I'm currently in the first quarter or so of "America's Victories: Why the US Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror" by Larry Schweikart. Very interesting book so far and he thoroughly details a number of reasons that make me extremely proud to be an American. We have a long history of treating those we capture on the battlefield far better than our enemies treat our men (and women) who are captured as POWs.
The accusations of torture in Gitmo and in Cuba will never hold water when they're compared to the contents of the al-Qaeda torture manual.
The media and the leftists will continue on their parade of "Blame American For Everything" and push for more pampering of our great nation's enemies, but I know when push comes to shove, there are far more patriotic Americans out there than America-haters, at least for now.
It has opened my eyes quite a bit to learn about the men who left their cushy jobs in the entertainment business during WWII to sign up and fight the Axis of Evil. It goes to show you where this country has arrived as not a single Hollywood actor gave up acting to join the military and fight the terrorism after 9/11. There used to be a day when the death toll of the enemy was cheered during the news broadcast, not the death toll of our own service men and women. How things can change.
I will post a full review when I finish the read.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
al-Qaeda "How to" Torture Book Found
So, now that we've decided to extend the common courtesy of rights in the Constitution to those we capture in our War on Terror, this was done well after knowing that al-Qaeda is actively teaching, and apparently encouraging the use of, torture methods. They have put together a detailed book with pictures depicting how to conduct various torture methods. This book was found in May 2007. Why has it been a year since this book was found and I don't remember seeing anything about it until just recently? Oh right, I forgot, our media has an agenda and since the Democrats, well a number of them, have declared the war lost, that media certainly wouldn't want to give the rest of the population any reason at all to rally behind our troops and support the annihilation of al-Qaeda and other terror groups around the world.
Now hold on, we're not talking about shaming, or embarrassing prisoners. We're not talking about making them wear women's clothes or sleep deprivation. We're not talking about making them listen to pop-culture music like Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera. No no no, we're talking about inflicting pain, permanent wounds, dismemberment, and death.
See for yourself.
Here's just a quick snippet:
"The book guides followers of Al Qaeda how to interrogate and torture captives.
The drawings and cartoons depict ways to use electric drills and irons, meat cleavers and other devices to force victims to talk or harm them.
Some of the drawings show how to drill hands, sever limbs, drag victims behind cars, remove eyes, put a blowtorch or iron to someone’s skin, suspend a person from a ceiling and electrocute them, break limbs and restrict breath and put someone’s head in a vice.
Items found at the safe house include electric drills, hammers, blow torches, meat cleavers, pliers and wire cutters, chains, screw drivers, whips and handcuffs."
Sounds like a good time for everyone, doesn't it.
Here are the pictures from the book and a couple of their torture victims.
Keep trying to tell me this is a war for oil or a botched war over weapons of mass destruction. Please try to tell me that we should just pull out of the Middle East entirely and leave these animals to their own business. Please tell me that we don't have a moral obligation to put an end to this. Please try to tell me this is just the United States acting as the police of the world and getting into everyone else's business.
Makes you appreciate being an American and living in a land where such treatment isn't permitted.
Now hold on, we're not talking about shaming, or embarrassing prisoners. We're not talking about making them wear women's clothes or sleep deprivation. We're not talking about making them listen to pop-culture music like Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera. No no no, we're talking about inflicting pain, permanent wounds, dismemberment, and death.
See for yourself.
Here's just a quick snippet:
"The book guides followers of Al Qaeda how to interrogate and torture captives.
The drawings and cartoons depict ways to use electric drills and irons, meat cleavers and other devices to force victims to talk or harm them.
Some of the drawings show how to drill hands, sever limbs, drag victims behind cars, remove eyes, put a blowtorch or iron to someone’s skin, suspend a person from a ceiling and electrocute them, break limbs and restrict breath and put someone’s head in a vice.
Items found at the safe house include electric drills, hammers, blow torches, meat cleavers, pliers and wire cutters, chains, screw drivers, whips and handcuffs."
Sounds like a good time for everyone, doesn't it.
Here are the pictures from the book and a couple of their torture victims.
Keep trying to tell me this is a war for oil or a botched war over weapons of mass destruction. Please try to tell me that we should just pull out of the Middle East entirely and leave these animals to their own business. Please tell me that we don't have a moral obligation to put an end to this. Please try to tell me this is just the United States acting as the police of the world and getting into everyone else's business.
Makes you appreciate being an American and living in a land where such treatment isn't permitted.
Terrorists have equal rights?
Since when have we, as a nation, conferred Constitutional rights to enemy combatants and terrorists? Well, the answer would be today, the 12th of June, 2008. Unbelievable. Should we ask if they'd like to vote this year in November? Hamas has already endorsed Barack Obama; maybe the rest of the terrorist world would like to pick sides. However, after another typical flip flop by Obama, as of June 4, 2008, Hamas has decided to "un-endorse" Obama.
Now, back to the point, in a Supreme Court ruling today, "Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security."
Remember, these rights were not afforded to the Nazis or the Japanese after the horrors the military forces of both nations committed in second world war. Remember, more people died on 9/11 than in Pearl Harbor.
I'd like know what made the judges rule the way they did considering the lies and scams from Nancey Pelosi and Friends about waterboarding. After the outcry about the horrors and inhumanity of waterboarding, we've afforded Constitutional rights to our enemies who torture their captives with power tools, electrocution, meat cleavers, screw drivers, and blow torches. All of that without even considering the fact they're also burning people alive. All of this was found in a "how-to" manual found in an al-Qaeda safe house.
I'm all for doing the right thing and not violating what's right and wrong, but why in the hell are we giving them Constitutional rights?! They already get better treatment in their prisons than American convicts. They get three ethnically-correct meals per day. They're afforded prayer time. They're being given Koran's at the expense of the US taxpayers. We can't even legally do that for our own school children. These judges are undermining our ability to fight a war on terror. They're taking our ability to hold enemy captured enemy combatants off the battlefield.
I just don't get it. I can't understand how people can be so anti-American and side with the enemy on such a regular basis.
Here are some precious quotes from Justice Kennedy:
“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” Justice Kennedy wrote, assuming the pivotal role that some court-watchers had foreseen.
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
More snippets from the NY Times piece:
Joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Writing separately, Justice Souter said the dissenters did not sufficiently appreciate “the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years.”
The last I checked, enemy combatants were considered POWs and could be held for the duration of the war. How long was McCain held? He wasn't granted any special rights by his captors.
Justice Scalia gets it:
Reflecting how the case divided the court not only on legal but, perhaps, emotional lines, Justice Scalia said that the United States was “at war with radical Islamists,” and that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed.”
“The nation will live to regret what the court has done today,” Justice Scalia said.
John Kerry doesn't get it. He applauded the ruling saying, “Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what almost everyone but the administration and their defenders in Congress always knew,” he said. “The Constitution and the rule of law bind all of us even in extraordinary times of war. No one is above the Constitution.”
Perhaps John Kerry and his cronies need to apply the same logic about the convenience of turning the Constitution on and off with a switch to the Second Amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Kerry, and the rest of you America haters for ensure the deaths of more American men and women in uniform as well as the increased likelihood of repeated terror attacks in this country as we can no longer hold enemy combatants.
Thanks again.
Now, back to the point, in a Supreme Court ruling today, "Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention there in United States courts, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Thursday in a historic decision on the balance between personal liberties and national security."
Remember, these rights were not afforded to the Nazis or the Japanese after the horrors the military forces of both nations committed in second world war. Remember, more people died on 9/11 than in Pearl Harbor.
I'd like know what made the judges rule the way they did considering the lies and scams from Nancey Pelosi and Friends about waterboarding. After the outcry about the horrors and inhumanity of waterboarding, we've afforded Constitutional rights to our enemies who torture their captives with power tools, electrocution, meat cleavers, screw drivers, and blow torches. All of that without even considering the fact they're also burning people alive. All of this was found in a "how-to" manual found in an al-Qaeda safe house.
I'm all for doing the right thing and not violating what's right and wrong, but why in the hell are we giving them Constitutional rights?! They already get better treatment in their prisons than American convicts. They get three ethnically-correct meals per day. They're afforded prayer time. They're being given Koran's at the expense of the US taxpayers. We can't even legally do that for our own school children. These judges are undermining our ability to fight a war on terror. They're taking our ability to hold enemy captured enemy combatants off the battlefield.
I just don't get it. I can't understand how people can be so anti-American and side with the enemy on such a regular basis.
Here are some precious quotes from Justice Kennedy:
“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody,” Justice Kennedy wrote, assuming the pivotal role that some court-watchers had foreseen.
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”
More snippets from the NY Times piece:
Joining Justice Kennedy’s opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Writing separately, Justice Souter said the dissenters did not sufficiently appreciate “the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years.”
The last I checked, enemy combatants were considered POWs and could be held for the duration of the war. How long was McCain held? He wasn't granted any special rights by his captors.
Justice Scalia gets it:
Reflecting how the case divided the court not only on legal but, perhaps, emotional lines, Justice Scalia said that the United States was “at war with radical Islamists,” and that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to get killed.”
“The nation will live to regret what the court has done today,” Justice Scalia said.
John Kerry doesn't get it. He applauded the ruling saying, “Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what almost everyone but the administration and their defenders in Congress always knew,” he said. “The Constitution and the rule of law bind all of us even in extraordinary times of war. No one is above the Constitution.”
Perhaps John Kerry and his cronies need to apply the same logic about the convenience of turning the Constitution on and off with a switch to the Second Amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Kerry, and the rest of you America haters for ensure the deaths of more American men and women in uniform as well as the increased likelihood of repeated terror attacks in this country as we can no longer hold enemy combatants.
