14yr old Daphne Jordan is smarter than the Clown Obama
No matter what your political persuasion, if a 14 year old can figure this out, then I wish this young lady should read her message to Congress.................
What an amazing young woman!!
Here's the story...
My 14 year old daughter, Daphne, and I went to a gun rally at the NH Capitol in Concord on Saturday, Jan 19, 2013. I don't even own a gun, but I'm a strong believer in the Constitution and the wisdom of our Founders especially when it comes to government taking away our freedoms, and I don't like the direction Obama is taking the country on that issue. You know, America, land of the free, and all the core strengths that made America great.
I made up a bunch of signs and Daphne prepared a letter before the rally, thinking she might hand it out to anyone who was interested. While attending the rally, Daphne noticed that the speaker had stopped talking and that he was handing the bullhorn to anyone who wanted to speak. She pointed that out to me, and soon she went over to the Capitol steps, got in line, and waited for her turn. After fighting her way to the front of the line, she stood there, on the steps of the NH State Capitol, and read a shorter version of the letter below.
She brought the house down.
After the cheers had died down, dozens of people shook her hand and congratulated her. A couple of reporters interviewed her briefly and other photographers took her picture. Just before she left, a representative from the New Hampshire Assembly talked to her and asked if she could come and speak at a hearing on gun control on Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013. Daphne said, Sure.
On Tuesday, we picked her up from school at 12:00 noon and drove to Concord. We found our way to the Legislative Assembly Hall, Room 204. The room was packed and there was a line down the hall and around two corners. Soon, they moved the meeting to another room. The second room also proved too small. Finally, they sent us across the street, up to the large chamber in the Capitol Building.
The room was near capacity. About ninety-five percent of the people were pro 2nd Amendment rights. The Representatives and PACs got to speak first, then the common folk. Daphne was in the first 10 folks to speak who were not representing a group. She was poised, though a little nervous, and spoke clearly to the crowd. When she was done, she brought a copy of her speech to the front of the chamber where the representatives were sitting, and they fought over who would get to take it from her. The moderator had previously silenced the hall from cheering or clapping, but people told her they would have cheered if they could as they shook her hand on the way out. The whole proceeding took more than 3 hours.
TRANSCRIPT:
Delivered to the New Hampshire Legislative Assembly
January 22, 2013
Dear citizens of New Hampshire,
Four days ago, I was across the street for a gun rally on the steps of the Capitol. I had never been to a gun rally before. I expected it to be all about hunters and guns. I was surprised: People were not afraid of not being able to hunt. They were not afraid of criminals at all. Do you know who they were afraid of? The Federal Government. I was shocked. They were afraid of the government taking away their freedoms.
The reason I went to the rally in the first place was that I heard children, like me, talking with President Obama about guns on the radio. I think those kids were far too young to make policy, and got it all wrong.
Naturally, I don't want my mom or dad to die either, nor my friends or family. But I learned in school that the First Amendment gives us our Basic Freedoms, like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and Freedom to Assemble. To protect our God-given rights, our Founders gave us the 2nd Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms.
My Civics teacher taught us that the reason our Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from the government of man because when man is given absolute power, he becomes absolutely corrupt. In 1776, guns freed us from the abuses of King George. Today, guns keep us free from tyranny by government.
If President Obama wants to take our guns, isn't he taking away our means to protect our right to freedom? Wasn't the 2nd Amendment given to us to protect our 1st Amendment rights? It's not by chance that those are the first two amendments. They were the two most important gifts our Founders gave the American people.
I don't know. I'm just a 14 year old girl, and that's what I thought I learned in school. Did Mr. Obama learn something different in school than that?
I think it is terrible for someone to use a national tragedy for political gain, don't you? So, when I heard Mr. Obama issued 23 gun control orders in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, I was upset. In school I was taught executive means to execute laws -- not make them. When did that change? Didn't the president swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution? Doesn't the 2nd Amendment state: "the right for people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ˇ Tell me how 23 orders on gun control is not an infringement. Can someone please tell me that? Has King George returned?
I hope New Hampshire members of congress remember their pledge and do not use this tragedy to create unjust laws.
So I ask myself, what gun would our Founders want their citizen militia to have today to protect us from a government greedy for power. I think Thomas Jefferson would recommend a semi-automatic rifle with 50-round clips, and pistols that hold 20. But, I'm sure George Washington would demand these arms.
