The Queen Speaks!

Posted by Tina

It’s been said that that the Hillary Clinton crowd expected a coronation this time around because she was supposed to be the Democrat Party choice after losing to Obama when 2008 should have been hers. Apparently she see’s this race as a coronation as well. Speaking in pluralis majestatis, Hillary declares: “”When it comes to guns, we have just too many guns. On the streets, in our homes, in our neighborhoods.”

Hillary has also said that gun owners are in the minority and that they are imposing their will on the majority. It’s been estimated that there are 100,000 gun owners in America. Given the rise in gun ownership by women, that number may be a bit light. In any case 100,000 is hardly a minority when compared to the number of individuals who now seek to impose their will in public bathrooms.

In the past Hillary has also expressed absurd notions that fly in the face of current gun laws and the second amendment: “I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

Well no, Hillary, you can’t. The Second Amendement expressly declares that the right to keep and bear arms, “shall not be abridged!” Shall not is extemely strong language, as Hillary knows. Shall not is not to be compromised. Shall not means shall not, in the vernacular of feminists. It is absolutely forbidden would be a good definition of shall not.

Hillary is the quintessential queenly type, imagining that she represents the will of the people.

But Hillary, a large portion of Americans “are not amused” when leaders like you fail to respect their rights. Likewise we are not amused when the Constitution is disrespected and it’s amendments put under attack. The only reason you think you can disrespect gun ownership and supporters of gun owners is that the people have allowed the federal government, the politician, the bureaucracy, too much power in our lives and too much power over the individual states.

Hillary seeks the highest position in our nation. Her party, in particular, bases their power in minority want. The federal government cannot represent all of the people when it has the power to take sides, create animosity, and pit groups against each other. Hillary Clinton represents the big bloated bureaucracy that demands conformity and communal thinking, panders to the minority for power, and disrespects individual rights. Hillary would be a terrible president, presiding over her kingdom by imposing her will; she too would have a pen and a phone and wouldn’t hesitate to use them. The last thing America needs right now is a queen with power.

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The Queen Speaks!

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    And Queen Hillary promises to launch a thorough investigation into the space alien cover up in Area 51! What is not to like?

    For those of us in the know, Area 51 is a blatant and obvious manipulative smoke screen to cover up the real deal — the super-secret Area 52-1/2, which doesn’t even exist — according to the government!!! (The government does not even disavow the existence of Area 52-1/2! Get a clue folks.)

    Hillary is the only candidate who can get to the bottom of this and expose it all. Art Bell, where are you when we need you? George Noory sucks.

    Just by mentioning Area 52-1/2 I have put my life in danger. I hope Post Scripts and their followers appreciate it. The truth will out.

  2. Pie Guevara says:

    One of my favorite writers, Camille Paglia, has evidently has tossed in for Bernie…

    Enough with the Hillary cult

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    Off Topic

    More potential idiotic, reprehensible, disgusting left think predicted from the JOTUS (Joke Of The United States). My wager is yes, it will happen. Time will tell.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262541/hiroshima-and-unwarrantable-self-abasement-bruce-thornton#.Vxk2cbdzqgg.twitter

  4. Chris says:

    Only 100,000 gun owners in the United States? That does seem surprisingly low.

    Hilary Clinton: “I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

    Tina: “Well no, Hillary, you can’t.”

    Why not? Certainly you don’t believe that “anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.” In fact, when I read that quote from Clinton, my first thought was that she was crafting an unfair strawman of second amendment purists. But now you’re saying that she is accurately describing your position? That you really do think “anyone can have a gun anywhere, anytime?” I don’t think that’s your position.

    “Well no, Hillary, you can’t. The Second Amendement expressly declares that the right to keep and bear arms, “shall not be abridged!””

    I think you mean “infringed,” but yes, it does say that. You also believe there should be limits to that, I’m sure. What infringements to the second amendment do you support? If you tell me your answer is “none,” I’m not going to believe you. Do you believe kids should be able to carry guns to school? Do you believe felons should be allowed to carry guns into government buildings? If not, then you’re not taking the second amendment as literally as you’re asking others to.

    • Tina says:

      Must quote!