Thanks again.
Christianity vs. Liberalism
I can't fathom how devout Christians can support the views of modern Liberalism. They seem to be at complete opposite sides of the spectrum and opposed to one another. Just a couple of issues we see right off the top: abortion and gay marriage. Another is the death penalty. Another is the fact that modern Liberalism is all but anti-religion of any type.
Modern liberal leftists want to go out of their way to avoid offending anyone about anything. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Jesus Christ said it how it was. He didn't tip toe around the issues and tell everyone it's OK and perfectly acceptable to live in sin. He offended people. For the love of God, he healed someone on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6). He overturned tables and almost started a riot in the temple (Mark 11:15-19). Notice at the end of both passages, the scribes and Pharisees sought to destroy Jesus.
Barack Obama wants to expand welfare benefits, increase unemployment benefits, and increase the amount of time individuals can draw unemployment. To this, the Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Surely, there are people who need help and assistance, but we'd be doing quite the injustice to ignore the current abuses of the welfare system.
I also have a hard time understanding how Black Liberation Ideology draws its principles from the same Bible I read. I have a hard time understanding how the principles being taught in churches like the Chicago Trinity United Church of Christ are considered "Christian principles." I have a hard time understanding how Obama's flip flop on the issue of Jeremiah Wright, the subsequent pastor, Rev. Otis Mosss, and the numerous affiliations with people who harbor vicious and callous views that can be called nothing other than racist. I have a hard time understanding how people can't see this for what it is, namely, political expediency. Had the conservative media outlets not pressed the issue so hard, Obama more than likely would not have responded by eventually resigning his membership at the church and denouncing Rev. Wright. What is it about the American people that has them so caught up in Barack Obama that they can't see what's happening her. The leftist media has a lot to do with it, turning a blind eye to much of the most spiteful and hateful speech from those affiliations, but I can't imagine the spurn a conservative would receive should he/she be in that same situation.
About the suppression of religion and the general attempt to remove it from every aspect of daily life, I give you the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is a difference between the cliché of "separation of church and state" and the all out suppression of all religion.
Abortion, death penalty, handouts and entitlements, the suppression of religion, the support of Evolution and denouncement of Creationism/Intelligent Design, etc...all pretty core issues that go against what's in the Bible and the Christian foundation. If you can support a man who violates and contradicts what your religious views are, how strong are those views?
Modern liberal leftists want to go out of their way to avoid offending anyone about anything. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Jesus Christ said it how it was. He didn't tip toe around the issues and tell everyone it's OK and perfectly acceptable to live in sin. He offended people. For the love of God, he healed someone on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6). He overturned tables and almost started a riot in the temple (Mark 11:15-19). Notice at the end of both passages, the scribes and Pharisees sought to destroy Jesus.
Barack Obama wants to expand welfare benefits, increase unemployment benefits, and increase the amount of time individuals can draw unemployment. To this, the Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Surely, there are people who need help and assistance, but we'd be doing quite the injustice to ignore the current abuses of the welfare system.
I also have a hard time understanding how Black Liberation Ideology draws its principles from the same Bible I read. I have a hard time understanding how the principles being taught in churches like the Chicago Trinity United Church of Christ are considered "Christian principles." I have a hard time understanding how Obama's flip flop on the issue of Jeremiah Wright, the subsequent pastor, Rev. Otis Mosss, and the numerous affiliations with people who harbor vicious and callous views that can be called nothing other than racist. I have a hard time understanding how people can't see this for what it is, namely, political expediency. Had the conservative media outlets not pressed the issue so hard, Obama more than likely would not have responded by eventually resigning his membership at the church and denouncing Rev. Wright. What is it about the American people that has them so caught up in Barack Obama that they can't see what's happening her. The leftist media has a lot to do with it, turning a blind eye to much of the most spiteful and hateful speech from those affiliations, but I can't imagine the spurn a conservative would receive should he/she be in that same situation.
About the suppression of religion and the general attempt to remove it from every aspect of daily life, I give you the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is a difference between the cliché of "separation of church and state" and the all out suppression of all religion.
Abortion, death penalty, handouts and entitlements, the suppression of religion, the support of Evolution and denouncement of Creationism/Intelligent Design, etc...all pretty core issues that go against what's in the Bible and the Christian foundation. If you can support a man who violates and contradicts what your religious views are, how strong are those views?
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The Implications of the California Court Who Overruled the Vote of the People
In 2000, in a referendum, the people of California voted to ban gay marriage. The power of the people was heard. However, we recently had a court in California decide the voice and votes of the people do not matter. They struck down the ban on gay marriage against the will of the people. So, here is what the court did. They decided, first off, to throw out the vote of the people, which is ok in this case, but wasn’t there a bit of an uproar over the 2000 elections involving a recount and the votes of the people when it came to the general election for the Presidency of the United States? Oh, there was an uproar? Right. Just checking. Ok, back on topic, we have a court who basically declared that one group of people cannot vote to infringe upon the “rights” of another group of people. I’m not sure where in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution that a right exists allowing homosexuals to marry, but regardless, you have a court who said one group can’t vote and pass a law infringing on the rights of another. Well, let’s take a look at something that actually is a right: “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.” That’s an actual right. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This means, in keeping consistent with the California court who said one group cannot pass a law infringing on the rights of others, that every single voter approved gun law on the books today MUST BE STRUCK DOWN AND REPEALED. The people who support anti-gun legislation cannot vote and pass any legislation that infringes on my rights, or anyone else’s rights for that matter, to carry a gun or what types of Arms we’re allowed to keep and bear.
Second point, we’ll look at more from the Constitution. Article IV, Section 2: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Does that not mean that any Privilege and Immunity a citizen in California is entitled to, that every other citizen in every other state is also entitled to? Right, they are, that’s what I thought. So, now that California has struck down gay marriage and the citizens of California are now entitled to the “right” to gay marriage, every other citizen in every other state, by the Constitution, is entitled to gay marriage. Back to guns. Since the right of one group of people cannot be infringed by the vote of another group of people, as seen by the court in California who struck down a gay marriage ban, and every citizen in every other state is entitled to what the citizens in California are entitled to, does that not mean that a permit to carry a firearm issued to me, a citizen of Pennsylvania, must be respected by every other state? Does that not mean that the citizens of Illinois are entitled to a permit to carry a firearm since I am able to obtain a permit to carry a firearm by the state of Pennsylvania?
I have to ask, when are we going to learn, as a people, that the decisions made by our courts, when legal, are not eligible for cherry picking on the issues convenient to those who are in charge? If the constitution says we are entitled to the rights of citizens in other states, and a court has ruled that one group of people cannot vote to infringe on the rights of another group of people, that means all states must recognize carry permits and every state must allow its citizens to apply for a carry permit.
All of this is really a mere fantasy as I can’t see this ruling holding up in a real court. The court does not have the constitutional ability to use their power to correct a social “injustice.”
Second point, we’ll look at more from the Constitution. Article IV, Section 2: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Does that not mean that any Privilege and Immunity a citizen in California is entitled to, that every other citizen in every other state is also entitled to? Right, they are, that’s what I thought. So, now that California has struck down gay marriage and the citizens of California are now entitled to the “right” to gay marriage, every other citizen in every other state, by the Constitution, is entitled to gay marriage. Back to guns. Since the right of one group of people cannot be infringed by the vote of another group of people, as seen by the court in California who struck down a gay marriage ban, and every citizen in every other state is entitled to what the citizens in California are entitled to, does that not mean that a permit to carry a firearm issued to me, a citizen of Pennsylvania, must be respected by every other state? Does that not mean that the citizens of Illinois are entitled to a permit to carry a firearm since I am able to obtain a permit to carry a firearm by the state of Pennsylvania?
I have to ask, when are we going to learn, as a people, that the decisions made by our courts, when legal, are not eligible for cherry picking on the issues convenient to those who are in charge? If the constitution says we are entitled to the rights of citizens in other states, and a court has ruled that one group of people cannot vote to infringe on the rights of another group of people, that means all states must recognize carry permits and every state must allow its citizens to apply for a carry permit.
All of this is really a mere fantasy as I can’t see this ruling holding up in a real court. The court does not have the constitutional ability to use their power to correct a social “injustice.”
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
This is appalling...
It's no wonder English-speaking Americans have feelings of contempt for the Latino population who speak only Spanish after watching this video. This can't be the only place or industry where this type of treatment happening to our only English-speaking American citizens. Since when do we cater completely to people who can't speak the primary language in this country?
Watch this video, it will blow your mind:
I'm looking forward to seeing a lawsuit filed against anyone and everyone involved as the state had no answer as to why it's ok to discriminate against English-speaking supervisors, but can't solve the problem by hiring only English-speaking firefighters. Why is it that our American citizens must suffer to appease those who refuse to learn the language of this country? This could flow right into why are the liberal leftist Democrats blocking the passing legislation declaring English as the official language?
Watch this video, it will blow your mind:
I'm looking forward to seeing a lawsuit filed against anyone and everyone involved as the state had no answer as to why it's ok to discriminate against English-speaking supervisors, but can't solve the problem by hiring only English-speaking firefighters. Why is it that our American citizens must suffer to appease those who refuse to learn the language of this country? This could flow right into why are the liberal leftist Democrats blocking the passing legislation declaring English as the official language?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Frustrated with people who don't make politics a priority...
Anyone else get irritated with people who want to vote, debate, campaign for a candidate, etc on politics without being educated on the issues? I recently was debating with an individual in my family, there's the first problem, about politics and after defeating every point made, this person through out the excuse card on not knowing as much as I do on the issues and the voting records of the candidates in this year's Presidential race, well, at this point, race for the nomination.
