Is it Democracy if we are lied to?

My depiction of the primary

Im not sure how to start this, the terrible part about that statement is the criticism about my hesitation that may follow. A horrific tragedy transpired February 26, 2013, the tragedy being a decision by the voting public has sealed the deal for who will represent us in the 2nd Congressional District.

I am sure many people will assume that I am just over reacting, exaggerating an issue relentlessly with no basis. I will try to explain why this is a tragedy. I will try to do it with brevity.

It has been established that the 2nd Congressional District since the 1980s has been laced with despicable behavior and representation that is tainted because of such behavior. Once I was told in a political science class, if the people voted for it who are we to question it.

I think we should question the decision of the electorate. Why should we question it?

1)      Anytime people as a whole make a decision that is based on lies or half-truths, then should we accept the decision that will affect us?

2)      When ignorance of the voting public is used to influence a decision that will affect our lives , should we not question it?

When Jessie Jackson Jr. won an election without campaigning, under his admission of being mentally incapable, and sooner after we found it to be a Federal Investigation. Through all the indicators we were not careful. We voted for man that said he has personality disorders, in addition to the fact that he did not campaign for his seat. WE WOULD THINK that the voting public learned a lesson and would be extremely careful in their decision in voting for who we would send to Washington this time.

With the inappropriate use of campaign funds by Jessie Jackson Jr. WE WOULD THINK ANY sign of funding abuse or unethically used would dispel all association and voting for a candidate that receives such funding. But it did not, 30 thousand people voted for Robin Kelly who received 2.3 million dollar worth of anti NRA/Halvorson ads, from the Mayor of a city that has no reason to be concerned with our District.

More importantly our Constitution which has insured freedom for so many people, and it has been the standard of the world for liberty is being threatened; WE WOULD THINK that the voting public many who are survivors of racial divides and conflicts, would vote in opposition of a person seeking to change a fundamental right of freedom. But we did not, 30 thousand people voted for Robin Kelly who stand on a change to “sensible” gun control.

These clear indicators or lessons have been undermine by a sneaky well financed despicable group of people, whose sole purpose has been to establish fear in the heart of the American public on an issue that is so insignificant no one given the facts straight forward would ever pay attention to it.

They have painted our country as a murder capital of the world, YET immigrants are coming here in such numbers to escape oppression that we have an immigration problem. Logical reasoning would bring us to understand that no one would seek to voluntarily move to a place where they would have fear for their lives.

I have never seen so many anti NRA ads in my life, never!

The NRA supports the Constitution, yet through Bloomberg’s spin on words and graphical design, the NRA has been painted as an anti American faction.

It is literally impossible for you to be pro Constitution AND simultaneously anti-American.

Our voting public is not knowledgeable. We do depend on main stream media to help us make decisions. In understanding that statement our issues are a two part problem.
How do we stop mainstream media from reporting the insignificant in a disproportionate amount to real problems?  How do we relieve ourselves of an apathetic public? Unfortunatley the answer will be through oppression.

We have been lied to yet again. The murder rate in America is an isolated issue so small that the percentage is .00000321% nationally; yes decimal point then five zeros before we see a whole number.  Even those with mental illness that commit atrocities like Sandy Hook and the Denver Shooting do not threaten our country. Yet I do agree it is a tragedy, but so is cancer and suicide.

There is no such thing a “sensible” gun control and liberty coexisting together. However, Obama/ Bloomberg and company have said it so much, that many are starting to believe it. Where “sensible” gun control has been established in the 20th century, 95% of those countries soon saw the worst atrocities to humanity in recorded history. Not just Nazi Germany, but around the world.

Even with all I have recognize and understand I still cannot believe that a candidate with such a staunch focus on an insignificant issue won this primary. She said nothing about easing legislation and taxation to allow the growth of private sector jobs. She said nothing about increasing tariffs on imports to stimulate private sector jobs. She just wants to stop GUNS which by murder has contributed to a reduction of .00018% of the population of Chicago.  