      The phenomenon of national self-loathing, however, is not new. It is an old ideological artifact of Marxist-Leninism, which along with its hatred of capitalism and liberal democracy, demonized colonialism and imperialism as unmitigated, unique evils, rather than being a tragic mixture of good and bad typical of everything flawed humans do. This smear of the Western economic and political system that had created the richest, freest people in history validated self-hatred among some citizens of the nations guilty of such alleged crimes. And even though the U.S. has never been a true imperial or colonial power, after World War II the indictment was shifted to America when it became the dominant global power and the premier challenger of communist ideology.

      This dangerous anti-patriotism began mainly in England among leftist literary and intellectual elites, who had begun to turn against the British Empire in the late 19th century. In 1933, the year Hitler came to power, Winston Churchill warned of this by then fashionable set of attitudes:

      Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?

      Excellent article, Pie!

    • Tina says:

      Certainly you don’t believe that “anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”

      I’m surprised to see that you are not focused completely on calling Hillary out on this outrageous, covert b-*ch pronouncement.

      Defenders of gun rights often point to the thousands of gun laws already in place and are in favor of the gun laws being strictly enforced. Defenders of gun rights are against criminals and the mentally ill owning guns. Defenders of gun rights favor safety programs, training, and safe storage of weapons. Defenders of gun rights believe children should be trained in gun safety. Defenders of gun rights favor background checks. NOBODY has suggested that we adopt a policy that remotely resembles, “anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”

      “And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

      Only if you believe your audience is too blindly idiotic to buy your premise. (And obviously they are)

      So no she cannot say that, or wouldn’t if she was going to be held to account. Since she won’t, my snide retort was entirely appropriate.

      In this election season the point to me is how far is she willing to go in “abridging” the rights of LAW ABIDING gun owners when the laws we have already number in the thousands and when they aren’t even being enforced?

      Why does she continue to use guns as a political weapon against the right? Isn’t it that she means to imply the right is responsible for illegal gun use? Consider the insanity of this when left leaders, including Hillary, ignore the crisis of continuing illegal gun use in Chicago where black on black murder is a weekly occurrence. In eight years Obama has done nothing about this but give it lip service. He of all people had power to “fundamentally transform” through “activism” this horrible, deadly problem.

      You and Hillary have a lot in common.

      I terms of the words abridge and infringed you are correct. The law reads “infringed.”

      However I did not misspeak in terms of intent:

      infringed: actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.), act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

      abridged: curtail (rights or privileges)

      Our readers might also find the following of interest:

      House.gov

      The Second Amendment is one of the most important rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The operative text states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…shall not be infringed.” In spite of the clarity of this amendment, we have seen repeated, consistent, and sustained attacks on this right and efforts across the spectrum to “infringe” on this individual right.

      In the Federalist No. 46, James Madison explained that because American citizens were typically armed, the federal government would be unable to exert power beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Madison explained that in contrast to European nations where “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms” the United States would rely on an armed citizenry to protect themselves, their families, and the nation.

      The founders intended the Second Amendment to function as a citizen check against overreach in the event that the government started to take away civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution. In keeping with my oath of office to protect and defend our founding charter, I will not support unconstitutional gun restriction laws. I will actively fight any attempt by this Administration to undermine our Constitution and infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. With the attack on personal gun-ownership, the Second Amendment, and our God-given rights, the Obama-Biden Administration has been relentless in their pursuit of taking guns away from law-abiding Americans.

      This President and the anti-gun lobby continue to ignore the fact that violence is driven by a number of different factors, and that experience has shown gun control does not curb violent acts. There is no easy answer to the problem of violence we face in our country, but inhibiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights is nothing more than window dressing. One needs to look no further than the states with the toughest restrictions on firearms to see that they are the ones consistently ranking the highest in violent crime. When you limit an individual’s ability to lawfully purchase or carry firearms you are allowing only those with the intent to break the law to have weapons. – Today, U.S. Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-04)

      Read his full statement here

      Here’s a question for you, Chris: What has changed in the culture of America since 1965?

      When I was a kid children did carry guns around town. Nobody freaked and the guns were used responsibly most of the time. (We never reach perfection so do not go there!!!)

      I repeat, what has changed? What id fundamentally different in our culture?