So, what did I do, I took a couple hours out of my life and put together about 6-7 pages on each of the three possibilities we'll see in the general election. That was three weeks ago. I have a sister who is going to school on a full ride for field hockey at a university about 5-6 hours away by car depending on traffic. She's currently in her spring/exhibition season and this passed weekend was the last of 5 consecutive weekends these two individuals, ok I'll just say it, my parents, were driving back and forth to see her play. So, over the last three weeks, since I handed those print-outs to my mother, in the car, as she was pulling out of the drive way (I was house/dog sitting for them), you'd think in the 30+ hours of sitting in the car, they'd be able to take a few minutes and peek at those voting records and where the candidates stand on the issues. Nope, I guess it's not a priority.
I know my parents quite well, and knowing their views, my parents should both be conservatives. My father is registered Republican, my mother Democrat. I found out this year, through a number of discussions about the issues, my mother really has more conservative views than liberal. She has a soft spot for poverty and wants to help out, but at the same time she abhors Welfare abuses. She's anti-abortion, she's anti-gun control, she doesn't want higher taxes, and generally, she's in favor of smaller government. That's the definition of conservatism. So, hence my frustration when she tells me she's thinking about voting for Senator Clinton. I don't get it...it's my mother, but I don't know what more to say other than "You can't fix stupid."
My father, basically, has the same views, and as I said, he's registered Republican. He says he's been "impressed" with Senator Obama. I don't know what that means. He doesn't talk politics, doesn't like to get into it, and really won't participate in any discussion with it. I don't like to assume, but my dad's not one that likes to discuss things he's not familiar with and I'm assuming he hasn't taken the time to do the research on his own.
My sister and my sister-in-law, both seniors at two different universities, are both registered Democrats based on it being the hip thing to do at college. Neither knows the issues. Neither understands politics.
It just frustrates me to know end when people vote without having a clue on the issues and don't make it a priority. My parents, surprisingly to me anyway, have their DVR set to record all the American Idol episodes but can't find time to do research on politics.
I'm just appalled at the general apathy towards politics you see these days. This country wouldn't be where it is today and going in the direction it's going if people would at least educate themselves on politics. It'd be even better if people would participate at some level.
What more can you do?
So, what did I do, I took a couple hours out of my life and put together about 6-7 pages on each of the three possibilities we'll see in the general election. That was three weeks ago. I have a sister who is going to school on a full ride for field hockey at a university about 5-6 hours away by car depending on traffic. She's currently in her spring/exhibition season and this passed weekend was the last of 5 consecutive weekends these two individuals, ok I'll just say it, my parents, were driving back and forth to see her play. So, over the last three weeks, since I handed those print-outs to my mother, in the car, as she was pulling out of the drive way (I was house/dog sitting for them), you'd think in the 30+ hours of sitting in the car, they'd be able to take a few minutes and peek at those voting records and where the candidates stand on the issues. Nope, I guess it's not a priority.
I know my parents quite well, and knowing their views, my parents should both be conservatives. My father is registered Republican, my mother Democrat. I found out this year, through a number of discussions about the issues, my mother really has more conservative views than liberal. She has a soft spot for poverty and wants to help out, but at the same time she abhors Welfare abuses. She's anti-abortion, she's anti-gun control, she doesn't want higher taxes, and generally, she's in favor of smaller government. That's the definition of conservatism. So, hence my frustration when she tells me she's thinking about voting for Senator Clinton. I don't get it...it's my mother, but I don't know what more to say other than "You can't fix stupid."
My father, basically, has the same views, and as I said, he's registered Republican. He says he's been "impressed" with Senator Obama. I don't know what that means. He doesn't talk politics, doesn't like to get into it, and really won't participate in any discussion with it. I don't like to assume, but my dad's not one that likes to discuss things he's not familiar with and I'm assuming he hasn't taken the time to do the research on his own.
My sister and my sister-in-law, both seniors at two different universities, are both registered Democrats based on it being the hip thing to do at college. Neither knows the issues. Neither understands politics.
It just frustrates me to know end when people vote without having a clue on the issues and don't make it a priority. My parents, surprisingly to me anyway, have their DVR set to record all the American Idol episodes but can't find time to do research on politics.
I'm just appalled at the general apathy towards politics you see these days. This country wouldn't be where it is today and going in the direction it's going if people would at least educate themselves on politics. It'd be even better if people would participate at some level.
What more can you do?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Saw my first Hillary vs. McCain television ad
I live in Pennsylvania and with the primaries coming up, I was surprised to see a Hillary ad talking about how she's better than McCain...seems to me she might be looking beyond Obama when she more than likely won't get passed him. Just surprised since the primaries haven't even happened and she's already got commercials going for the general election...might have been a mistake as it was the only one, but who knows. I hear more predictions about Obama getting the nomination and fear Sen. Clinton may be wasting the money her contributors donated...fine with me.
That is the first and only ad I've seen specifically directed at the general election with the subject of comparing the democrat candidate versus the republican candidate.
I've seen general ads from Obama simply talking about his stuff, but he doesn't mention or compare anything to either of the other presidential hopefuls.
As of yet, I haven't seen any ads for McCain at all. The next few weeks and months are going to be very interesting.
That is the first and only ad I've seen specifically directed at the general election with the subject of comparing the democrat candidate versus the republican candidate.
I've seen general ads from Obama simply talking about his stuff, but he doesn't mention or compare anything to either of the other presidential hopefuls.
As of yet, I haven't seen any ads for McCain at all. The next few weeks and months are going to be very interesting.
Cubans allowed to have microwaves and cell phones
Funny how our left wing media and Hollyweirdos idolize Castro, Che Guevara, and Hugo Chavez and yet, Cubans were only recently allowed by the government to own, possess, and operate microwave ovens and cell phones. Makes my complaints about this country and it's silly legislation seem tiny, but in context, this is the self-proclaimed land of the FREE, not a communist country. This is a short entry, but just found it funny that we have a boat load of people who think the Cubans and their leaders are doing it right...I wonder how those people would feel if they weren't allowed to have a cellphone by the parenting government.
Wisconsin kegger busted by police
...after 90 breathalyser tests were conducted by the "authorities," the party resumed. This party, made up of mostly high school students, was centered around drinking games and keg. Wondering why that party wasn't busted, arrests made, parents called, etc? The keg contained nothing more than root beer. Funny how drinking out of red, 16 ounce Silo cups automatically means you're drinking beer. Student athletes were suspended from their teams after pictures of those students drinking from said cups surfaced on the internet. I always thought you were innocent until proven guilty, I guess I was wrong.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Definition of Patriotism
This is it right here folks...you want to see a patriot, I give you Jim Broussard, a United States Army veteran who correctly saw it necessary to fix an issue where a Mexican flag was being flown above an American flag. See for yourself. Jim, I salute you and thank you for your service.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Can we elminate the use of "African American?"
Seriously, how many generations ago was it that your family members actually came from Africa? Do you know what country? Where they came to in the US?
I'm all for knowing your heritage, but can't we all grow up and get over the distinctions that continue to preserve self-imposed discrimination and another way to group individuals separately from others?
We're all descendants from somewhere else, thats fine, but the fact remains that if we all travel back to where our predecessors came from, we're not seen as natives of that country. Irish Americans from New York City and Boston aren't seen as prodigal sons and daughters when they go back to Ireland. They're seen as Americans. Americans of African descent, the term I like to use, aren't seen as native Africans and welcome home with open arms by their brethren in whatever country in Africa.
All of us as diverse individuals who join the armed forces, we fight under the one single flag of the United States of America. When our troops go abroad, they're seen as Americans, nothing else.
When we all grow up, put the big boy and girl pants on, and start acting like adults about it, that we're all Americans, we'll see a unity this country hasn't seen since its foundation. We'll see a unity far stronger than those trying days, weeks, and months following 9/11. We'll have a resolve that cannot be broken by any act of terror. When we stop classifying ourselves and pointing out our differences as something to gripe about rather than simply diversity, we'll see this great republic for what it was intended to be...the land of the free and home of the brave.
I'm all for knowing your heritage, but can't we all grow up and get over the distinctions that continue to preserve self-imposed discrimination and another way to group individuals separately from others?
We're all descendants from somewhere else, thats fine, but the fact remains that if we all travel back to where our predecessors came from, we're not seen as natives of that country. Irish Americans from New York City and Boston aren't seen as prodigal sons and daughters when they go back to Ireland. They're seen as Americans. Americans of African descent, the term I like to use, aren't seen as native Africans and welcome home with open arms by their brethren in whatever country in Africa.
All of us as diverse individuals who join the armed forces, we fight under the one single flag of the United States of America. When our troops go abroad, they're seen as Americans, nothing else.
When we all grow up, put the big boy and girl pants on, and start acting like adults about it, that we're all Americans, we'll see a unity this country hasn't seen since its foundation. We'll see a unity far stronger than those trying days, weeks, and months following 9/11. We'll have a resolve that cannot be broken by any act of terror. When we stop classifying ourselves and pointing out our differences as something to gripe about rather than simply diversity, we'll see this great republic for what it was intended to be...the land of the free and home of the brave.
Affirmative Action vs. Racial Profiling
Anyone else tired of hearing about the race card when it's convenient? I'm sick of hearing about how this group of people is racist or that group of people is racist. I'm tired of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, now Sen. Barack Hussein Obama finding racial issues with various groups of people, our schools, our police departments, and our government.