Now please take a look at Robin Kelly and take an especially close look at those who have surrounded her at her victory speech….. if you do not see any similarity I will point it out, these are THE EXACT PEOPLE THAT SUPPORTED JESSIE JACKSON JR.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Stuart Kurtz March 03, 2013 at 05:32 AM
NotBuyinIt: let me suggest that a little gargle would help. In the meantime, yes. I believe that we should have and require liability insurance for gun ownership, just as we do with cars. Let the insurance industry sort out the appropriate rates for different types of weapons and different types of owners, using the profit motives its used all along. Heck, let the NRA carry insurance if it thinks it can manage the firearm liability risk of its many responsible gun owners. And by the way, I have a dog and (now adult) children. And I've carried appropriate insurance, commensurate with my risks. That is what a responsible person does, they take responsibility for their actions, and consequences that are both foreseen and unforeseen. You're all responsible gun owners, right? If you can afford a gun, you can afford insurance for it.
Jim Mysiewicz March 03, 2013 at 07:53 AM
What's wrong with limiting the assualt type weapons and leaving protection and hunting type guns to people who want them. No one needs a 20 round or more clip for a gun. I'm not a gun owner, but if I were, I would like to have a gun for protection that has no more than 10 to 12 rounds (in case I'm a bad shot while being frightened) It is tragicly unfortunate that more pressing issues in our District were not addressed.
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. March 03, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Morning Jim, First, please understand that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The 2nd Amendment has everything to do with protecting your freedom and liberty from a government that has went astray of its duty to you. If you read the arguments in the comments following the posted blog you will find very explicit reasoning behind the belief of liberty. I can provide academic documentation of that if further evidence is needed. Second, why would we need a ban on "assault" type weapons? What data is there to support such a need? What information do we have that shows "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines has threaten our society with a large number of deaths? FBI stats clearly show that "assault" type weapons and ALL other rifles combined account for less than 500 death annually. That stat includes ALL other rifles not just "assault" rifles. Of the more than 9500-plus firearms used in murders far greater than 99% of them were committed by pistols. The ease and readiness of our population to accept the biased and wrongful reporting of mainstream media has never been more apparent than when we speak of gun control.
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. March 03, 2013 at 10:33 AM
JIm, The reason I put assault in quotes is again it is mainstream media's mislabeling. What is classified as a true assault weapon has not been legally available to the public as a new purchase weapon since 1986. The only entities that can own a new assault weapons are members of the police and United State Armed Forces. What has commonly and wrongly been labeled as an assault weapon is actually a semi automatic rifle with military type accessories. These firearms fire the exact same way as a SEMI automatic pistol being that they expel ONE bullet with per pull of the trigger. Conversely a real assault weapon expels MULTIPLE rounds per pull of the trigger. Last, but more importantly, when calling any weapon an "assault" weapon please understand the use of the word "assault" is redundant being that by the mere nature of any firearm being a deadly weapon provides that it is impossible for any firearm to be classified as a non-assault weapon. The entire issue is pure media sensationalized reporting.
NotBuyingIt March 03, 2013 at 05:12 PM
Stuart, you are suggesting a tax, a fee, a penalty for owning a piece of sporting equipment (gun). I submit that you are attempting to disenfranchise gun owners of their constitutional rights by making it beyond the means of many to own their guns. Again, it it MY opinion that unless you have a separate policy covering liability of your pet you are not sufficiently indemnified. Please state your ultimate goal. Please be honest. Am I correct in assuming you don't want people to own guns?
NotBuyingIt March 03, 2013 at 05:24 PM
Stuart you write, "And by the way, I have a dog and (now adult) children. And I've carried appropriate insurance, commensurate with my risks. That is what a responsible person does, they take responsibility for their actions, and consequences that are both foreseen and unforeseen." So you had children and you carried the appropriate insurance commensurate with your risks. Were you required to do so? What about those that don't? What about those folks who have children that kill people? maybe they use guns to kill others. Shouldn't we be required to carry insurance against our children who hurt, harm, kill others?? Because some people have children that harm, kill, hurt others, should we all have to carry liability insurance for them? That's ridiculous, right? But because some folks use a gun to kill others, we all have to pay for it?? Where does it end Stuart.
Madge March 03, 2013 at 05:48 PM
There shouldn't be a gun debate at all. The second amendment clearly states that we have a right to defend ourselves against a bloated tyrannical government. Propaganda is a tool used by governments throughout history to disarm its citizens. Arthur I commend you for putting yourself and the facts out there. We should all be frightened of gun control. Stuart, your opinions are frightening, as well. Look at the big picture. The masterful way that the administration is playing this and all of their adenda is astounding. (Saul Alinski) Our freedoms are being taken away.
Stuart Kurtz March 03, 2013 at 06:21 PM