Just so you know, I don't even own a gun, nor does my mom, or dad. But when I'm old enough, I want the right to buy a gun if I want to, so I can protect the America that I love. I hope I never need one, but I always say, "plan for the worst and hope for the best". Unfortunately, that's sort of why the government is taking away our guns: they are planning for the worst Americans, and not thinking of the best. Maybe the question we should be asking is what caused the morality of the United States to decay? Are parents no longer teaching their kids "thou shalt not kill?"
I want to live in an America with laws that protect the best people on Earth, not the worst, don't you? Wouldn't that be more free? Wouldn't that be more American? Isn't freedom what America is all about? The right to bear arms is our best guarantee to live free.
Finally, at my track meet at UNH on Sunday, I read the banner on the wall. It said three words: Tradition. Pride. Excellence. I hope and pray that New Hampshire will continue its tradition of excellence and lead the way for the rest of the county, and never infringe on my rights. May the people of the great state of New Hampshire carry on their long tradition of freedom, so we can proclaim with pride the words our forefathers gave us: Live Free or Die!
This is our United States. This is our New Hampshire. And that should never change.
Live Free or Die, New Hampshire!
Thank you,
Daphne Jordan
Nottingham, NH
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Democrats of 2013 - the party of low expectations!
I love the callers to TALK RADIO. On Bill Bennett a caller made it quite clear what is wrong in America today and I see it as the fault of the Democrat Party, the Democrat Media and dumb ass Democrat parents. LOW EXPECTATIONS.
Since MOST Americans do not see America doing well right now, we expect very lil and that is what we are getting. Parents no longer, along with schools, demand students seek HIGH expectations, but we have dumbed our schools and kids down to expect LOW expectations.
Coach Ken from Texas says "You seldom exceed your expectations!" Correct - expect lil - get lil.
The same caller used a perfect example for todays Democrat. A snail gets on top of a tortoise and yells "weeeeeeeee"
That is todays Obama Democrats - yelling "weeeee" isn't the economy doing great?!??! No you dumbass - Democrats are destroying our economy with taxes, regulations and now another min, wage increase and you fucktards are loving this life?!?!
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU DEMOCRATS?????
Since MOST Americans do not see America doing well right now, we expect very lil and that is what we are getting. Parents no longer, along with schools, demand students seek HIGH expectations, but we have dumbed our schools and kids down to expect LOW expectations.
Coach Ken from Texas says "You seldom exceed your expectations!" Correct - expect lil - get lil.
The same caller used a perfect example for todays Democrat. A snail gets on top of a tortoise and yells "weeeeeeeee"
That is todays Obama Democrats - yelling "weeeee" isn't the economy doing great?!??! No you dumbass - Democrats are destroying our economy with taxes, regulations and now another min, wage increase and you fucktards are loving this life?!?!
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU DEMOCRATS?????
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Read and understand!!
I OFTEN say you can NOT be a Democrat and a Christian. Democrats FULL SPONSOR and CONDONE Planned Parenthood and the MURDER OF BABIES. So if you vote Democrat you do as well... One of the main reasons today I am NOT a Democrat any more. YET here is an article so well written about being a Conservative I pray every idiot that is still a Democrat today reads this:
The Moral Case for Conservatism
How to talk to America about big and small things
By Lee Habeeb & Mike Leven
In the early 20th century, two of England’s towering minds, the socialist George Bernard Shaw and the Catholic G. K. Chesterton, engaged in a series of debates. Shaw was an atheist, socialist, and vegetarian; Chesterton a Catholic, moralist, and meat-eater. Shaw argued against private property, and for redistribution of wealth. Chesterton argued for private property, and warned about the perils of consolidated power. It was like Ali vs. Frazier. A clash of styles and vision.
Shaw, sounding like a modern progressive, said this about wealth and equality:
The moment I made up my mind that the present distribution of wealth was wrong, the peculiar constitution of my brain obliged me to find out exactly how far it was wrong and what is the right distribution. I went through all the proposals ever made and through the arguments used in justification of the existing distribution; and I found they were utterly insensate and grotesque. Eventually I was convinced that we ought to be tolerant of any sort of crime except unequal distribution of income.