      • Chris says:

        “NOBODY has suggested that we adopt a policy that remotely resembles, “anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.””

        You did, right here in your article:

        “In the past Hillary has also expressed absurd notions that fly in the face of current gun laws and the second amendment: “I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. And I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

        Well no, Hillary, you can’t. The Second Amendement expressly declares that the right to keep and bear arms, “shall not be abridged!” Shall not is extemely strong language, as Hillary knows. Shall not is not to be compromised. Shall not means shall not, in the vernacular of feminists. It is absolutely forbidden would be a good definition of shall not.”

        You didn’t object to the strawman, you *became* the strawman. You let Clinton rhetorically trick you into expressing an extreme position you don’t actually believe. As I’ve learned over the past several years, this is actually really easy. I wish you’d realize half my posts here are just about trying to get you to make your own argument better.

        • Chris says:

          Also: what has changed since 1965? What *hasn’t?* Our culture has changed in radically different ways since then, in both good and bad ways. Poverty and homicide are both lower today than they were then, for instance. Your question seems to be in search of a simple answer to complex problems, which I can’t help you with.

          • Tina says:

            What has changed since 1965 is simple. People have been slowly brainwashed into thinking morals and values suck and there is no right and wrong. People have been taught that judging and evaluating others makes them an undesirable person. People have convinced themselves that authority figures like cops, fathers, the military are evil. People have been taught that corporations and money are bad, republicans are always wrong, and democrats have all the answers and are the saviors of the world. People have been trained to think they are victims and their problems can only be resolved with group activism, special interests complaints, and federal redistribution and intervention. People have developed destructive habits to assuage their sense of victim-hood: drug use, a drop out mentality, blaming anyone and anything but themselves. These attitudes and beliefs have disproportionately effected and are more pronounced in minority communities. But generally speaking people no longer respect themselves or the nation they live in. As Americans we have forgotten who we are.

            You have no way of seeing how this culture change came about or how destructive and intentional the transformation has been. I’ve pointed you in a direction to seek understanding but you prefer to resist, argue and look down your nose at me and others at Post Scripts.

            The problems are not all that complex and the solutions are quite simple but the population of new zombie leftists will have to wake up if we are ever to see a nation again where most people live lawful productive lives.

            CNBC, “US Poverty Rate to Hit Highest Level Since 1965, Economists Say”

            National Review, “New Data: It’s Still about Black-on-Black Crime”:

            Extending on an analysis by the academic Kieran Healy, I calculated the rate of U.S. homicide deaths by racial group, based on the CDC WONDER data.3 From 2010 through 2012, the annual rate of homicide deaths among non-Hispanic white Americans was 2.5 per 100,000 persons, meaning that about one in every 40,000 white Americans is a homicide victim each year. By comparison, the rate of homicide deaths among non-Hispanic black Americans is 19.4 per 100,000 persons, or about 1 in 5,000 people per year.

            Black Americans are almost eight times as likely as white ones to be homicide victims, in other words.

            So for white Americans, the homicide death rate is not so much of an outlier. It’s only modestly higher than in Finland, Belgium or Greece, for instance, and lower than in Chile or Latvia.

            National Review, “Black Americans Are Killed At 12 Times The Rate Of People In Other Developed Countries”

            Unfortunately, the FBI continues its usual practice of combining whites and Hispanics into the single category “white,” thus overstating white crime and victimization rates. Even so, the data are telling. …

            … Sixteen percent of “white” victims in homicide incidents involving a single victim and single offender were killed by blacks, compared with only 7 percent of black victims who are killed by “whites.” Given the fact that blacks are less than 13 percent of the national population, their homicide rate against whites and Hispanics combined is vastly disproportionate to their share of the population. There were 431 black killers of “whites,” compared to 193 “white” killers of blacks. Undoubtedly a large percentage of interracial killings involve gang killings among black and Hispanic gangs; the number of non-Hispanic whites who kill blacks is undoubtedly far lower than 193. (The number of non-Hispanic whites killed by blacks is also presumably lower than 431.)

            These problems extend from gradual unfavorable (politically and socially intentional) changes since the sixties.

          • Chris says:

            “People have been slowly brainwashed into thinking morals and values suck and there is no right and wrong.”