NotBuyingIt. You ask if I was required to purchase insurance for my dog and kids. The answer is a qualified "yes," as property insurance is generally required as a condition of having a mortgage. But I am required to have liability insurance for my car. Here's the thing. You gun owners say that guns are safe, and that your guns endanger no one. If that's really so, you should be rated in a category with a premium that reflects that. A typical weapon costs $1000 or more, ammunition is 50 cents a cartridge and up. A weekend hunting is likely to cost at least a few hundred dollars for fuel, necessary licenses, food, and other incidental expenses, and this assumes that you're not paying much for shelter. Liability insurance would probably cost someone with a hunting rifle a couple of hundred dollars a year, which is not negligible, but which does not qualitatively change cost of gun ownership. And it's too heavy a burden? I'm not buying that, not at all.
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. March 03, 2013 at 06:44 PM
Thank you Madge, We must continue to talk about this because some people get it and some just do not. If we ignore the one that do not understand we risk losing American values and the American way. There are real reasons people flock to our shores in such large numbers. Americans that visit foreign lands, and spend time dealing with foreign governments understand explicitly the implications of gun control. Murder is tragic, it will happen regardless of guns, is it likely it will happen less with out guns? Yes I believe so, but can we risk trusting any government to do for us altruistically? The answer is resoundingly NO!
Stuart Kurtz March 03, 2013 at 09:31 PM
Madge, the second amendment reads, "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." There is nothing here establishing a right to defend yourself against our government. That particular "right" is discussed in Article III, Section 3, wherein you can find the founder's actual opinion on the subject. No, the second amendment right to bear arms is given in the context of "the security of a free state." In this case, one might ask what the perceived threat was. It was not foreign enemies—that's what the Army and Navy were for. No, the purpose of the militia was to suppress internal revolution, whether of slaves or landless whites. And that's the role militia. In the meantime, my right to discuss the flaws of the second amendment is guaranteed by the first. And I intend to exercise that right as I think best for my country and myself.
NotBuyingIt March 04, 2013 at 03:18 AM
Stuart, I'm still not buying it. Fortunately, there can be no tax or levy against gun owners as this could be considered disenfranchisement. The government can not levy taxes on our constitutionally given right to keep and bear arms. It may be easy for someone such as yourself to purchase this liability insurance, but not every American is as fortunate as you are and it comes off as quite arrogant to assume everyone with a gun could afford such insurance. Be that as it may, would you be so quick to state that we should all show an ID to vote and that everyone that can vote should be required to pay for an ID so that they may do so?? You never answer my question about your end-game Stuart. In your perfect world, would no one have a gun??
Stuart Kurtz March 04, 2013 at 04:11 AM
I think it is unlikely that my proposal requiring liability insurance for firearms will become the law anytime soon. I do think it is a sensible suggestion, which would lead in due course to a lower prevalence of dangerous weapons, and the more rapid adoption of technologies that will make for safer weapons (e.g., chipping them so that only the owner can fire them, and possibly even chipping ammo so that it records the time of firing, the shooter, and the weapon). My perfect world? I'm not one who believes in perfect worlds. I've fired rifles at ranges. I haven't hunted, I have fished, and killed and eaten my catch. I've eaten venison killed by friends. I get the attraction of target shooting and hunting, and within sensible limitations (safety, sustainability) I don't have a problem with either. Nor do I believe that every activity can be made risk free. But neither do I believe that predictable, substantial, avoidable risks should be ignored. I do not respect the argument that protecting legitimate uses and legitimate users requires the defense of illegitimate uses and illegitimate users. Handguns and urban population densities are a gratuitously dangerous mix. The notion that we have a constitutionally sanctioned right to resist the power of the government we've elected is deeply mistaken, and I'm speaking with intensional charity when I say so. Talking about treason isn't treason, but it's only one step removed from it.
Jerry Smith March 04, 2013 at 01:58 PM
Auther and Stuart, I enjoyed youe timely debate very much but I believe that a test could resolver your differences. Auther you put up a sign in your yard " my home is protected by my guns." Stuart, Put a sign in your yard " I do not belive in guns and I do not own one." The police are a recationar force and by then you and your family could/would be dead and in Auther's house the offender would be dead.I would rather be judged by 12 of my peers than one offender with a gun or knife. Stuart, you are too old to join our mitilary and see what is happening around the world and that personal experience cannot be learned from books or computer links. Maybe Auther can take you to a fun range and teach you something. I did my dutie to my country did you? A paratrooper retired. Again thanks for the best debate I have seen here.
Stuart Kurtz March 04, 2013 at 02:14 PM
Jerry, I did not serve in the military, but I certainly respect those who have. I don't think your test would work out quite the way you think. I own very little that would interest a robber. Books aren't fenceable. Arthur has a gun, and robbers would be interested in that.
Anthony W. Williams March 04, 2013 at 02:56 PM
My comment is to "Is it Democracy if we are lied to?" Excellent analogy. Robin Kelly is simply Jesse Jackson, Jr. in a dress.His supports have now transferred their allegiance to her. Your article is correct. Anthony W. Williams
Dinkum March 04, 2013 at 06:21 PM