In came Chesterton:
We say there ought to be in the world a great mass of scattered powers, privileges, limits, points of resistance, so that the mass of the people may resist tyranny. And we say that there is a permanent possibility of that central direction, however much it may have been appointed to distribute money equally, becoming a tyranny.
Chesterton added, “Mr. Shaw proposes to distribute wealth. We propose to distribute power.”
The moderator warned the audience that what they were listening to wouldn’t have relevance in 20 years. How wrong he was.
Those men were engaged in a debate that rages today. How do we best organize a society? From the top down or the bottom up? With the individual — and, as Chesterton argued, God — as the ultimate sovereign, or the state, as Shaw argued? Which system drives the most effective and the fairest outcomes?
If there is a single reason why conservatives continue to lose the battle of ideas, it’s because we don’t make the moral case for freedom and free markets. Our political class instead makes the economic case for our philosophy. Our smart guys are so impressed with their own intelligence, they think we can win the debate using numbers and data, charts and graphs, and political tactics and strategy.
It’s the Left’s secret advantage. They create the feeling that they care more about the average American because they make the moral case for their philosophy.
One of the advantages this confers on the Left is this: They get to play large ball, while we play a dour brand of small ball.
When you play large ball, you get to be on offense. When you play small ball, you always feel like you’re playing defense. They make big bold moves about big bold things like Obamacare, while we wallow in the weeds explaining why Obamacare won’t work.What can we do about this regrettable state of affairs? Let’s start by talking about the moral implications of a government that tries to do too much for its people.
Dennis Prager wrote a great column two years ago that included the following formulation: the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.
He argued:
Not only does bigger government teach people not to take care of themselves, it teaches them not to take of others. Smaller government is the primary reason Americans give more charity and volunteer more time per capita than do Europeans living in welfare states. Why take care of your fellow citizen, or even your family, when the government will do it for you?
From there, we should take Prager’s formulation one step further: the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector.
As more of our money goes to feed ever expanding government bureaucracies, it leaves less money for us to do with as we choose, and less for the private sector. As big government crowds out the private sector, the result is less innovation, a less efficient economy, and less job creation.
Does anyone think government is the engine of innovation, efficiency, and job creation? Will government create the next medical breakthrough? The next iPhone?
We can extend Prager’s formulation further still: the bigger the government, the smaller the church.
As the state takes more of our money, there is less for us to give to churches, synagogues, and mosques who take care of the weakest among us. And not just with a check, but with a caring human being connected to that material support.We can point to 20th-century Europe’s experience. As the state grew, the churches there had less influence and eventually emptied.
From there, we can take Prager’s great line a step farther: the bigger the government, the smaller the family.
As people in Europe left their churches, they lost the connection between love, sex, marriage, and family. Birth rates fell below the replacement rate in many of those countries. In many parts of our nation, too, they are barely at replacement rate. Moreover, as we work longer hours and pay more to the government, it leaves less for our families. Kids are expensive, and parents keep families smaller out of economic necessity.
Now let’s take Prager’s formulation one last logical step: the bigger the government, the smaller the dreams, and the smaller the future.
More than half of recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed. And in inner cities of America where government manages nearly every aspect of too many people’s lives, youth unemployment is at rates never seen before.
When we make the case against big bureaucracies, we are actually making a moral case that the bureaucracy will, over time, generally seek to serve itself at the expense of service to its customers. And even at the expense of its employees, if they have the desire to reform the bureaucracy.
Big, as we all know, too often becomes impersonal and breeds alienation. Talk to anyone who has attended a high school with 3,000 students, as opposed to one with 800 or 500. No matter how hard the educators try, and no matter what economies of scale a large school creates, something important is lost — something personal, something human.
That is why great innovation often comes from small companies, from a few guys in a garage. And it is why, as companies grow, their greatest challenge is to keep that contact with the customer, and the ability to adapt quickly as the customer’s needs change.
In a similar way, government that is small and close to home can best serve its citizen’s needs and more easily adapt to change.
The fact is that the Left doesn’t have much faith in the little guy. Or the individual. Or much faith in the faith community. Indeed, what they really believe about us without ever admitting it is that we are not very smart. We are not capable of making choices on our own. And we are incapable of great and small achievements without them.