I just want to know why it's acceptable to use racial profiling when considering candidates for college applications or job applicants through Affirmative Action, but it's not acceptable to use racial profiling to limit or stop crime. Just caught a show on TV about the DC Sniper case from October 2002...it was acceptable for the media to run stories suggesting the sniper was a white male, 20-40 years of age based solely on the statistics that 80% of serial killers are white men 20-40 years of age. How is that NOT racial profiling? Why is it acceptable to use racial profiling, incorrect profiling against white people, but God help you and have mercy on your soul if you suggest a black person may be responsible for something based solely on statistics.
If minorities want equality, then they should be demanding equality in every aspect of life and demanding equality for all. Eliminate entitlement programs that give special favors based on skin color. Eliminate racial profiling against all colors and religions. Entitlement programs like affirmative action don't end or reduce racism, they protect its existence and those who use it know it...they got the job, got into that school, etc based on skin color, not qualifications or accomplishments. White people resent being denied opportunity because of a mandate requiring skin color to be a qualification we can't meet and have no control over. So, programs like racial profiling, I mean Affirmative Action, do nothing but continue the existence of bad feelings between the races.
The ring leaders of this racial circus continue spreading racism and discrimination by constantly making excuses for people when it's convenient to seize the microphone, television cameras, and press articles to keep their faces and agendas in the media.
When equality is demanded by all for all, that's when we'll start to see a reduction in discrimination, racism, and ill-contempt between the races.
I just want to know why it's acceptable to use racial profiling when considering candidates for college applications or job applicants through Affirmative Action, but it's not acceptable to use racial profiling to limit or stop crime. Just caught a show on TV about the DC Sniper case from October 2002...it was acceptable for the media to run stories suggesting the sniper was a white male, 20-40 years of age based solely on the statistics that 80% of serial killers are white men 20-40 years of age. How is that NOT racial profiling? Why is it acceptable to use racial profiling, incorrect profiling against white people, but God help you and have mercy on your soul if you suggest a black person may be responsible for something based solely on statistics.
If minorities want equality, then they should be demanding equality in every aspect of life and demanding equality for all. Eliminate entitlement programs that give special favors based on skin color. Eliminate racial profiling against all colors and religions. Entitlement programs like affirmative action don't end or reduce racism, they protect its existence and those who use it know it...they got the job, got into that school, etc based on skin color, not qualifications or accomplishments. White people resent being denied opportunity because of a mandate requiring skin color to be a qualification we can't meet and have no control over. So, programs like racial profiling, I mean Affirmative Action, do nothing but continue the existence of bad feelings between the races.
The ring leaders of this racial circus continue spreading racism and discrimination by constantly making excuses for people when it's convenient to seize the microphone, television cameras, and press articles to keep their faces and agendas in the media.
When equality is demanded by all for all, that's when we'll start to see a reduction in discrimination, racism, and ill-contempt between the races.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The government is supposed to take care of us right?
Where did this idea come from that the government is responsible for my personal satisfaction in life? Where did this idea come from that the government is supposed to provide me with my health care or my inalienable rights?
The last I checked, the government's responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way and let me live MY life. The government is responsible for ensuring that the economic environment is suitable for me to pursue my own ventures, businesses, and opportunities to be successful. I'm supposed to have the freedom to be as successful as I choose to be without limitations from the government on my income. The government is there to make sure my life isn't being over-regulated and overburdened making it impossible to be successful or taxed at such a rate that being successful, growing a business, and creating jobs simply isn't worth it. Or, even worse, the economic environment is better outside of this country so I take my entire business elsewhere. The government is there to make sure my rights are not infringed upon. The government is responsible for maintaining the sanctity and security of this great nation.
It's my job to handle my health care needs. I don't need the government robbing me of my wages to provide me with something I am more than capable of providing myself. Medicare, Social Security, socialized healthcare, you name it. I can take care of myself.
It's my job to provide my own personal protection and there is a key word coming up here, watch for it, SELF-defense. It's my own personal responsibility. It's my responsibility to live my life, keep my liberty, and pursue my own happiness. The government is not in place to give me my rights or to hand out benefits. It's the government's job to make sure nothing violates or infringes on those inalienable rights.
I'm tired of people looking to the government for things they need. We are a more than capable people, we are determined, we are strong-willed. We have everything we need to build and create what we want and need. Obama and Clinton are dropping the word change more than seagulls drop crap on the beach. I suggest that if we want change, we start looking at ourselves and make the necessary changes as individuals first. After we stop being so dependent on the government to take care of us and hold our hands, we'll truly have the ability to see what must change at the local, state, and federal levels of government.
The last I checked, the government's responsibility is to stay the hell out of the way and let me live MY life. The government is responsible for ensuring that the economic environment is suitable for me to pursue my own ventures, businesses, and opportunities to be successful. I'm supposed to have the freedom to be as successful as I choose to be without limitations from the government on my income. The government is there to make sure my life isn't being over-regulated and overburdened making it impossible to be successful or taxed at such a rate that being successful, growing a business, and creating jobs simply isn't worth it. Or, even worse, the economic environment is better outside of this country so I take my entire business elsewhere. The government is there to make sure my rights are not infringed upon. The government is responsible for maintaining the sanctity and security of this great nation.
It's my job to handle my health care needs. I don't need the government robbing me of my wages to provide me with something I am more than capable of providing myself. Medicare, Social Security, socialized healthcare, you name it. I can take care of myself.
It's my job to provide my own personal protection and there is a key word coming up here, watch for it, SELF-defense. It's my own personal responsibility. It's my responsibility to live my life, keep my liberty, and pursue my own happiness. The government is not in place to give me my rights or to hand out benefits. It's the government's job to make sure nothing violates or infringes on those inalienable rights.
I'm tired of people looking to the government for things they need. We are a more than capable people, we are determined, we are strong-willed. We have everything we need to build and create what we want and need. Obama and Clinton are dropping the word change more than seagulls drop crap on the beach. I suggest that if we want change, we start looking at ourselves and make the necessary changes as individuals first. After we stop being so dependent on the government to take care of us and hold our hands, we'll truly have the ability to see what must change at the local, state, and federal levels of government.
For all you America haters:
Get the hell out. If you don't like our Constitution, or system of government where we elect our leaders and representatives, if you don't like firearms or the fact that I'm carrying a .45 right now as I type this, if you don't like capitalism and having the freedom to make as much money as you want, if you don't like being able to choose your own health care, if you don't like that business owners get tax breaks for taking the risk of running the business to provide others with jobs, if you don't like individual rights, if you don't like the rights of the individual being considered more important than the collective good of the masses, if you don't like that I refuse to allow people to infringe upon my rights in an effort to help someone else feel good, if you don't like the system immigrants must go through to become legal and valid United States citizens, if you don't like that the rights of being an American aren't afforded to non-Americans (such as Social Security, Medicare, Driver's Licenses, voting, etc.), if you don't like the fact that I prefer to take care of myself rather than have the government babysit me, then go ahead, leave. There are daily flights out of here. Call me, I'll help you arrange one and perhaps I'll drive you to the airport.
That applies to you Mr. Obama and Mr./Mrs. Clinton. You are more than welcome to go a country who would welcome you with open arms as a political leader. This country was founded on freedom, the American Revolution, not the Russian Revolution. This country was founded on principles of freedom, not oppression, not tyranny, not the government's control in every daily aspect of my life.
So, for those of you who think the government should just take care of all this stuff so we don't have to think, there are lots of rafts in Florida and around the Gulf the Cubans are leaving there as they are coming here because they know what the American Dream is, they know what freedom is and the difference between the US and the rest of the world. Castro and his brother would gladly take you on as they love people who want the government to tell them think and live.
So long, have a safe trip, and enjoy your new life outside of this wonderful country.
That applies to you Mr. Obama and Mr./Mrs. Clinton. You are more than welcome to go a country who would welcome you with open arms as a political leader. This country was founded on freedom, the American Revolution, not the Russian Revolution. This country was founded on principles of freedom, not oppression, not tyranny, not the government's control in every daily aspect of my life.
So, for those of you who think the government should just take care of all this stuff so we don't have to think, there are lots of rafts in Florida and around the Gulf the Cubans are leaving there as they are coming here because they know what the American Dream is, they know what freedom is and the difference between the US and the rest of the world. Castro and his brother would gladly take you on as they love people who want the government to tell them think and live.
So long, have a safe trip, and enjoy your new life outside of this wonderful country.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Another racist black "preacher"
Just kind of curious how people get away with saying stuff like this and Don Imus gets fired for talking about nappy headed hoes...just mind boggling when you see "people" like this and Jeremiah Wright claim to be the victims of racism and they spew this garbage in a house of worship and call themselves "Christians."
I'm also tired of people putting religious tones on Obama as if he is some sort of ordained savior. If the guy is our savior, after seeing the "church" he's attended for the last 20+ years, he is in no way a messiah; rather, it wouldn't take much to convince me this man is the anti-christ.
I'm also tired of people putting religious tones on Obama as if he is some sort of ordained savior. If the guy is our savior, after seeing the "church" he's attended for the last 20+ years, he is in no way a messiah; rather, it wouldn't take much to convince me this man is the anti-christ.
This is going to be good...
Now that we're seeing the beginning stages of the gun ban case unfold, it becomes more and more clear how some people get it, and others, well, just don't. It is quite evident that a large group of people exists who simply refuse to hold people accountable as adults. They simply want to make excuses. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the supporters of the gun ban who protest with their silly signs saying to the effect "Guns Kill!"
Let me fix that sign for you..."People Kill!"
