Monday, March 17, 2008

Will you Liberals please make up your mind.

As the Supreme Court readies itself to hear oral arguments in the Heller Case, the liberals are going through an amazing number of convoluted reasons that the court shouldn't find that the right to keep and bear arms isn't a personal right like the other seven individual rights in the bill of rights. All the other rights the liberals have argued for years, are good no matter where you go in this country, but the second amendment, well that one isn't an individual right. Even if you feel it's an individual right, it doesn't apply to the states or cities, only the Federal Government.

OK, as I understand the argument now, the first, third, forth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments apply to the individual always, no matter where they are. This means that the Miranda warning must be given to the suspect by even the community constable, because that individual has the rights mentioned above always. So freedom of religion means that I can file a lawsuit if the city council says "Merry Christmas" which the ACLU has held is the establishment of a state sponsored religion in violation of the first Amendment. Even though the city council is not a Federal anything, it still violates my first amendment right, is that correct?

This is a great day my friends. What this means is that that the prohibition against self incrimination, is now null and void so long as you aren't questioned by Federal Officers, or tried in a Federal Court. So we can beat a confession out of you, and that's just fine and dandy. Illegal search and seizure? Not unless that evidence gathered is going to be used by the Federal Government. Cruel and Unusual punishment? Sorry Charlie, the State Prison isn't a Federal Prison, and you aren't there for a Federal Crime, we can do whatever we want, the Rights in the Bill of Rights only apply to the Federal Government. Isn't that great news?

It also means that the States can establish prohibitions on religion, for example, Utah can ban any non LDS thinking person. It also means that Georgia can ban any Religion it doesn't like. So long as the Federal Government isn't involved, it's perfectly legal according to the Liberal argument against the Second Amendment.

Friends, this is so patently stupid that you wonder if the Liberals actually read anything before they sign it. Whatever fool wrote that had to be off his rocker. The Brady Center claims that the important phrase is the well regulated militia. Really? Well how many times have you been called up to serve the Militia? At the time of the fight for independence, every able bodied man over the age of 16 was a member of the militia, and could be called up at a moments notice. This is the genesis of the phrase Minute Men if you were wondering. A rider would come up to the farm house, tell the man the dangers that were posed to the community, and the man would be out the door in a minute with rifle, pistol, and ammunition headed towards the fight.

If anyone had claimed in the Miranda case that the rights against self incrimination, such as they were, only applied to the Federal Government, they would have been laughed out of the Court House and still be the butt of jokes today. If a City Police officer argued that the defendant didn't possess a right against illegal search and seizure because the officer wasn't a Federal Agent, he would be fired for incompetence before the day was out. Why do the Liberals act like an individual right as painfully obvious as the Second Amendment isn't what it seems?

Simple, the Liberals are Socialists, which means they want total state control, and an independent and self reliant community isn't the goal of a Socialist.

The Brady Center also pretends that only by banning all firearms can we be safe. That's the point, Washington DC, the ban in question, hasn't reduced violence at all. In fact, it's turned the population into victims waiting to be plucked. The Brady Center also claims that if we allow guns on school grounds, that we'll increase the numbers of deaths. I dunno, that ban doesn't seem to be working all that well. The bad guy intent on violence seems perfectly willing to violate the ban.

What is a firearm? It's an equalizer. No matter how long I study hand to hand combat, no matter how long I practice martial arts, no matter how deadly I become with my bare hands, if you are armed, and prepared to use that arm, I am no threat to you. You don't need to practice for hours every day to be sufficiently skilled with your firearm. You don't need to carry a hundred rounds of ammunition, or practice your quick draw, you just need to know how to use it, practice now and then, and be prepared to use it. I could be six foot five, weight 250 lbs, and not have an ounce of fat on me. I could look like Rambo, and you'll still have a chance of stopping me with a firearm. It makes a fair fight, and that's not what the Liberals want.

How do you prevent or minimize violence? Simple, you arm the population. Switzerland has a Militia, and it's every adult male. Every man has a gun issued to him, and it's in his closet. They have had limited gun violence, and why is that? Who besides the lunatics out there, and there are a few, are going to rush out and get shot down by a dozen or more people with guns? The areas with the highest rates of gun violence are in America, and are not in areas where guns are authorized, they are where the guns are banned. This should tell you something.

Liberals, I appreciate your attempts at logic, but let's face it. You should look at the answer before you submit it.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Elliot Spitzer and the cloud of Prostitution

Friends, the reason, the obviously simple reason that I haven't commented beyond my last post on the Client number nine nonsense is I don't care.

Look, let's be honest. If a woman's body is hers to have an abortion, it's hers to rent out in my opinion. I personally believe that we should have legalized houses and services where we can regulate the sex industry. "Kristen" wouldn't have committed a crime, and neither would Spitzer in that situation. Wait isn't that a violation of the Conservative Social Values?

No it's not. Here's why. Churches are for people who wish to use them. There is no law which says you have to attend, and I would protest any attempts to create such a law. The houses of ill repute, or whore houses, would be the same, a place for those who wish to use them. I would be wrong in my efforts to force my personal values upon you, just as you would be wrong in forcing your values upon me. If a grown woman, legally an adult, or grown man, wished to offer their services and the company that entails, then fine with me.