            What an astounding claim. Do you have any evidence of it?

        • Tina says:

          “You didn’t object to the strawman, you *became* the strawman. You let Clinton rhetorically trick you into expressing an extreme position you don’t actually believe.”

          Only if you assume I was suggesting all of the thousands of gun laws we have be dumped rather than the truth, which is, I was defending the language of the Constitution to demonstrate the insanity of Hillary’s claim: In the past Hillary has also expressed absurd notions that fly in the face of current gun laws and the second amendment: “I think that we’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime.”

          Despite the numerous gun laws the right wing has tolerated and supported because they help to promote gun safety and curtail gun purchases by felons and the insane, she makes the absurd accusation that we must “rein in” the right wing. You know her statement is absurd; you don’t seem to care why it’s absurd.

          The left has come to the end of the line using “gun violence” as a political weapon to label the right. There’s no more room for sensible compromise on the admonition, “shall not be infringed.” And in light of the tolerance for gun violence the left leadership tolerates in places like Chicago her statement becomes even more absurd.

          Instead of being honest about the absurdity and whackery of your parties position on “gun violence” in this case you prefer to pretend your intention is just to offer me a lesson.” I can see the point in your little lesson, however I’d appreciate it more IF you showed even the slightest evidence of being capable of looking past your lesson to get what I’ve actually said and IF you showed the slightest evidence of being teachable yourself.

  5. bob says:

    Speaking of gun owners did you see this?

    California Considers Ban On All Gun Dealers
    https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/195447-2016-04-20-california-considers-ban-on-all-gun-dealers.htm

    This cries out for the creation of the state of Jefferson. And the fact that all but one of our county supervisors would not even allow the people to make their choice known in an election is tyranny.

    Miss Tina, who running for supervisor this election is for the state of Jefferson? You and Jack are bigwigs in these parts so I figure if anyone would know it would be you two.

    • Tina says:

      Bob I’ve been called a lot of things but never a bigwig. 😉

      I’m just a citizen, like you, who was fortunate enough to stumble upon Post Scripts and then be graciously invited to express myself here regularly. Jack is more connected here in Chico and and across the state. Watch for his response.

      I posted the last information I had on the state of the state of Jefferson. After searching I didn’t find anything new.

    • Dewster says:

      Did ya actually take the time to read the amendment? I just did.

      http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2459

      Read bills yourself instead of pants on fire propaganda. It does not Ban all gun dealers.

      Jeeze what has happened to America?

      Can someone please tell me when Obama comes and gits ur guns?

      • bob says:

        In Colliefornia (as Ahnode calls it) there is no need for Obammie to get the guns. The Demonrats here will do that themselves. The effect of this proposed legislation will be to knock gun dealers out of business and that is exactly what that punk McCarty wants and you know it.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Hmmm, bob declares that Jack and Tina are “bigwigs.” I never thought of it that way. Annoying yes, but bigwigs? 😉

    Maybe bob thinks so because Jack and Tina run a blog. Hey bob, start up yer own blog and be a “bigwig”, dude.

    This inspires me to a new goal in life, I want to be known as a “bigwig.” Hot dang, better than rhubarb pie!

  7. Dewster says:

    Bottom Line The Clinton’s are Moderate Republicans. They are not the Left. They called themselves the “New Democrats” “Third Way” They are part of the elite establishment in Politics which is composed of Both parties. many have the same donors. The GOP candidates are exactly the same.

    Hillary is very proud of her conservative roots and days as a Goldwater Girl. She is not a Progressive or a Liberal. She is a Moderate Republican. She uses Republican Lobbyists in her campaign and is cheating Republican style.

    Again you take small facts and spin it into some wild toad ride.

    What does a secretary of State do whether Rep or dem? Sell Arms and depending on the decade Drugs. They may handle some foreign policy but it is wrapped up in the sale of arms, oil deals ect ect. Both parties.

    When Romney spoke of the 47%, deals should be done behind closed doors, ect ect , it is true for all of them. He was just tellin it like it really is.

    They all run the US gov for the profit of themselves and their donors. So whether you get a Queen or a King they all answer to the same Dark Money Lobbyists.