Instead of holding criminals responsible and actually saying what needs to be said, they make excuses and believe everyone will behave, hold hands, and sing Kum Ba Yah if we ban guns. Fact of the matter is, when you ban guns, crime soars. It's happened every time, well, except once, sort of...in 1933, Hitler declared to the world Germany had the most advanced and best gun ban in the world...crime among the people didn't rise, but the police state took care of that and created the definition of war crimes. Back on track, plain and simple, when the citizens of the free world have guns to defend themselves, crime does not rise. When that right is infringed upon and access to guns for self defense is not allowed, crime soars. Look at the stats. I'm not making this up.
What do we really need to say about the gun crimes? Well, to start, where does the majority of it happen? In cities, where poverty is high. How much of the gun crimes happening in these United States is black-on-black crime? Before you throw down the racist card, I'm just going by the numbers. Really, how much gun crime happens in your small town America communities? How much gun crime happens in your farming communities? Those communities can be largely made up of any race in any geographical area? The fact of the matter is this, most gun crimes happen in urban environments where poverty runs rampant. Why aren't we banning poverty? That's a completely different topic and the welfare system has already been discussed.
Next point, the Second Amendment is the building block upon which all others are based. If you don't have the right to bear arms, how do you protect yourself against a tyrannical government or foreign invasion? How do you protect your rights against someone who is willing to use force to take them away if you don't have the necessary arms to combat that force? We can debate and use diplomacy all we want, but diplomacy doesn't work when your opponent doesn't want to use words, reason, and logic.
Some will say the Second Amendment applies to the militia...well, who made up the militias at the time the Constitution was written? The militia was a group of citizens who would be ready to fight in any emergency. Who were those citizens? All able-bodied males. If you look at the actual text of the Second Amendment, it says this: "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." So, let's take a look at this...what protects the free state? The militia, right? Right. Who makes up the members of the militia? The individuals, the people, and for those people to do their necessary duty, keeping and bearing arms is necessary and shall not be infringed. So, considering the militia was all able-bodied males (and we'll allow for females since we have willing and able-bodied women who choose to serve), and arms are necessary to defend the free State, how can you take away the right to bear and keep arms from the individual?
Let me just say this, when is it ever a good idea to infringe upon the rights of others in an attempt to solve a problem? You can't call it a solution if it's infringing upon my rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are listed among our inalienable rights. When you take away might right to self-defense, now you're subjecting me to being incapable of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government's job is not to give out rights or take them away. The government's job is to make sure no one is infringing upon my inalienable rights. The government is not responsible for taking care of me and making me pay taxes to do this duty when I am completely capable of doing it myself. I don't need the government to ban guns or legislate "reasonable" restrictions on them in an effort to provide security and safety for me. I especially don't need the government's services in that area of my life when they can't get the job done in the first place. Have gun crimes stopped? No. Has illegal gun trafficking stopped? No. So, in an effort to stop something they can't stop already, they're going to continue to whittle away at my rights as the law abiding citizen when I need that right to protect myself from the same people they're trying to stop. It's a paradox and for some reason, some people just don't get it. They think ammo registration and databases and microstamping, and gun bans, and more restrictions are going to stop the gun violence when nothing they've done this far is working. What they need to do is encourage more people to take up arms and provide their on security, protection, and self-defense. Through time, fewer criminals will survive their crimes and the rest who think about committing crimes will have to decide whether or not risking their lives to commit crime is worth it. Right now, it's a decision the law-abiding citizens must make and decide if not carrying a firearm for self-defense is worth it.
For me, the decision is simple. I keep fresh batteries in my smoke detectors and I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Do I expect to have a house fire every day? No. Do I buy health insurance? Yes. Do I have life insurance? Yes. Do I expect to get hurt, sick, or die every day? No. It's called precaution. It's called preparedness. It's called taking personal responsibility.
Let Freedom Ring.
Let me fix that sign for you..."People Kill!"
Instead of holding criminals responsible and actually saying what needs to be said, they make excuses and believe everyone will behave, hold hands, and sing Kum Ba Yah if we ban guns. Fact of the matter is, when you ban guns, crime soars. It's happened every time, well, except once, sort of...in 1933, Hitler declared to the world Germany had the most advanced and best gun ban in the world...crime among the people didn't rise, but the police state took care of that and created the definition of war crimes. Back on track, plain and simple, when the citizens of the free world have guns to defend themselves, crime does not rise. When that right is infringed upon and access to guns for self defense is not allowed, crime soars. Look at the stats. I'm not making this up.
What do we really need to say about the gun crimes? Well, to start, where does the majority of it happen? In cities, where poverty is high. How much of the gun crimes happening in these United States is black-on-black crime? Before you throw down the racist card, I'm just going by the numbers. Really, how much gun crime happens in your small town America communities? How much gun crime happens in your farming communities? Those communities can be largely made up of any race in any geographical area? The fact of the matter is this, most gun crimes happen in urban environments where poverty runs rampant. Why aren't we banning poverty? That's a completely different topic and the welfare system has already been discussed.
Next point, the Second Amendment is the building block upon which all others are based. If you don't have the right to bear arms, how do you protect yourself against a tyrannical government or foreign invasion? How do you protect your rights against someone who is willing to use force to take them away if you don't have the necessary arms to combat that force? We can debate and use diplomacy all we want, but diplomacy doesn't work when your opponent doesn't want to use words, reason, and logic.
Some will say the Second Amendment applies to the militia...well, who made up the militias at the time the Constitution was written? The militia was a group of citizens who would be ready to fight in any emergency. Who were those citizens? All able-bodied males. If you look at the actual text of the Second Amendment, it says this: "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." So, let's take a look at this...what protects the free state? The militia, right? Right. Who makes up the members of the militia? The individuals, the people, and for those people to do their necessary duty, keeping and bearing arms is necessary and shall not be infringed. So, considering the militia was all able-bodied males (and we'll allow for females since we have willing and able-bodied women who choose to serve), and arms are necessary to defend the free State, how can you take away the right to bear and keep arms from the individual?
Let me just say this, when is it ever a good idea to infringe upon the rights of others in an attempt to solve a problem? You can't call it a solution if it's infringing upon my rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are listed among our inalienable rights. When you take away might right to self-defense, now you're subjecting me to being incapable of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government's job is not to give out rights or take them away. The government's job is to make sure no one is infringing upon my inalienable rights. The government is not responsible for taking care of me and making me pay taxes to do this duty when I am completely capable of doing it myself. I don't need the government to ban guns or legislate "reasonable" restrictions on them in an effort to provide security and safety for me. I especially don't need the government's services in that area of my life when they can't get the job done in the first place. Have gun crimes stopped? No. Has illegal gun trafficking stopped? No. So, in an effort to stop something they can't stop already, they're going to continue to whittle away at my rights as the law abiding citizen when I need that right to protect myself from the same people they're trying to stop. It's a paradox and for some reason, some people just don't get it. They think ammo registration and databases and microstamping, and gun bans, and more restrictions are going to stop the gun violence when nothing they've done this far is working. What they need to do is encourage more people to take up arms and provide their on security, protection, and self-defense. Through time, fewer criminals will survive their crimes and the rest who think about committing crimes will have to decide whether or not risking their lives to commit crime is worth it. Right now, it's a decision the law-abiding citizens must make and decide if not carrying a firearm for self-defense is worth it.
For me, the decision is simple. I keep fresh batteries in my smoke detectors and I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. Do I expect to have a house fire every day? No. Do I buy health insurance? Yes. Do I have life insurance? Yes. Do I expect to get hurt, sick, or die every day? No. It's called precaution. It's called preparedness. It's called taking personal responsibility.
Let Freedom Ring.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Mexico invades the US
Why are we not hearing about this on the main stream media? Why are we not hearing our Presidential candidates discuss this? What the hell is going on that we aren't doing something about this?
Does anyone else care about this? If I were a citizen in the area, I would think very hard about engaging these invaders. I feel it is our duty as citizens to defend this country and if the military and boarder patrol isn't going to do anything about it, there are plenty of hunters and sportsmen in this country who are armed well enough to pick off a few drug smugglers and their Mexican military escort.
Does anyone else care about this? If I were a citizen in the area, I would think very hard about engaging these invaders. I feel it is our duty as citizens to defend this country and if the military and boarder patrol isn't going to do anything about it, there are plenty of hunters and sportsmen in this country who are armed well enough to pick off a few drug smugglers and their Mexican military escort.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
More exaggeration from Hillary
Hillary, in her campaign for a position as a senator from New York in 2000, vowed to create upwards of 250,000 jobs....well, it didn't happen. She then conveniently said it was because Al Gore wasn't elected president, but that wasn't part of the campaign in the first place.
She has recently claimed she will, if elected President, create 5,000,000 jobs. Yep, you saw all those zeros. That's only an increase of 2000% more jobs than she vowed to create in New York. If she failed to create 250,000 in New York, where in her mind does she think she can create 5,000,000 nationally in a period time where she wants to penalize prospering business owners for making too much money and businesses are already taking their efforts out of the country? How can you penalize those who create jobs and at the same time say you're going to be able to create 5,000,000?
Baffles my mind, but people do still vote for her. This leads me to what should probably just be a new post: What makes people fall for the jibber jabber Hillary and Barack are selling? (Coming Soon!)
She has recently claimed she will, if elected President, create 5,000,000 jobs. Yep, you saw all those zeros. That's only an increase of 2000% more jobs than she vowed to create in New York. If she failed to create 250,000 in New York, where in her mind does she think she can create 5,000,000 nationally in a period time where she wants to penalize prospering business owners for making too much money and businesses are already taking their efforts out of the country? How can you penalize those who create jobs and at the same time say you're going to be able to create 5,000,000?