Well, SK, you and I have been down this road before. Key data available to D2 voters prior to the election were: -Non-endorsement of Jackson by the Chicago Tribune -Medical leave of absence and visits to Mayo -Major newspapers reporting Jackson was under investigation for misuse of funds -Jackson FEC spending disclosures including $276,000 of AE unspecified fees Not too hard to connect the dots here. The Democratic party orchestrated this charade, the D2 Jackson voters bought it, and taxpayers get the bill. Lemons? More like rotten eggs.
Stuart Kurtz March 04, 2013 at 06:29 PM
Dinkum, so then, I assume you're voting for Kelly in the general, instead of the ex-felon.
Dinkum March 04, 2013 at 06:53 PM
Read my profile. Then you will know how I vote. And for the record, I didn't vote for the soon-to-be felon Jackson or his felon predecessor, Reynolds.
Stuart Kurtz March 04, 2013 at 07:57 PM
You're voting for LeAlan Jones?!
Jason Brennan March 05, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Arthur, I agree we need to uphold the principles of the constitution and that taking away guns isn't the answer. I don't have enough facts to comment like others have on the murder stats, etc. Generally speaking, I'm on your side. I have one request, however. Next time you post, could you please have someone proofread your post? You have too many grammatical errors to be taken you seriously. Really, I'm serious, I had a hard time reading it. If you are to be perceived as intelligent by other intelligent people then you need to do this. I'm not saying you aren't intelligent, but the perception will likely be that you aren't. Again, I generally support your viewpoints, this was just intended as constructive criticism and I hope you take it that way.
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. March 05, 2013 at 01:10 AM
Jason, No offense taken, respectful criticism is always welcomed. Art
Roxanna Scott March 06, 2013 at 04:55 PM
I too voted for Robin Kelly and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Halverson supporters are ranting because they couldn't have their way. Halverson lost so please do yourselves and us a favor and MOVE ON.
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. March 06, 2013 at 05:19 PM
Roxie, Its not about ranting. Its about the very thing people that run for office and people that are a part of our military swear to up hold and defend. Our Constitution. Far to many people do not understand exactly how important that old document is. Far to many people on the heels of elections and the public's misunderstanding of Constitution, threaten to alter and change. What is worse are the people who think that because there are 17 additional Amendments, this somehow presents a need to change. Any one that studies the Constitution understands its importance and its place with in the ideology of freedom. So in my case I'm against Kelly not because of any other reason than: 1) she is apart of the democratic machine (Not as if I have a love for a Republican machine either.) 2) she seek to alter the Constitution to prevent murders, which are so small in comparison to the population only sensationalized news could get people to pay attention.
Stuart Kurtz March 06, 2013 at 06:36 PM
Arthur, I missed this earlier: 'I believe that tragic incidents like Sandy Hook and the Denver shooting has taken advantage of our national average of murder to use to reinforce gun control. Even deliberate lies have been used eg., the rush to band "assault weapons" because of Sandy Hook when no rifle was used.' The weapons used at Sandy Hook were (a) a Bushmaster XM15-ES2 rifle, (b) a 10mm Glock handgun, and (c) a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun. The Bushmaster rifle was the killing weapon at the school, cf., http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. March 06, 2013 at 06:50 PM
Stuart, I have seen uninterrupted helicopter video of police officers removing the bushmaster from the offenders car. Sorry I cannot remember the source but I also read an article about the Bushmaster never being carried into the building. Knowing that even amateur videographers can manipulate images... I still have reasonable doubt into the assault rifle use. Never the less, I have no problem recanting any of this once the final report is released and proves me wrong.
Stuart Kurtz March 06, 2013 at 07:01 PM
Arthur, I remember that video! But that said, it was shot from with a lot of zoom, and there wasn't enough resolution in the image to ID the particular weapon. What identification there was came from the sound-track, and who knows what the source of that was. I tried looking for the video on youtube, but unfortunately that source has been contaminated with Sandy Hook hoax garbage.
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. March 06, 2013 at 07:40 PM
Stuart, The police have listed all the weapon own by his mother. Which includes one bushmaster variant of the AR15 rifle. The rifle removed from that car was an AR15... now was it a colt AR15, or a S&W AR15, or a Rock River AR15, or a homemade AR15 ? I do not know. I do know it was an AR15. I have owned AR15s and the military has given me enough M16s to recognize that silhouette in the dimmest of light (the video was captured during daylight). Deduction or reasoning would lead us to believe that it is the one Bushmaster AR15 as reported that his mother owned. But truthfully we do not know and will not know until a report is made public about the incident. I will refrain from debating Sandy Hook simply because of the speculation that has filled the void in the absence of fact. I believe what I have asserted to be true about the rifle (it never entered the building), but I do not at this moment think it would be wise for me to propose that belief to be a fact.
Stuart Kurtz March 06, 2013 at 07:50 PM
Arthur, I don't doubt your skill at weapons recognition. The Connecticut State Police insist that the Bushmaster was found inside the school: http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226 I'd love to have a good, frame-by-frame look at that video...
Stuart Kurtz March 06, 2013 at 08:09 PM
Arthur, You should do a google image search for an Izhmash Canta-12. Depending on how it's set up, it can look a lot like an AR-15.
Ezed54 March 18, 2013 at 04:28 PM
Obama is the liar in chief and I still consider the USA a democracy. So there you go.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »