Why Have a Congress? Or a Constitution?

There's nothing more disappointing than putting your faith and trust in a person, or group of persons to watch out for you, and have them leave you hanging.  Or in some instances, helping dig the hole that you are about to be thrown into.

In this instance, I am speaking of the Republican-controlled Congress which has done nothing except kowtow to our current POTUS as he has run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, to say nothing of the will of the people.

I have been convinced for some time that only a complete and total act of stupidity (nominating Trump, Christie, or Bush) would prevent the Republicans from regaining control of the White House.  After the debacle that was 2015, I'm not entirely positive that's true, anymore.

The main reason that I mention this has to do with what the POTUS' press secretary had to say in response to the President's intent to remove (or prevent them from obtaining them) guns from the citizens of law-abiding citizens (something that was considered crazy as little as 18 months ago.)  A sampling of the P.S.'s commentary:

@POTUS believes in 2nd amdt. Said so today. Let's keep guns out of wrong hands AND protect our 2nd amdt rights. 

In case Mr. Earnest has forgot, that is the same man who swore that "if you like your health plan, you can keep you health plan."  Then nearly everyone lost the health plan they wanted to keep.  So, yeah, forgive me if the man's words don't tantalize me.

Close the No-Fly/No-Buy loophole. If too dangerous to board a plane, then too dangerous to buy a gun.

Because no one has ever ended up on a no-fly list when they shouldn't have.  Ooops...

I'm confident families of gun violence victims didn't find @POTUS's words or actions to keep guns out of the wrong hands "condescending".

Never let a good tragedy go to waste, right Mr. Secretary?  Also, who decides whose hands are *wrong*?

No govt action can stop every act of gun violence, but if we can prevent one innocent death, we should.

I think the one thing that the government has proven over the years is that they are fairly incapable of doing anything to stop anyone from doing whatever they want, especially if they're willing to go down in a blaze of glory.  There certainly is no other way in the world for someone hell-bent on murder or terror to accomplish their mission...except knives, cars, jets, rocks, bio-terror, bombs...no, really it's all about the guns.  If only we could get rid of them all, there would never be another death in this world.

Won't be solved overnight but if we work together to pass common sense gun safety measures, our kids will be safer.

When all else fails, pull at the heartstrings and swear you're doing it "all for the kids".  Also, ignore the facts about how many crimes are prevented or stopped because a law-abiding citizen has a weapon (and doesn't even need to use it most times.  Simply having the weapon is enough.)

I've written someplace before, but am unable to find it at the moment, that the 2nd amendment is the most strongly worded amendment you'll find going in our current Constitution.  There is no ambiguity in the language whatsoever:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

SHALL.  NOT.  BE.  INFRINGED.

You will read many other commentators who will insist that our Founding Fathers never intended this to mean that you could own a hunting rifle in order that you may go fetch your dinner from the woods.  It's patently the dumbest argument ever presented, and if you fall for it, then you are deserving of whatever comes of that.

Our Founding Fathers, having just defeated the greatest military presence known to man at that time, were not interested in how persons went about getting their dinner, or any meal, for that matter.  They had thrown off the bonds of an oppressive government, to establish a free Republic, and it was their desire that it should always remain so.  They had no desire to see an oppressive government set up on these shores, and the right to bear arms was meant as a deterrent for a government that would overstep its bounds.  If you don't believe me, then feel free to research the history and commentary of the men who wrote the Constitution.  You'll find that to a man, they would not approve of government controlling arms in any fashion.

As the fallout from the POTUS' most recent usurpation (or attempts thereof) at *gun control* make the rounds, ask yourself the important question:  What would George (Washington) or Tom (Jefferson) have said?  If you believe they would favor the unConstitutional executive orders that have come out of D.C. over the last several years, than you absolutely deserve the  government you currently have.

The U.S. Continues To Lead From Behind

Friday evening, as I listened to the horrific news that came out of Paris, I waited on the POTUS to come forward and offer a plan as to what would occur.  It never happened.  Mind you, he did come out and state that it was a great tragedy, and it was even a major setback in our battle with ISIS, but not once did he come out and say the words I longed to hear:  we are in a battle with Islamic jihadist terrorists.  These people are looking to destroy our way of life, and of course we will help the people of France in any way that we possibly can to help stop the global terror threat that is spreading around the globe. 

Instead, he went on to say that there was no credible threat to the U.S. from ISIS (despite the fact that ISIS has specifically stated that the U.S. is a top target.)  He also gave the thumbs up to continuing to allow Syrian "refugees" to come to our nation, despite the fact that governors from Florida to Massachusetts, out to Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas and points pretty much everywhere else have specifically stated they will not accept any new refugees from a nation that has such large numbers of terrorist leaning persons until there is a way to properly vett those who are seeking asylum on our shores, something that the FBI and other government agencies have specifically stated is an impossibility.  Not only that, but they can't even keep up with the thousands of people that should be getting observed already, but can't, because there aren't enough resources.

Of course, what else could Obama say, as he is the man who (in) famously called ISIS the JV of terrorist networks, and then admitted months later that he didn't have a plan to forestall their terror regime.  It turns out, he still doesn't, outside of sticking his head in the sand and hoping that someone else comes up with an idea.

Thank goodness the French (the French!!  I'm banking on the French, now!!) have no such qualms about what needs to be done.  They spent their Sunday bombing ISIS centers in the city of Raqqa, with no civilian casualties sustained.  To all those who are against that, or are worried about the consequence of such action, I have only this question:  What else could be done?  ISIS had already stated very plainly that they intend to continue their attacks against France and other Western nations, and as the U.S. is turning a mostly blind eye to the situation, it is a good thing that someone has the cajones to stand up to ISIS.  I just wouldn't have expected the French to be the ones to do it, is all, but perhaps the fact that this is the second major terrorist attack in their nation in recent years has awoke them to the dangerous world we now live.

As a citizen of the United States, I can only hope that our leaders at the highest level take appropriate actions to preserve and protect our Republic, to say nothing of the citizenry.