What the big-government crowd has faith in is themselves and their ability to heal, help, and guide us along.
Advertisement
Their side may talk about fairness, but how is their version of fairness working in inner cities in America? How does public housing look, and how are those schools working? What if we instead gave all of those families a choice — a voucher — and let them decide for themselves where to live and where to go to school?
How about calling into question a public-education system that rewards teachers only for the amount of time on the job, and not for their performance? Is that fair to the good teachers? Is that fair to the students trapped in bad classrooms?
Does the union monopoly in education promote fair outcomes?
We should start calling the Left’s ideas unfair and their top-down approach insensitive. We should assert that their worldview empowers bureaucracies, not people.
We should then compare their dim view of mankind — and the shoddy outcomes it engenders — with ours.
While they have the heartless bureaucracies on their side, we have the love of the individual on ours. We believe in the power of the individual and in the God-given talents of all people; that the more choices we all have, the better off we all are; that we have more power over our lives than we know; and that our best guide to living productive and decent lives — our standard bearer — should not be the state, but God. Or some guiding light — some North Star — of our own.
We should then propose bold solutions to America’s problems. Show Americans of every race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and class that we care about them, but also that we believe in them and will fight for their right to be happy, productive members of our nation.
Of course we should have safety nets for those in need. But those nets should not become cages. Those nets should lead people to self-sufficiency and the real self-esteem that comes from a good job, hard work, and independence.
The truth is that our side has the moral high ground, if only we have the courage to seize it. And we can win these arguments, if only we dare to make them.
— Lee Habeeb is vice president of content at Salem Radio Network. Mike Leven is the president and chief operating officer of the Las Vegas Sands.
The Moral Case for Conservatism
How to talk to America about big and small things
By Lee Habeeb & Mike Leven
In the early 20th century, two of England’s towering minds, the socialist George Bernard Shaw and the Catholic G. K. Chesterton, engaged in a series of debates. Shaw was an atheist, socialist, and vegetarian; Chesterton a Catholic, moralist, and meat-eater. Shaw argued against private property, and for redistribution of wealth. Chesterton argued for private property, and warned about the perils of consolidated power. It was like Ali vs. Frazier. A clash of styles and vision.
Shaw, sounding like a modern progressive, said this about wealth and equality:
The moment I made up my mind that the present distribution of wealth was wrong, the peculiar constitution of my brain obliged me to find out exactly how far it was wrong and what is the right distribution. I went through all the proposals ever made and through the arguments used in justification of the existing distribution; and I found they were utterly insensate and grotesque. Eventually I was convinced that we ought to be tolerant of any sort of crime except unequal distribution of income.
In came Chesterton:
We say there ought to be in the world a great mass of scattered powers, privileges, limits, points of resistance, so that the mass of the people may resist tyranny. And we say that there is a permanent possibility of that central direction, however much it may have been appointed to distribute money equally, becoming a tyranny.
Chesterton added, “Mr. Shaw proposes to distribute wealth. We propose to distribute power.”
The moderator warned the audience that what they were listening to wouldn’t have relevance in 20 years. How wrong he was.
Those men were engaged in a debate that rages today. How do we best organize a society? From the top down or the bottom up? With the individual — and, as Chesterton argued, God — as the ultimate sovereign, or the state, as Shaw argued? Which system drives the most effective and the fairest outcomes?
If there is a single reason why conservatives continue to lose the battle of ideas, it’s because we don’t make the moral case for freedom and free markets. Our political class instead makes the economic case for our philosophy. Our smart guys are so impressed with their own intelligence, they think we can win the debate using numbers and data, charts and graphs, and political tactics and strategy.
It’s the Left’s secret advantage. They create the feeling that they care more about the average American because they make the moral case for their philosophy.
One of the advantages this confers on the Left is this: They get to play large ball, while we play a dour brand of small ball.
When you play large ball, you get to be on offense. When you play small ball, you always feel like you’re playing defense. They make big bold moves about big bold things like Obamacare, while we wallow in the weeds explaining why Obamacare won’t work.What can we do about this regrettable state of affairs? Let’s start by talking about the moral implications of a government that tries to do too much for its people.
Dennis Prager wrote a great column two years ago that included the following formulation: the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.