Baffles my mind, but people do still vote for her. This leads me to what should probably just be a new post: What makes people fall for the jibber jabber Hillary and Barack are selling? (Coming Soon!)
Just a simple question on socialized healthcare: WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
Where is the money going to come from? Mrs. Clinton has suggested that my income will be adjusted so that a small percentage will be used for premiums. Well, what is that percentage? Is it the same percentage for everyone? What about the grossly obese? What about the chain smokers? Do I have to pay the same premiums as those who have chosen to live higher-risk lifestyles? Is it an flat percentage of my income so that the more money I make, the more costly my insurance will be? I haven't heard any talk other than I will be paying a percentage and no discussion whatsoever on the choices people make about their health and how they live affecting their costs.
What about people who don't work? What about people who aren't on a salary? How will they pay their premiums?
What company is going to underwrite and handle the claims? Is this a violation of the anti-trust laws?
What's going to happen to all the companies who offer healthcare plans if the government is going to take it over? What will happen to those jobs?
Way too many questions have been unanswered on this issue, but I fear that if a Democrat is elected, they'll push for it anyway and "figure it out as they go."
What about people who don't work? What about people who aren't on a salary? How will they pay their premiums?
What company is going to underwrite and handle the claims? Is this a violation of the anti-trust laws?
What's going to happen to all the companies who offer healthcare plans if the government is going to take it over? What will happen to those jobs?
Way too many questions have been unanswered on this issue, but I fear that if a Democrat is elected, they'll push for it anyway and "figure it out as they go."
Aren't elected officials supposed to represent the people?
The last time I checked, when politicians run for office and their elected to a particular office, aren't they supposed to represent the people who voted for them?
I thought that's how it was supposed to work. I'm just trying to figure out where all the push for legislation around the country, and very specifically Pennsylvania, for more gun control and more restrictions is coming from. Outside of the two liberal cities (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), the rest of the state is made up of a lot of hunters, sportsmen, and generally freedom-enthusiasts. Since most people in PA seem to think more gun control and restrictions are not the answer, I want to know, specifically, why there is a constant stream of legislation attempted to be pushed through in favor of it.
The same can be said about government-controlled healthcare. Who wants the government "adjusting my income, automatic enrollment, or wage garnishments" according to Mrs. Clinton, or simply taking away our freedom to choose our levels of coverage?
I also want to start seeing a list of the politicians who are authoring, co-authoring, and supporting these bills because it should be public knowledge as to who is doing what, exactly, in their respective levels of government. These politicians need to be held accountable for their legislation and that information needs to be available to the public for evaluation come election time.
I was under the impression these people were elected to ensure my (the collective group of people who voted this individual in included) views, beliefs, and values were protected, preserved, and pushed through in legislation, not that these elected leaders can then blow in the wind on the issues and pull a popularity contest with the likes of Hollyweird or any other fad group.
Would anyone else be in favor having a documented list of where each candidate stands on each position and if that person was elected and ever voted against those said positions, he/she could be removed from their office? There's simply no accountability to the public these people represent and that has to change.
I thought that's how it was supposed to work. I'm just trying to figure out where all the push for legislation around the country, and very specifically Pennsylvania, for more gun control and more restrictions is coming from. Outside of the two liberal cities (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), the rest of the state is made up of a lot of hunters, sportsmen, and generally freedom-enthusiasts. Since most people in PA seem to think more gun control and restrictions are not the answer, I want to know, specifically, why there is a constant stream of legislation attempted to be pushed through in favor of it.
The same can be said about government-controlled healthcare. Who wants the government "adjusting my income, automatic enrollment, or wage garnishments" according to Mrs. Clinton, or simply taking away our freedom to choose our levels of coverage?
I also want to start seeing a list of the politicians who are authoring, co-authoring, and supporting these bills because it should be public knowledge as to who is doing what, exactly, in their respective levels of government. These politicians need to be held accountable for their legislation and that information needs to be available to the public for evaluation come election time.
I was under the impression these people were elected to ensure my (the collective group of people who voted this individual in included) views, beliefs, and values were protected, preserved, and pushed through in legislation, not that these elected leaders can then blow in the wind on the issues and pull a popularity contest with the likes of Hollyweird or any other fad group.
Would anyone else be in favor having a documented list of where each candidate stands on each position and if that person was elected and ever voted against those said positions, he/she could be removed from their office? There's simply no accountability to the public these people represent and that has to change.
A Challenging Question for Liberals
Generally speaking, do you know anyone who thinks the government makes decisions in our best interests? Personally, I don't believe the government (local, state, or federal) has my best interest in mind when writing and pushing legislation. The government has become more and more of a self-proclaimed babysitter or nanny to the population and it's coming at the cost of our individual freedoms.
So, to the point...ask your liberal friends, or any liberal for that matter, if they trust the government to do what's best for us as the people they represent? If the answer is anything but a strong "Yes! Absolutely!" then you need to ask these people why they have any desire whatsoever to vote for a candidate (either one, Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama) who wishes to have more control over our lives and expand the number of decisions made for you. They both want to increase taxes taking more of your income away from you to spend how they see fit. That eliminates just a little bit more of your freedom to choose where to spend your money. They want to develop a program for socialized national healthcare where they take away your freedom to choose whether or not to have insurance at all, let alone your freedom to choose which company to support and which plan to choose. They want to take away your firearms in the name of ending gun violence, but in reality, they're taking away our ability to hunt and participate in shooting competitions and most importantly, our right to self defense. They want to give amnesty to a large number of individuals who come here to take money out of our economy in favor of sending it back "home" where they came from and at the same time, they want all the social welfare programs, benefits, and perks of being a true, legitimate citizen. These candidates want to basically penalize the system of free enterprise by imposing penalties and harsher taxes on those who are successful financially. They want to rally the workers to gang up against the business owner because the business owner is wealthy and successful. The problem with penalizing the ownership is when you take their profits away, they don't expand their businesses. When they don't expand the business, new jobs aren't created and if you're not growing, usually in the business world, you're dying. When the business is dying, jobs go away resulting in more people on the welfare system becoming dependent upon the government to take care of them.
I've been listening to suggestions that the government should be buying up mortgages to save them from foreclosure to protect the lending institutions. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government to own my house. If they do, they can take it away or send in any inspection team they want and there goes my rights to privacy. If I wanted to live in housing the government owned, I'd be poor and move in with the others who can't/won't make it on their own.
So, if you value the freedom to make your own choices and not being told which insurance you have to have, how much of your allowance you're allowed to bring home to your family, whether or not you may defend your family with a firearm, or pretty much anything else for that matter, why would you even consider voting for a Democratic candidate?
Do you trust your government? Do you want the government to be your nanny?
So, to the point...ask your liberal friends, or any liberal for that matter, if they trust the government to do what's best for us as the people they represent? If the answer is anything but a strong "Yes! Absolutely!" then you need to ask these people why they have any desire whatsoever to vote for a candidate (either one, Mrs. Clinton or B. Hussein Obama) who wishes to have more control over our lives and expand the number of decisions made for you. They both want to increase taxes taking more of your income away from you to spend how they see fit. That eliminates just a little bit more of your freedom to choose where to spend your money. They want to develop a program for socialized national healthcare where they take away your freedom to choose whether or not to have insurance at all, let alone your freedom to choose which company to support and which plan to choose. They want to take away your firearms in the name of ending gun violence, but in reality, they're taking away our ability to hunt and participate in shooting competitions and most importantly, our right to self defense. They want to give amnesty to a large number of individuals who come here to take money out of our economy in favor of sending it back "home" where they came from and at the same time, they want all the social welfare programs, benefits, and perks of being a true, legitimate citizen. These candidates want to basically penalize the system of free enterprise by imposing penalties and harsher taxes on those who are successful financially. They want to rally the workers to gang up against the business owner because the business owner is wealthy and successful. The problem with penalizing the ownership is when you take their profits away, they don't expand their businesses. When they don't expand the business, new jobs aren't created and if you're not growing, usually in the business world, you're dying. When the business is dying, jobs go away resulting in more people on the welfare system becoming dependent upon the government to take care of them.
I've been listening to suggestions that the government should be buying up mortgages to save them from foreclosure to protect the lending institutions. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government to own my house. If they do, they can take it away or send in any inspection team they want and there goes my rights to privacy. If I wanted to live in housing the government owned, I'd be poor and move in with the others who can't/won't make it on their own.
So, if you value the freedom to make your own choices and not being told which insurance you have to have, how much of your allowance you're allowed to bring home to your family, whether or not you may defend your family with a firearm, or pretty much anything else for that matter, why would you even consider voting for a Democratic candidate?
Do you trust your government? Do you want the government to be your nanny?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Do people think these actually work?
I'm not much for making fun of people, but seriously, what makes people think these work and this video is actually a piece of reality?
Fewer guns? How about fewer criminals?
With all this talk about gun control, weapon bans, etc...it just doesn't make any sense to me that lowering the number of guns will reduce crime. Maybe I'm dead wrong here, but the last time I checked, the way to lower crime was to lower the number of criminals on the streets committing those crimes. Doesn't that make logical sense? Gun restrictions and magazine capacity limits in various states across the country have only lead to an increase in crime. The UK has banned guns altogether and yet they still have higher crime rates in all violent crime categories other than rape and murder. Coincidence? I think not. Australia is in the same boat, or should I say sinking ship.
