and this was the intent. I never said they were law. But like a good liberal you put words in other peoples mouths. Try a little harder before you embarass yurself further.

  6. E Peritz says:

    Mr. Juvinall, because you use a quote from the Federalist papers to try, unsuccessfully, to counter, my statement, which goes beyond your knowledge of the battle that took place over this issue, you resort to the tactic, as in a bar argument, of insult. Three people, do not all the Founders make. And, you sir, have put words in my mouth, for I never said that you said the Fed Papers were law, but your use of the quote, again, shows your lack of comprehension of colonial history regarding the militias years prior to the Revolutionery era.

    Now take your thumb and forefinger and stroke your beard contemplativly and try to grasp this basic but obviously alien point: The thinking and rational behind the 2nd Amendmend didn’t originate with the writings of Jay, Hamilton and Madison. The colonists looked to the past for guidence and precendent: to Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government; The English Declaration of Rights of 1689; to colonial statutes mandating each householder to maintain a musket to meet his obligation to participate in the militia and to Sir William Blackstone, the leading authority on English law.

    “Colonists who bore arms did not act as isolated individuals, but rather collectively for the common defence, and did so within a clear set of legal structures established by colonial and British law”. And two ideas were paramount in their thinking: opposition to standing armies and “belief in an obligation to bear arms for the common defence in a well -regulated militia”.

    That’s all the effort I’m exerting to bring an elementary understanding of this subject to you.

    But I’ll bet you applaud the “Stand Your Ground” defence of Zimmerman in the shooting the Black teenager clad in a hoodie. On the other hand, have you any idea why the phrase, stand your ground? To what is it opposed to?

    And try to be civil, Mr. Juvinall. I was prepared, hopefully, for a honest, exchange of ideas with Mr. Steele, until you interrupted. I know this is a blog, but it’s not heavily used.

    And the earlier State constitutions

  7. You libs are a hoot! BTW, I have posted my views on the Zimmerman shooting on my blog but as usual you libs have everything backwards. Please review history and you will see you are a simpleton about it. Try harder.

  8. Everyone should read this history string regarding the “right” to keep and bear arms. I just read it again bcasues it is truly fascinating to read the reasons we have such a common sense Constituion and BOR. Yu must read the whole

    Here is one of my favorite quotes from the document. A recommendation from the Pennsylvania Convention on ratification of the Constitution.

    That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.”

    • within a well regulated militia. You guys just don’t get it.

      • EdP, Your reading an comprehensive skills need upgrading. You just don’t get it. Apparently you don’t believe individuals have the right to weapons? Only a militia? Convenienet since there are no more state militias.

  9. E Peritz says:

    A very long response just disappeared from this box, as often happens with this new laptop. I won’t try to reconstruct what I had said. I’m familiar with the arguments and sentiments of many as stated in your last paragraph. And I don’t now, nor have I ever denied that there were some who made that argument. But it did not carry the day and was not behind the inclusion of the second amendmend. What was just lost, explained, in part, this position, as far as I am willing to when you avoid addressing any points I posit, perfering to call me a simpleton. I’ve read many of your post before we began this thread and know that is your modus operandi.

    I am a gun owner; learned to shoot @ six; rec’d first rifle @ eight, shotgun @ nine but wasn’t allowed to shoot the Leugars and other German rifles my father brought back from Germany which were on display in our library. I’ve voted for Reagan and Nixon, even saw Ike and RMN in 1960 campaigning in Westchester, N.Y. and rec’d a letter from RMN after his defeat–I, of course had written him a letter of condolences after staying up all night listening and waiting for the Illinois returns to come in. These are the type of things I was referring to when in the post Mr. Steele must have deleted, I said you didn’t know anything about me, but I know about you–I’ve read lots of your posts. My vote for RMN was punched out in a fox-hole in Vietnam, while serving in the Marines. My family was conservative, mid-west, Taft Republicans, which while growing up, rubbed off on me. I’ll even admit that the Chicago Democratic Machine and the Outfit, headed by Joe Arcardo, did steal the Chicago vote, giving Ill., thus the Presidency, to JFK.

    Vietnam and Watergate changed my politics. I fought for my country and am a 100% service connected, disabled veteran, who has alwas put my money where my mouth is. I know the proper methodology of historiography, and have read, researched, traveled to primary sources, editted books for publishers, etc., and know what constitutes valid research.

    As a gun owner, I tried to enlighten you on the true origins of the thinking that led to the 2nd amendment. Instead of being receptive to learning something, you use the tired old tactic of avoiding what I have said, and ridicule me. What you have posted is all fine and dandy, but it is not relevant to the history, going back to England, of thought on rights to own weapons. And since you are not receptive, I’ll not bother discussing the subject further.

    I tried to

    • No EdP, you called us all “yahoos” and we had never seen you here before. You whine about being put to the carpet on your history we just supply the facts.

  10. E Peritz says:

    Again, you resort to insult because you don’t understand the issue. I’m finished with you, as you’re clearly too far below my intellectual level to justify any more of my time. You don’t respond to anything because you simply don’t know. This is what I meant in the post that Mr. Steele deleted–I guess–when I said I have heard about you, but you know knothing about me. And what I heard didn’t come from any of the bloggers that you love to do battle with. You resort to insults, it seems, because you are incapable of constructing meaningful sentence.

    And you have no idea what the totality of my politics are; that I’m a gun owner and believe in my privelige to own my hunting rifle–which is the only weapon I still own. And it is also obvious, that beside your misinterpreting of American history, that I have a far greater background of research and reading of world history, particularly in understanding that reason and science trumps superstition.

    You live in a narrow world, limited my your out-dated and petrified thinking. You, sir, are the simpleton, as you haven’t a clue as to the what legitimate historiography entails, thus your refusal, oops, inability, to discuss the points have raised.

  11. B White says:

    Since Peritzy is so adamant about the importance of the origins of the 2nd I guess we can count on him to reject the idea of the Constitution being a “living document”.

    Oh but then he might have to abandon the “politics” that he has adopted since “Vietnam and Watergate”.

    Peritzy’s situation of his purported support for Nixon and Reagan while rebuking the “Chicago Democratic Machine” sounds like so much common liberal deflection as a result of timidity to admit.

    Peritzy, I know your purpose. It doesn’t work. Needless to say, I am not impressed.

  12. Removed, for multiple personal attacks!

  13. EdP, you need to toughen up and hone your skills a lot more to compete on this blog.

    • Juvenall, you’re not worth it. And believe me, you are wrong and not in my league. As far as toughness, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’d be crying like a little baby if you even tried to compete with me, and I’ve got the scars from Nam, the streets of NY to proove it. I’ll let my published work speak for itself. I was content with letting the whole matter drop, but noooo, you want to keep name calling, like a little brat on the play ground, rather than address the questions I put to you which are obviosly beyond your understanding.

      And Mr. Steele, I guess you remove this post too. What a group you guys are. Y’all should move to Texas where your brand of faux intellectualism might get some traction with Bush, another exceedingly limited person of intelligence. So please, don’t bother me anymore.

      I thought good Christians were supposed to love thy neighbor, Todd. All I’ve seen from you, is the spread of hate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: