CNN's Piers Morgan uses stupidity, dead 1st graders to sell gun control

I don't know about you but listening to a guy from another country question a very basic RIGHT guaranteed to me by my country's constitution doesn't sit well with me. It's even worse when that guy is British. My ancestors fought and in some cases died to ensure that I have the rights written in that document, and it was written in direct response to the British oppression of the time. So you can imagine the rage I felt listening to this:

But let's get to what Piers is doing here. First he is using complete nonsensical stupidity and ignorance to sell the idea of ridding the U.S. Bill or Rights of its 2nd Amendment. In the video, Steve Dulan makes a perfectly logical case by saying that licensed and properly trained people who carry should be allowed "to carry in places that [they] couldn't carry before." He goes on to say that the only way to stop a deranged killer is to shoot him. At this point Piers loses his mind and calls it "a load of total hogwash"because "if everyone was armed in [the Aurora, Colorado] theater, TWICE as many people would have been killed in the mayhem that would have erupted." 

Here are the list of things you have to either ignore, or be completely stupid about in order for that to be correct:

1. That trained, law abiding citizens would somehow become careless about innocent human life when it came time to use a weapon. Where this comes from is that people like Piers are so terrified of guns that they think the guns are possessed to the point that it has its own personality, that it is an evil living thing and that it wants to kill and will when given the opportunity. They also believe that ALL people that possess guns are also under the gun's spell - that they must find an excuse to use it, and to kill as much life as possible. Because of this irrational fear of guns, all logic gets thrown out the window. You can tell when Piers says that when other, innocent citizens in a massacre are armed, that "twice as many people would be killed," what he really means is that those armed citizens will just simply join in on the massacre! Or maybe what he means is that the armed innocents will draw their weapon and start shooting as fast as they can pull the trigger while they spin in 360 degree circles, completely disregarding human life? Let's reintroduce LOGIC into this debate. A mass murderer points ONE gun at many people, and of course, many people die. When MANY, properly trained people take aim at ONE person, the only way more than ONE person dies is by freak accident. Considering the body count in Colorado, Connecticut and elsewhere, I think anyone not willing to take the chance of an accidental death to save so many DOZENS of lives is kidding themselves.
2. That video games replicate the complexities of aiming and shooting a weapon. Everyone that has had the luxury of comparing video games to real life know that your view through a monitor is extremely limited and that aiming is extremely cumbersome. In real life you are much more aware of whats around you and aiming is about as difficult as changing the channels on a TV with a remote.
3. So let's show the real-world proof:

Grandpa here knows his stuff! Lots of people around, and he shoots right past them. "Twice as many people" were NOT killed. Piers' argument is based on nothing more than his cowardly, European inspired FEAR of guns.

But besides Piers' use of fear, ignorance and pure absence of logic to make his point, at 6:44 of the video he plays Tarzan on the heartstrings of devastated and mourning America while simultaneously BLAMING those patriots that defend the Constitution by screaming out "HOW MANY MORE KIDS HAVE TO DIE BEFORE YOU GUYS SAY WE WANT LESS GUNS NOT MORE?"

For that, Piers earns the Low-Life of the Year award for 2012.

Here's a suggestion Piers - you need to assimilate to OUR country by embracing everything we stand for, or get the hell out of here. You DO NOT belong here and you have officially worn out your welcome.

This is Victoria. She died a hero Friday, 14 Dec 12

This is Victoria. She died a hero today. She hid her first graders in the cabinets and closets after hearing the gunfire. When the shooter came to her classroom

, she told him that her students were in the gym. He then gunned her down and moved on. She saved the lives of all of her students. Please pass this on if you see it. She deserves to be remembered for her bravery. She was 27 years old and did what she loved.  May God comfort her family and hold them as they morn. 

All teachers should be licensed and trained to carry a concealed weapon just as police officers. 

Watch More News Videos at ABC | 2012 Presidential Election | Entertainment & Celebrity News

 

ESPNNewYork.com columnist Rob Parker RACIST slam on Redskins starting quarterback Robert Griffin III’s

I am going to start this by quoting ESPNNewYork.com columnist Rob Parker the real CORNBALLER. A RACIST Parker blasted out at RG3 by saying, "if Griffin was “a brother, or is he a cornball brother?” and questioning both his reported Republicanism and his decision to become engaged to a white woman.
“I am an African-American in America,” Griffin told USA Today. “That will never change. But I don’t have to be defined by that. … We always try to find similarities in life, no matter what it is so they’re going to try to put you in a box with other African-American quarterbacks — Vick, Newton, Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon … That’s the goal. Just to go out and not try to prove anybody wrong but just let your talents speak for themselves.”

This is as bad as it gets.  Racist ignorant fools on parade at ESPN.  For this guy to still have a job come Monday morning will show how the Media is Sick Bias and its ok to slam a black man for having a white girlfriend and being a republican.  

Walter Shapiro Exposing His Sick Bias

Walter Shapiro is not the first liberal to politicize the Connecticut elementary school massacre, but it's the first one I've read an article about. 

In his article HERE, Shapiro calls the fight to rid the US Constitution of it's 2nd Amendment, "The longest war." He claims that Americans cry "Never Again!" every time one of these shootings happens, but really, think about it - what is he basing that on? I think it's in his own head.

He goes on to cite what he hopes you will think are sobering or staggering statistics. You know, estimates of how many guns are in America and the number of places to buy guns. But what does this matter? If you the reader were as stupid as this guy, you would believe that the odds of getting shot are proportional to the amount of guns out there. Why? Because he, just like all liberals want you believe that guns kill people. But that is simply FALSE. If that were true, the most dangerous place on earth would be an unmanned armory. The truth they don't want you to know is that PEOPLE kill, not guns.

The author goes on to demonize Americans for "stubborn individualism." So what is the alternative? I guess one day we will decide to upgrade to "reluctant collectivists?" Maybe this author's end goal dream is for America to achieve the utopian status of "sheepish dependents" of the State?

He also says we are a nation of "lethal gun violence." Is there such a thing as "non-lethal gun violence?" I guess that would be a first person shooter on Playstation 3 or XBox360. Seems the author doesn't know those are a little more popular than ACTUALLY shooting people in America.

And then the whopper - Shapiro says, "I sadly know nothing [about ridding the Constitution of the 2nd Amendment] will change in my lifetime." Sadly? The only thing sad here is your insistence that we start slashing up the Constitution.

And now for the statement that caused me to write this article: "It is hard to pin down exactly when Americans made the collective decision that periodic massacres of the innocent are the price that we supposedly pay for our liberties."

First of all allow me to explode this ridiculous FALACY of yours that the right of all American citizens to bear arms requires us to endure periodic massacres: Your theory only makes sense if you believe that only bad people or people with malicious intent would ever want to bear arms. Taking away guns from everyone makes it more likely that a killer will be able to commit his murders unopposed for a longer period making it more lethal. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences. The TRUTH is that the right to bear arms allows more law abiding citizens to bear the arms necessary to stop the killing. Moreover, the idea that so many people are armed must give potential criminals pause.

Secondly, Americans made the collective decision to have the liberty you actively oppose and work tirelessly to destroy was made in 1776 and it was one of the founders of the Land of the Free who said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Interestingly, Shapiro practically answered with the obvious solution: "Who in his right mind wants to live in a country where maybe twice a year a crazed individual guns down dozens of people in schools and theaters? There is no plausible remedy since we are neither going to disarm Americans nor are we going to pass out guns to elementary school teachers as a just-in-case precaution."

Why not? As long as I know that all the gun carriers are properly trained, I would rather my 6 year old daughter have an armed teacher than be a sitting duck!

Don't let freedom haters like Shapiro take away our rights as citizens!

Hostess: Union Rules were Harder to Digest than Twinkies

Hostess: Union Rules were Harder to Digest than Twinkies

reprint from : Courtesy of Dr. Paul Price

Did union workers simply get their 'Just Desserts' for backing Hostess into a corner with too many unreasonable demands? Consider the evidence.

Union workers have now completed their mission. 18,500 jobs are gone forever.

The national labor bosses stood firm. Labor leaders are proud they stood up to those nasty ‘suits’ [see Entourage for definition] who refused to run a money-losing business simply to continue paying salaries and benefits.

Hostess posted a $341 million loss in 2011 on revenues of about $2.5 billion. Contributing to those 2011 losses:

• $52 million in Workers’ Comp Claims
• Dealing with 372 Distinct Collective-Bargaining Contracts
• Administration of 80 Separate Health and Benefits Plans
• Funding and Tending to 40 Discrete Pension Plans
• $31 million in year-over-year increases in wages and health care benefits for 2012 v. 2011

Uncounted in the above numbers were the outrageous union-imposed rules that made for a too-high-to-bear cost of sales:

• No truck could carry both bread and snacks even when going to the same location
• Drivers were not permitted to load their own trucks
• Workers who loaded bread were not allowed to also load snacks
• Bringing products from back rooms to shelves required another set of union employees
• Multi-Employer pension obligations made Hostess liable for other, previously bankrupted, retirement plan contributions from employees that never worked for Hostess at all

America has come to this. The only defense against insane union demands is the willingness to walk away and close shop.

With General Motors and Chrysler we found that even that remedy wouldn’t work.

 

 

Sickest Liberal Bias of the Year

YAHOO READERS ARE BEING DUPED. Please read this in full to see:The propaganda wing of the Obama Campaign, Politifact, just released one of the most egregious, inciting, and blatantly and outrageously dishonest articles today.  Rachel Rose Hartman of Yahoo News wrote an article about it that is currently plastered all over the front of Yahoo.com. It talks about the claim and of the possibility that it led to Romney's defeat in the 2012 election.What it doesn't tell you is how dishonest this article is. The article is based on another article written by a far left political blog called Politifact.com. Apparently Romney's statement that Fiat (the company that bought Chrysler from Barack Obama for peanuts) planned on building Jeeps in China was deemed "Lie of the Year" by Angie Drobnic Holan. What's even MORE important is that the neither the Yahoo article OR the Politifact article explains where this "Lie of the Year" came from. What were the other candidates for lie of the year? If you look at another article that asks its readers what THEY think the lie of the year should be, you'll see that they got a choice of 11 options - 11 of which were supposed Romney lies, ZERO of which were Obama lies.The truth is that the Romney campaign assertion that Fiat planned on producing Jeeps overseas has never been refuted. The truth that these overseas productions were going to come at the expense of American jobs was a figment of liberal imagination. They literally needed to IMAGINE facts in order to spin lies out of Romney statements. Nevermind that Obama has yet to answer for the 4 brave American diplomats who were left for dead by Barack Obama. The gut-wrenching incident was blamed, BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION on a ridiculous Youtube video that hardly anyone saw. So it turns out that the real big fat lie of the year is that Obama got re-elected by a well informed electorate.

Many of you are no doubt wondering why Liberals are campaigning after the election is over. It is not because they want to get a 4 year head start. Its not even to finish off the wounded Republicans after such a stinging loss. The real reason is because they know that Obama's communist agenda is going to ruin the economy and possibly the country, and that by continuing a campaign style assault against conservatives they have the ability to continue to blame them for whatever goes wrong. It makes what they say slightly believable to the mob that otherwise doesn't know any better. We here at Sickbias.com are dedicating our lives to educating young Americans about truth and facts to make them more informed voters. We will fight hard against the dishonest Propaganda used to manipulate you the reader into voting the way THEY want you to and against what is best for you and your family, and freedom and prosperity for America.

Does America Need Her Bullies Back?

I read an inspirational but otherwise seemingly benign article today, accompanied by some comments that called into question the very society we live in. 

ABCNews Blogs did a puff piece about a 9 year old girl named Breanna Bond who lost 66 pounds to go from a very obese little girl to one that looks very normal and healthy. The article HERE, also included a video showing a very overweight younger toddler, presumably Breanna, playing on a jungle-gym while the audio in the background was Breanna talking of herself getting "bullied." 

Hidden between the lines of this article are some of the root causes of obesity in millions of American kids. 

The anchor starts off with the usual liberal plays of branding her a victim:

"Struggling with obesity," is what he called it. The article also points out that she was overweight since the day she was born, and so it constantly hints at her "struggle" also known to liberals as a "condition." They want you to think its a disease that she was so unlucky to catch, or be born with. 

The problem arises when the article goes on to contradict this stealthy premise by pointing out that the girl had no medical problems and was able to shed the weight by eating less and exercising more.

The victimization is just starting. Next the article talks about the bullying:

"The California girl soon became a target for bullies. "Everybody at school would call me names," she said. "They would call me fatty, they would call me fat head."
Ok, ok. We get it. We get that this kind of bullying is wrong. It's mean. It doesn't subscribe to the old saying, "Treat other as you would want them to treat you (assuming you don't want to be treated that way)." Nor does it subscribe to, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."

But there is a major problem with this Political Correctness. This falls under the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Their family pediatrician told them their 100 pound kindergartener will "grow into her body." The parents eventually "fired" this doctor by getting a second opinion, but the REAL true irony of this is that the commenters representing the public at large piled on! 

A commenter named Michelle wrote, "The pediatrician said a 100 pound kindergartner would "grow into" her body? What kind of crazy doctor is that?"

Her comment got 1354 thumbs up to only 23 thumbs down at the time of this writing. Out of 84 replies to her comment, a majority of them echoed her sentiments. They called him a quack, and irresponsible jerk, and said he should have been the first one to go. Some of them envisioned that the doctor must also be overweight to have said something like that.

I believe that our society of political correctness is to blame, and this doctor was too weak minded to overcome it. Why are we blaming the doctor for what ended up being a diagnosis of "parents need to step up?" Our PC society demands that everyone embrace many bad things including obesity. Isn't it a very fine line between a doctor saying that an otherwise healthy girl needs to lose weight and a "bully" making fun of her for being fat? 

Even Breanna's dad said, "Don't be afraid to do the tough love." I'm willing to bet the Doctor, fearing for his job and possible public scrutiny just said she'll just grow into her body, knowing full well that the truth is that her parents needed to make her lose weight, but was too afraid to say it. The doctor didn't want to be branded a "Bully."

A big problem with liberalism is that you can't ever hurt anyone's feelings or else you are a bully. The truth hurts sometimes. In a liberal America, you need to either lie, keep your mouth shut, or just embrace your title as "Bully." The problem is that nobody wants to fall victim of the PC police and get branded the Bully. The big question is whether or not an America without her Bullies is a better America or not. I guess it depends on whether or not you believe America needs a healthy dose of HONEST "tough love" or not  ...