I'm tired of the liberal gun ban happy hippies blaming inanimate objects for crimes. BLAME THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE. Oh, but we can't do that, that's insensitive, that's racists, that's discriminatory. It's not their fault, they live in tough neighborhoods, they don't have fathers, blah blah blah. You want to be an adult? Act like one. Take responsibility.
And speaking of taking responsibility, when are we going to take the responsibility of holding people accountable for their actions?
I'm tired of the liberal gun ban happy hippies blaming inanimate objects for crimes. BLAME THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE. Oh, but we can't do that, that's insensitive, that's racists, that's discriminatory. It's not their fault, they live in tough neighborhoods, they don't have fathers, blah blah blah. You want to be an adult? Act like one. Take responsibility.
And speaking of taking responsibility, when are we going to take the responsibility of holding people accountable for their actions?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Quick Update on Grammys
I just want to clarify that I have no problem with the First Amendment rights of everyone in this country...I have no issues with Hollywood being able to say what they want nor am I trying to suggest they have their voices repressed for being anti-American. My issue is not that they can say what they want about Guantanamo, it's the fact that they do say it. I have an issue that they are choosing sides and that side is not with patriotism, American, etc....it's on the side of the terrorists and Islamic extremists.
My issue with why these people say what they say is they more than likely don't have a clue about what's going on there. I'd love to hear those people in Hollywood actually try to defend their stances with actual points, not a prerecorded speech, not with Hollywood glitz and glam, just intelligent points that make a good argument.
These are the same people that I saw in high school try to change the school mascot to something else from the "Warwick Warriors" because the term "warrior" associated with the image of Native American symbols is offensive. To me, being a warrior is something to be proud of. I'm a warrior willing to fight for my country, die for my country. It means I'm a man, not a bed wetting sissy. It's the same crowd of people who took being political correctness to an extreme. It's the same crowd who, in an effort do diminish discrimination and racism, recreated it against the white man with affirmative action. Instead of hiring the most qualified candidate, the company hires based on skin color to meet a federal regulation. That, in itself, is racism and discrimination.
It's the same group of people who want equal rights for gays and their marriage status. They want equal rights when it comes to relationships, but any time there is a crime committed against a gay person, it's a hate crime. You can't pick and choose when you want equal rights; it's all or nothing. You either get equal rights across the board or you don't. If you want equal rights in your relationships, they there are no hate crimes. Assault is assault whether your straight, bi-, gay, black, white, whatever. Otherwise, if you're an advocate for hate crimes carrying harsher penalties, then don't expect to get equal rights or treatment in your relationships.
That kind of got out of control and wasn't really a quick update, but this stuff just streams out as I'm tired of all the double standards and hypocrisies we see today.
My issue with why these people say what they say is they more than likely don't have a clue about what's going on there. I'd love to hear those people in Hollywood actually try to defend their stances with actual points, not a prerecorded speech, not with Hollywood glitz and glam, just intelligent points that make a good argument.
These are the same people that I saw in high school try to change the school mascot to something else from the "Warwick Warriors" because the term "warrior" associated with the image of Native American symbols is offensive. To me, being a warrior is something to be proud of. I'm a warrior willing to fight for my country, die for my country. It means I'm a man, not a bed wetting sissy. It's the same crowd of people who took being political correctness to an extreme. It's the same crowd who, in an effort do diminish discrimination and racism, recreated it against the white man with affirmative action. Instead of hiring the most qualified candidate, the company hires based on skin color to meet a federal regulation. That, in itself, is racism and discrimination.
It's the same group of people who want equal rights for gays and their marriage status. They want equal rights when it comes to relationships, but any time there is a crime committed against a gay person, it's a hate crime. You can't pick and choose when you want equal rights; it's all or nothing. You either get equal rights across the board or you don't. If you want equal rights in your relationships, they there are no hate crimes. Assault is assault whether your straight, bi-, gay, black, white, whatever. Otherwise, if you're an advocate for hate crimes carrying harsher penalties, then don't expect to get equal rights or treatment in your relationships.
That kind of got out of control and wasn't really a quick update, but this stuff just streams out as I'm tired of all the double standards and hypocrisies we see today.
England Under Attack
"Terror convictions expose training camps in England"
How do you like them apples? Here's the opening paragraph of the article:
"Clad in mud-smeared combat fatigues, the young Muslim men trained in picturesque British farmland, hurling imaginary grenades, wielding sticks as mock rifles and chopping watermelons in simulated beheadings."
We all know why they're using sticks as "mock rifles" as those Brits thought it'd be a good idea for the safety of the citizens to ban firearms...glad it's working out and they're going to be able to defend themselves against these terrorists who are infiltrating their country.
"But a four-year inquiry, which came to a close Tuesday with guilty pleas from the last two of seven gang members, has exposed a network of alleged British terrorism training camps with a serious intent to prepare recruits for mass murder."
Good luck to you all in the UK. A network preparing recruits for mass murder and you have no means of self-defense...
What a cry baby
Did anyone see the debate recently where Hillary actually found it necessary to complain about having to field the first question in the last two debates? What is this race coming to? I say keep it up. The more divided the Democratic party stays and the longer they wait to name a nominee, the better chances we won't become the United Socialist States of America next year.
I'm glad you find it curious, Mrs. Clinton. Answer the question and otherwise, shut your damn mouth.
I'm glad you find it curious, Mrs. Clinton. Answer the question and otherwise, shut your damn mouth.
Hollyweird is completely unpatriotic
I find it completely ironic that a large number of celebs attending the Grammys wore orange ribbons and bracelets to signify their solitude with the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay...ironic because the only thing keeping the terrorists from bringing their terror and destruction here are the same people who are guarding those prisoners who happen to be receiving 5 ethnically and culturally correct meals each and every day. The only reason these nitwits have the right to go on TV and wear those ribbons is because of the military men and women who fought to keep this country free. It certainly wasn't the liberal Left who have been vigilantly fighting for the individual rights of the people. The actions of our military, who these weirdos are protesting and disagree with, are the only reason this country has not seen a terror attack here since 9/11. It's also comical they are responsible for finding and detaining these individuals and interrogating them to find out what they're doing, what they know, and what they're planning in terms of acts of terror and destruction.
At what point do we just turn our backs on these ungrateful and unpatriotic people who do nothing but provide bad role models for our kids? Why is there a large following of people who find it necessary to idolize people who make a living by being someone else? Why are these people idolized when they practically need handlers to keep them from saying absolutely ridiculous stuff? Why is it when these people are left to their own devices, the end up in drugs, alcohol, and all sorts of scandals?
When are people going to realize there is nothing about these people to idolize? Ok, I'll give you their outer beauty which is always touched up with the most professional make up artists and digital editing software...I'll give you that, they're eye candy when done up right, but is there anything else?
At what point do we just turn our backs on these ungrateful and unpatriotic people who do nothing but provide bad role models for our kids? Why is there a large following of people who find it necessary to idolize people who make a living by being someone else? Why are these people idolized when they practically need handlers to keep them from saying absolutely ridiculous stuff? Why is it when these people are left to their own devices, the end up in drugs, alcohol, and all sorts of scandals?
When are people going to realize there is nothing about these people to idolize? Ok, I'll give you their outer beauty which is always touched up with the most professional make up artists and digital editing software...I'll give you that, they're eye candy when done up right, but is there anything else?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Newest piece in the stable
Every American should own one a Model of 1911...just a classic firearm. It's an icon in the handgun world and literally changed the way handguns were designed and it's influence is still seen in today's polymer framed semi autos. If you've never tried one, find someone who will share the experience with you.
I'm not in anyway saying this is the end all be all or the best firearm ever made as that's a Ford/Chevy argument I'm not interested in dealing with. Just saying it's a pleasure to spend time on the range with.
Here's my Dan Wesson Pointman Seven Stainless in .45 ACP. All sorts of match grade parts and what not, it's been flawless since Christmas morning when my lovely wife gave me this special gift. Y'all need to have a chat with your wives.
A good read so far...
If you haven't figured out by now, I'm on the side of the right with most political views. If you're a church-going individual and you think your pastor (or whatever they're being called these days) tip toes around the tulips a little too much, you will more than likely get a kick out of Doug Giles. I'm currently reading his newest book "A Time to Clash" covers the following topics:
"The culture war is heating up and Doug Giles, pastor of ClashChurch of Miami, Florida and Townhall.com columnist has jumped in, gloves off and tongue wagging at the cultural coarsening people and policies he believes are screwing up the church, family and state.
With comedy, substance and an unapologetic Christian worldview Giles weighs in on everything from:
* Islam
* Radical homosexuals
* Illegal immigrants
* Sexless wives
* Goofy husbands
* Your daughter’s boyfriends
* Gun free zones
* Global warming whackos
* Stupid sluts
* Atheists & atheism
* John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary
* Rosie O’Donnell
* How to be a college conservative hell razer
* Why conservatives need to take comedy seriously
* How some pastors are worse than aggressive atheists
* How hunting and hunters trump PETA’s paltry input for animals and conservation"
Just found those topics things you don't hear most preachers talking about to their congregations these days. Quite a bit of humor and tone you won't hear from the likes of Joel Osteen (I have it, but have yet to read his book "Your Best Life Now").
"The culture war is heating up and Doug Giles, pastor of ClashChurch of Miami, Florida and Townhall.com columnist has jumped in, gloves off and tongue wagging at the cultural coarsening people and policies he believes are screwing up the church, family and state.