    The Major difference here is your Boy lyin Ted Cruz as Trump calls him… he also wants to make the US a crazy Religious country like the middle east. Ya’all yell sharia law? That is exactly the type of law conservatives are constantly trying to impose.

    We have new conservative textbooks saying man and dinosaurs were on earth at the same time? get a clue.

    This election cheating has me railing her. I will not do it here because you spin stuff into a crazy untrue rant. I hope Trump gets pissed and opens the floodgate to a 3rd party run.

    This election would be best served to have

    Trump
    Bernie
    Cruz
    Clinton

    and paper ballots. No Machines.

    • Tina says:

      Hillary is even more proud of her Saul Alinsky training and her big government, cradle to grave ideas. She is not even close to being republican ideologically, Dewey…what the heck are you thinking!!!

      What makes you so sure those are “republican” lobbyists? Could it be you are brainwashed into thinking only republicans make money or serve on corporate boards? If so you are sadly mistaken…or deviously plotting to deceive.

      Your “brilliance” is limited to wild paranoid conspiracy theories and extremes. Your fears about Cruz and religion are overblown and ignorant as well as offensive.

      Why all the “hate” dude?

  8. Dewster says:

    BTW in case you still are in denial of this fake political process scam….

    Hillary is just pandering to the extreme left like Trump is pandering to the extreme right. Both are phony.

    Hillary was a huge Arms dealer as Sec of State. That is part of the job! If they both won they would come to the center in the famous etch a sketch to the gen mode we do every election.

    Americans are truly embarrassing for following media through the same scam every election.

    We will get sensible gun regulation on weapons of mass murder. We will always have Gun rights.

    And Yes These candidates feel entitled to the office. They do not work for the people and are so detached from our world they do not care. They live a completely different life as all the worlds elite do. They pander for votes than leave the people in jeopardy.

    We now have generations that will be worse off than their parents but the top 1% will have more wealth than ever in history! Its a win win right?

  9. Tina says:

    “Trump is pandering to the extreme right. ”

    Sure, that’s why all the union truckers and builder trade types who usually vote democrat are supporting him, because he’s pandering to the right. Your blind rage makes your pronouncements pure garbage.

    Corruption in government is something we are all aware of.

    “We will get sensible gun regulation on weapons of mass murder.”

    How, dude, given that you think both parties are totally corrupt and the people are stupid? Do you have some magical solution to this problem that doesn’t actually exist or are you just mainlining some new drug?

    We now have generations that will be worse off than their parents but the top 1% will have more wealth than ever in history! Its a win win right?

    Let go of the hate Dewey, the wealthy will always be wealthy.

    The difference for the rest of us amounts to government policy that crushes opportunity, blunts the efforts of job creators, and poisons the economic well.

    Don’t preach to the conservatives here, you moron, you guys on the left are responsible for the worst eight years economically of any president since the depression. Outdoing Carter has been quite an accomplishment! Let us count the ways…

    Under Obama’s program of transformation the rich have gotten richer…but the middle class has been decimated, swelling the ranks of the poor. Growth at 2% for eight years, doubling the debt, punishing and crippling business, expanding the size of government, and wasting tax dollars on green energy schemes are the result of democrat Obama (And Bernie) policies. Fascist deals with Insurance companies to get Obamacare passed has been another drag for the average working American.

    Why would anyone in his right mind want more of the same which is what electing Clinton or Bernie would bring.

    Given this terrible record of democrat leadership why do you insist on dumping all over this conservative blog as if we were the reason for all that irks you? The left has taken a giant dump on America and it really stinks…admit it!

  10. J. Soden says:

    Y’all ever notice that those braying most and loudest about instituting gun control on others usually have a team of armed bodyguards with them at all times?
    Any serious discussion on guns will remain on hold until all of the Lunatic Left remove their armed bodyguards . . . . . THEN we can talk!

  11. Chris says:

    I knew 100,000 couldn’t be right–I Googled and found estimates on gun ownership are closer to 100,000,000.

  12. Tina says:

    I imagine I dropped three zeros when I wrote that. 100,000,000 is still not accurate.

    Daily Caller: “…our most reliable estimates have put the numbers of firearms in the hands of United States civilians at 300 – 310 million, but I am convinced that number is no longer anywhere close to accurate.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.