He argued:
Not only does bigger government teach people not to take care of themselves, it teaches them not to take of others. Smaller government is the primary reason Americans give more charity and volunteer more time per capita than do Europeans living in welfare states. Why take care of your fellow citizen, or even your family, when the government will do it for you?
From there, we should take Prager’s formulation one step further: the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector.
As more of our money goes to feed ever expanding government bureaucracies, it leaves less money for us to do with as we choose, and less for the private sector. As big government crowds out the private sector, the result is less innovation, a less efficient economy, and less job creation.
Does anyone think government is the engine of innovation, efficiency, and job creation? Will government create the next medical breakthrough? The next iPhone?
We can extend Prager’s formulation further still: the bigger the government, the smaller the church.
As the state takes more of our money, there is less for us to give to churches, synagogues, and mosques who take care of the weakest among us. And not just with a check, but with a caring human being connected to that material support.We can point to 20th-century Europe’s experience. As the state grew, the churches there had less influence and eventually emptied.
From there, we can take Prager’s great line a step farther: the bigger the government, the smaller the family.
As people in Europe left their churches, they lost the connection between love, sex, marriage, and family. Birth rates fell below the replacement rate in many of those countries. In many parts of our nation, too, they are barely at replacement rate. Moreover, as we work longer hours and pay more to the government, it leaves less for our families. Kids are expensive, and parents keep families smaller out of economic necessity.
Now let’s take Prager’s formulation one last logical step: the bigger the government, the smaller the dreams, and the smaller the future.
More than half of recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed. And in inner cities of America where government manages nearly every aspect of too many people’s lives, youth unemployment is at rates never seen before.
When we make the case against big bureaucracies, we are actually making a moral case that the bureaucracy will, over time, generally seek to serve itself at the expense of service to its customers. And even at the expense of its employees, if they have the desire to reform the bureaucracy.
Big, as we all know, too often becomes impersonal and breeds alienation. Talk to anyone who has attended a high school with 3,000 students, as opposed to one with 800 or 500. No matter how hard the educators try, and no matter what economies of scale a large school creates, something important is lost — something personal, something human.
That is why great innovation often comes from small companies, from a few guys in a garage. And it is why, as companies grow, their greatest challenge is to keep that contact with the customer, and the ability to adapt quickly as the customer’s needs change.
In a similar way, government that is small and close to home can best serve its citizen’s needs and more easily adapt to change.
The fact is that the Left doesn’t have much faith in the little guy. Or the individual. Or much faith in the faith community. Indeed, what they really believe about us without ever admitting it is that we are not very smart. We are not capable of making choices on our own. And we are incapable of great and small achievements without them.
What the big-government crowd has faith in is themselves and their ability to heal, help, and guide us along.
Advertisement
Their side may talk about fairness, but how is their version of fairness working in inner cities in America? How does public housing look, and how are those schools working? What if we instead gave all of those families a choice — a voucher — and let them decide for themselves where to live and where to go to school?
How about calling into question a public-education system that rewards teachers only for the amount of time on the job, and not for their performance? Is that fair to the good teachers? Is that fair to the students trapped in bad classrooms?
Does the union monopoly in education promote fair outcomes?
We should start calling the Left’s ideas unfair and their top-down approach insensitive. We should assert that their worldview empowers bureaucracies, not people.
We should then compare their dim view of mankind — and the shoddy outcomes it engenders — with ours.
While they have the heartless bureaucracies on their side, we have the love of the individual on ours. We believe in the power of the individual and in the God-given talents of all people; that the more choices we all have, the better off we all are; that we have more power over our lives than we know; and that our best guide to living productive and decent lives — our standard bearer — should not be the state, but God. Or some guiding light — some North Star — of our own.
We should then propose bold solutions to America’s problems. Show Americans of every race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and class that we care about them, but also that we believe in them and will fight for their right to be happy, productive members of our nation.
Of course we should have safety nets for those in need. But those nets should not become cages. Those nets should lead people to self-sufficiency and the real self-esteem that comes from a good job, hard work, and independence.
The truth is that our side has the moral high ground, if only we have the courage to seize it. And we can win these arguments, if only we dare to make them.
— Lee Habeeb is vice president of content at Salem Radio Network. Mike Leven is the president and chief operating officer of the Las Vegas Sands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)