If the argument for Abortion is that if we ban it then women would be forced, forced mind you, to seek dangerous back alley and illegal abortions, then why don't we apply that argument to prostitution? It's the same subject, women and their bodies, and their rights. I for one support "Kristen" in her choice of employments, and her apparent skill. Seriously, if you're going to be a prostitute, it's obviously better to be a $4,300 an hour call girl than it is to be a $20 a pop street walker, which is why I would support the legalization of, and standardization of, such service. By standardization I mean the regulation of the health issues which plague our society.

If you don't legalize Prostitution, people will be forced, FORCED mind you, to seek dangerous and illegal alternatives. That's slightly tongue in cheek, but also realistically honest. It's your life, live it how you will. If you wish to live it in that lifestyle, then try and be careful, and most of all try and rise to the top of the earning chain.

Ashley, which is "Kristen's" real name. I don't blame you, and I hope you are as successful at your next endeavors. I don't think any less of Ashley for her lifestyle choice, and I'm sure we agree it was a choice, than I do homosexuals, or any other lifestyle choice. Conservative means that I respect your choices, and you respect mine. It's a shame that most Liberals don't respect lifestyle choices, instead forcing foods upon us that tastes horrible, but is good for us.

Elliot, I'll skip the hypocrisies again. You are after all a Democrat, and I expect that.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Time for a little truth about racisim.

This week, while I've been working, the question of race has been peculating around the internet and the news shows. Specifically, is it wrong to have a double standard in dealing with apparently racist comments from a Black Minister. My answer, yes.

First, I have never been a slave owner. I being born in the very late 1960's, was more than 100 years too late to own a slave. Wait, my family during the time of slavery, lived in Europe. So they owned no slaves. My ancestors were immigrants during the time of Ellis Island, and they profited not at all from the slave trade. Racism is abhorrant to by upbringing. I've previously posted about my feelings on "hyphenated Americans" and I won't revisit that topic at this time. What I'm going to say is this, racism as defined as someone being for or against you based upon race is not my idea of a conservative idea. It is however part of the Democratic Mantra, and now we see the problems that have long existed, much to the dismay of the Blacks who have long supported the Democratic Party.

Worse, we're seeing excuses for that racism. Ladies and Gentlemen, if I were to say that all of the Black People were out to rob, rape, and murder you. You would rightly call me a racist. I obviously don't believe that. If I were to say that all white people felt they were better than all black people, I would also be generalizing and racist in that comment.

I don't like Blacks, nor do I like Whites, Hispanics, Asians, or any other group. If I did, I would be racist, because liking someone because of their skin color is racist. I like those whom I like, some are white, some are black, some are brown. It doesn't freaking matter is my point.

Have I ever used the ever so naughty N word? Yes, when I'm singing along to a rap album, and there are several I like.

Now, to continue this discussion, we're going to be describing the three classes of each people. For example, there are White People, folks who are worldly and well enough educated and have some friends who are of another color. Rednecks, less worldly, but not really racist. They wouldn't lift a finger to harm someone because of their race. Ignorant (meaning they just don't know) much about other people, but hope that their children get better educated and more knowledge. White Trash. Racists, ignorant, and proud of being ignorant. Demanding that their children, and all the people around them be equally ignorant. Unable to understand or bow to logic or common sense, mis quotes scripture or holy text from time to time.

Use whatever terms you wish to describe the three groups, and you'll still be accurate. The bottom of the pile is the worst. They're racist to the core. They are black as well as white, brown, or yellow. Each racial group has people like that, and they only respond to one thing, violence. You can't reason with them, you can't educate them, and you can't explain their hatred away with childhood issues or other nonsense. They are bad to the core, and there is little hope of any salvation of the individual.

I've long wondered if we would better serve the children of such individuals by removing them from the households of such hatred, however it's a little too Orwellian for me, so I haven't yet jumped on that bandwagon. However, I think we'll agree that children who are educated by Pastor Wright have had racist and hate filled rhetoric thrust at them for a very long time, and teaching them the truth is going to be very difficult.

Pastor, the secret to getting along in America, to success in America is actually very easy. It's not the hate filled society you paint. It's get along, and go along.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Why I'm not calling for Spitzer's resignation

My friends, I'm probably the only person who isn't calling for Governor Spitzer's resignation these days. I'm probably going to be denounced, but who cares.

First, here's why I'm not joining the chorus of both Republicans and Democrats who are demanding either his resignation or impeachment. I'm not upset about the apparent hypocracy of a former Prosecutor who made his reputation busting a prostitution ring in court. Hypocracy is pretty much the defining characteristic of the Democratic party. I don't want to run him out of office in shame, I would rather have him as the poster child of the Democratic Party.

Now, it was only ten years ago we learned that sex is a personal, unimpeachable, simply reprehensible act. Paying for that sex shouldn't make the personal and unimpeachable offense any worse. In fact, I don't see any reason why we should follow up on this matter any more. If he's in fact guilty of purchasing consensual sexual favors, the perhaps a small fine and a promise to the court never to do so again is probably sufficient, it's still about sex, and that isn't a crime right?

No, don't impeach Spitzer, leave him be. Let's get back to the important business of running the nation now shall we?

Hit Counter