With comedy, substance and an unapologetic Christian worldview Giles weighs in on everything from:
* Islam
* Radical homosexuals
* Illegal immigrants
* Sexless wives
* Goofy husbands
* Your daughter’s boyfriends
* Gun free zones
* Global warming whackos
* Stupid sluts
* Atheists & atheism
* John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary
* Rosie O’Donnell
* How to be a college conservative hell razer
* Why conservatives need to take comedy seriously
* How some pastors are worse than aggressive atheists
* How hunting and hunters trump PETA’s paltry input for animals and conservation"
Just found those topics things you don't hear most preachers talking about to their congregations these days. Quite a bit of humor and tone you won't hear from the likes of Joel Osteen (I have it, but have yet to read his book "Your Best Life Now").
Gun contorl myths
Just a quick one here as you should spend your time digesting the contents of this piece.
It's unfortunate we actually have to respond and acknowledge their claims, but for some reason, uneducated and easily scared (or money influenced) politicians and Hollyweird celebrities seem to eat this stuff up. As long as there are claims that gun control is the solution, there will be those of us who provide real data showing it doesn't.
This would be easier if you just give up and leave us with the guns alone. Or, since you're against them, you could come try to take them away from us; but I have to remind you, you can't use something you're against to enforce your policy that no one should have them. That means you can't have or use firearms to force us to give ours up. I think that's why they keep trying and failing to get our guns away from us. They don't know how without being hypocrites.
Please, someone who thinks gun control works, please provide me with something backing up your claims.
It's unfortunate we actually have to respond and acknowledge their claims, but for some reason, uneducated and easily scared (or money influenced) politicians and Hollyweird celebrities seem to eat this stuff up. As long as there are claims that gun control is the solution, there will be those of us who provide real data showing it doesn't.
This would be easier if you just give up and leave us with the guns alone. Or, since you're against them, you could come try to take them away from us; but I have to remind you, you can't use something you're against to enforce your policy that no one should have them. That means you can't have or use firearms to force us to give ours up. I think that's why they keep trying and failing to get our guns away from us. They don't know how without being hypocrites.
Please, someone who thinks gun control works, please provide me with something backing up your claims.
Secure the border! The right one!
Why is it that I now need a passport to visit Canada, but non-US citizens are "freely" traversing the southern border of this fine country? Was there at some point in US history where Canadians were coming across the border, working under the table, not paying taxes, and sending their earnings back to C-eh?-N-eh?-D-eh? Or were the Canadians coming across the border to sell their illegal goods (read drugs) and committing violent crimes on a regular basis? Or what about drawing from the social welfare programs and other government handouts available to those who have committed a crime by being here in the first place?
I'm all for people who want to experience the economic and social freedoms that simply don't exist anywhere else in the world; I just want to see them go through the process legally and become a legitimate citizen. Contribute to society. Build. Achieve. Do something constructive. The reason this country is great because of the people who have gone and died before us securing our freedoms and opportunities. It wasn't a walk in the park to make this country what it was. So, if you care to partake in it, enjoy the party, just contribute something along the way. Coming here to sit around and literally suck from the system is at least a little bit worse than showing up to a social event without bringing something to share with others in the form of a food or beverage...it's a social faux pas at your "friends" party and it's a major faux pas to just show up randomly in the US and expect to get all the benefits of a citizen who has lived, worked, and paid taxes here for entire working life contributing to "The System" which now supports you.
Immigrants are some of the most successful people in this country; they have a 9:1 shot at becoming a millionaire compared to a US-born citizen. However, those immigrants successful in legitimate and legal enterprises came here in just that way, legitimately and legally.
Why is it the crime statistics for Canadians and those from Latin America are so disparagingly different?
I'm all for people who want to experience the economic and social freedoms that simply don't exist anywhere else in the world; I just want to see them go through the process legally and become a legitimate citizen. Contribute to society. Build. Achieve. Do something constructive. The reason this country is great because of the people who have gone and died before us securing our freedoms and opportunities. It wasn't a walk in the park to make this country what it was. So, if you care to partake in it, enjoy the party, just contribute something along the way. Coming here to sit around and literally suck from the system is at least a little bit worse than showing up to a social event without bringing something to share with others in the form of a food or beverage...it's a social faux pas at your "friends" party and it's a major faux pas to just show up randomly in the US and expect to get all the benefits of a citizen who has lived, worked, and paid taxes here for entire working life contributing to "The System" which now supports you.
Immigrants are some of the most successful people in this country; they have a 9:1 shot at becoming a millionaire compared to a US-born citizen. However, those immigrants successful in legitimate and legal enterprises came here in just that way, legitimately and legally.
Why is it the crime statistics for Canadians and those from Latin America are so disparagingly different?
Can I get a real answer?
Since when is anyone "allowed" to make an argument that influences my personal and individual freedoms in a negative way, as in completely take one or more away, without providing facts and proof showing my individual and personal freedom is responsible for the deaths or injuries of others?
Specifically, I'm referring to the number of people known as "antis" in the pro-gun community who find it socially and academically acceptable and responsible to make their arguments without providing any data whatsoever to prove their claims. Not only that, we see a relentless movement by a group of people who simply refuse to read or flat out ignore the facts showing gun control does not stop/reduce/lower crime. In fact, the stats show that where gun control and restrictions on the citizens' right to bear arms exists, crime is actually higher and rising than communities, cities, states, etc. that allow that thing also known as the Second Amendment to be accessed by the citizens.
See before and after stats of crime rates in regards to when gun control went into effect in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York City, and Chicago. No, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Am I a hypocrite for not providing the stats? Maybe, but that's subjective. Frankly, I'm just tired of doing all the work to show the numbers and having them fall on deaf ears as the antis continue to scream and yell and make a fuss about gun control after years of having their claims challenged.
Considering the Second Amendment discusses the right to bear arms, it would be RATIONAL to think the group challenging my right that already exists, is in place, and is currently in practice as I write this would be held responsible for providing relevant and convincing data as to why The Right to Bear Arms is unequivocally dangerous and a threat to the foundation of this society...
That'd be what everyone would think. That's what happens in the world of science where repeatable tests yielding repeatable results are required to prove and/or disprove theories and the like. That's what happens in the court of law, or at least what is supposed to happen...remember "innocent until proven guilty?" The responsibility of proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt to get a conviction lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. Wouldn't the same logic apply when the antis challenge my right to bear arms? Don't they have to provide statistically data from real life showing their claims are true and not just a temper tantrum?
If I'm mistaken, confused, or missing something other than the effect interest groups, money, and lobbyists have on government officials, please, let me know.
Oh yeah, that video...if you like guns, watch it. If you don't like guns, watch it. See here.
Specifically, I'm referring to the number of people known as "antis" in the pro-gun community who find it socially and academically acceptable and responsible to make their arguments without providing any data whatsoever to prove their claims. Not only that, we see a relentless movement by a group of people who simply refuse to read or flat out ignore the facts showing gun control does not stop/reduce/lower crime. In fact, the stats show that where gun control and restrictions on the citizens' right to bear arms exists, crime is actually higher and rising than communities, cities, states, etc. that allow that thing also known as the Second Amendment to be accessed by the citizens.
See before and after stats of crime rates in regards to when gun control went into effect in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York City, and Chicago. No, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Am I a hypocrite for not providing the stats? Maybe, but that's subjective. Frankly, I'm just tired of doing all the work to show the numbers and having them fall on deaf ears as the antis continue to scream and yell and make a fuss about gun control after years of having their claims challenged.
Considering the Second Amendment discusses the right to bear arms, it would be RATIONAL to think the group challenging my right that already exists, is in place, and is currently in practice as I write this would be held responsible for providing relevant and convincing data as to why The Right to Bear Arms is unequivocally dangerous and a threat to the foundation of this society...
That'd be what everyone would think. That's what happens in the world of science where repeatable tests yielding repeatable results are required to prove and/or disprove theories and the like. That's what happens in the court of law, or at least what is supposed to happen...remember "innocent until proven guilty?" The responsibility of proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt to get a conviction lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. Wouldn't the same logic apply when the antis challenge my right to bear arms? Don't they have to provide statistically data from real life showing their claims are true and not just a temper tantrum?
If I'm mistaken, confused, or missing something other than the effect interest groups, money, and lobbyists have on government officials, please, let me know.
Oh yeah, that video...if you like guns, watch it. If you don't like guns, watch it. See here.
Just a simple start...
Thought I'd start off with a brief introduction with a clear definition of my intentions. Personally, I'm not happy about a number of issues in our society today ranging from the quality of the candidates in both parties to the apathy of the average American (and citizen of the world, for that matter) who refuses to stand up for what is right and just. I intend to discuss those issues and generally complain about them. I retain the right to suggest or not suggest a realistic solution.
I don't intend for this to consume my life, but most of us have good intentions, right? We'll see what happens...
I intend to discuss issues at hand that challenge the American way of life. Yes, the content here is targeted and while I'm open to hearing the opinions of those who don't live here and aren't subject to the exact and specific conditions of these United States of America, I will more than likely only refer to the conditions and situations present in other countries to point out the appropriate positive/negative issues that affect or can be compared to what's happening here in my country of origin.
So, with that, in the words of House of Pain,
"Pack it up, pack it in, let me begin, I came to win, battle me, that's a sin."
I don't intend for this to consume my life, but most of us have good intentions, right? We'll see what happens...
I intend to discuss issues at hand that challenge the American way of life. Yes, the content here is targeted and while I'm open to hearing the opinions of those who don't live here and aren't subject to the exact and specific conditions of these United States of America, I will more than likely only refer to the conditions and situations present in other countries to point out the appropriate positive/negative issues that affect or can be compared to what's happening here in my country of origin.
So, with that, in the words of House of Pain,
"Pack it up, pack it in, let me begin, I came to win, battle me, that's a sin."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
