Sunday, August 26, 2007
Republicans and Democrats
Republicans and democrats, the people who vote not the leadership, are for the most part indistinguishable one from the other. The majority of both groups who vote are working Americans who obey the law, pay their taxes, worship or at least acknowledge a faith. We want a responsive, not an intrusive government. And we see government as our servant, not our master. The biggest difference I've seen is the blind party loyalty of the Democratic voters. These people will vote for someone they despise to vote democrat or die. Only once have I seen a break from the party line. In 1980 when the Reagan Democrats refused to re-elect that walking disaster, Jimmy Carter (time has not improved him, he's even more incompetent and un-American than ever). Voters who generally vote Republican tend to be more punitive when their elected officials do not follow through with the path the voters felt they set them out on. They won't necessarily vote Democrat, but usually independent or not at all.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
NAFTA
Enough has not been said about NAFTA or its sequel FTAA. To hear Pres. Bush espouse the "benefits" of NAFTA turns my stomach. The only thing that NAFTA has done is to hurt U.S manufacturing. It allowed international corporations to close American factories and relocate them in Mexico. Thus leaving much unemployment and weakening our industrial base. The only ones to benefit were/are the corporate owners who increased their profit margins by escaping U.S. regulations and the fair salaries and benefits of their U.S. employees. The Mexicans in these factories still live in poverty, not much if any better off than they were before. So when Pres. Bush touts the "benefits" of NAFTA try not to regurgitate what you have eaten. You could be arrested as a biological terrorist.
The Next Wave
Since Pres. Bush did not get his amnesty/guest worker bill passed, you do realize that the next wave of human misery to cross our southern border will not be "illegal immigrants", don't you? They will be "hurricane evacuees" receiving the full support of our government.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
Where We're Headed
This was sent to me by a friend who thought I should share it. "Read it and weap."
Where We're Headed
Robert A. Waters
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once-great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already desensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semiautomatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
Where We're Headed
Robert A. Waters
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.
With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.
As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.
Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.
When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.
As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.
The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.
The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.
It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once-great British Empire?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already desensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semiautomatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.
How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Mob Rules
"When you listen to fools, the mob rules!" Who would have thought that Black Sabbath would make political sense? This government originated as a constitutional republic with strict guidelines as to voter eligibility. At this time we need to restore some common sense to the voting process. Just about anyone breathing, and in some districts people who are not, can vote. And each vote is equal whether it is cast by a carpenter, an accountant, a delivery driver, or a career welfare recipient. That sounds better than welfare bum, doesn't it?
My point is, people who will not manage their own lives enough to get out of the welfare system are voting on who leads our country. There is something wrong here. There are even states where convicted felons can vote. That's who I want to vote on who the next judge will be, or who will sit on the school board, or who will have their finger on the nuclear button. If an ex con has turned their life around and become a contributing member of society, there should be a court day set up once a month for these people to bring evidence of their current positive position in society. A legal tribunal of a judge, a prosecutor, and a defender should examine the evidence, interview the person and any witnesses, and then decide on the ex con's voting status. There should be achievable guidelines for both the supplicant and the tribunal. Remember though, the responsibility of proof this time is on the ex con.
Basically, the only people who should vote are citizens who are gainfully employed or retired from working their entire lives. This includes stay home moms or dads, who are not on the welfare "payroll".
My point is, people who will not manage their own lives enough to get out of the welfare system are voting on who leads our country. There is something wrong here. There are even states where convicted felons can vote. That's who I want to vote on who the next judge will be, or who will sit on the school board, or who will have their finger on the nuclear button. If an ex con has turned their life around and become a contributing member of society, there should be a court day set up once a month for these people to bring evidence of their current positive position in society. A legal tribunal of a judge, a prosecutor, and a defender should examine the evidence, interview the person and any witnesses, and then decide on the ex con's voting status. There should be achievable guidelines for both the supplicant and the tribunal. Remember though, the responsibility of proof this time is on the ex con.
Basically, the only people who should vote are citizens who are gainfully employed or retired from working their entire lives. This includes stay home moms or dads, who are not on the welfare "payroll".
Friday, August 10, 2007
What?
Are you telling me that the people who, in the 18th century, broke away from the most powerful empire on earth at the time, and the people who moved a country from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean in the 19th century, and the country that built the Panama Canal in the early days of the 20th century,and repeatedly flew to the moon in the latter days 20th century is incapable of building a wall to protect its border in the 21st century?
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Ourselves Alone
We Americans cannot rely on anyone but "ourselves alone" to secure our liberties and our future. The governments of the world (including ours) hate the degree of freedom we have and wish to do away with these freedoms and control us. We must stand, "ourselves alone", with, on, and in support of our GOD given liberties recognized and enumerated by our founding fathers and scorned by the politicians of today.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Koran in PU Toilet
Now let me get this right, burning the flag of the U.S. is free speech, a crucifix in a jar of urine is art, and feces smeared on a painting of the Virgin Mary is free expression? Speaking out against homosexuality is a hate crime? Placing a Koran in a toilet is a hate crime? Something is horribly wrong here. The 1st Amendment recognizes your right to worship whatever god you choose, be it Odin or Allah, Zeus or Jesus, that is up to you. It also recognizes my right to criticize said religion and your right to criticize mine. Another typical example of the left wing double standard. If placing a Koran in a toilet is a 'hate crime' against Muslims, then placing a crucifix in a jar of urine is a 'hate crime' against Christians and Jews, as Jesus was born Jewish. Also, smearing feces on a painting of the Virgin Mary is a 'hate crime' against Catholics who believe, against women and Jews, as Mary was a Jewish woman. That's only fair.
Now jump to the 'fairness doctrine'. In the field of talk radio, the left, which has not been able to have a successful talk show, want to impose 'the fairness doctrine' to force broadcasters to air, at their expense, opposing views with the same amount of time as the successful (conservative to moderate)talk shows.
In this sense, placing a Koran in a toilet is not a hate crime, but free speech or a work of art. It is a man 'in touch with his feelings' and 'expressing his inner emotions". This is not a 'hate crime' it is the bloom of the flower of tolerant, open thought. It is 'fair'.
Now that we have been through that 'left wing, pinko, fag' version of looking at it, let's be more pragmatic. The Koran is the textbook of the people who are trying to murder us all. These lowlife throwbacks do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight. The Germans fought hard and well against all military forces, the Japanese did not attack U.S. civilian centers, they attacked the U.S. Military. These civilian murderers are that. Murderers. They were murderers when they were planting bombs in Paris in the early 1960's; murderers when they slaughtered Israel Olympic athletes; murderers when they threw a man in a wheelchair overboard from a cruise ship; a murderer who shot Bobby Kennedy; murderers who flew planes into the twin towers. The Koran is their textbook. Just as in Mein Kampf Hitler told the world what his intentions were, in the Koran believers are told to convert or kill infidels. The Koran then should be banned for the 'hate crime' of inciting murder. If you follow the 'hate crime' train of thought. I don't buy into it, nor does the vast majority of Americans. The Koran should not be banned, nor should it be a 'hate crime' to deface it. It is in bad taste and disrespectful to deface any religious icon. I do have a serious problem with burning the U.S. flag, unless the person burning it is wrapped up in it.
(As a side note, it is very interesting that the atheists who take great pleasure in attacking all things Christian, have said not word one against anything Islam. Also, that the homosexuals have not protested Islamic teachings against homosexuality, but they readily attack Christians preaching against homosexuality. Christians just preach that it is wrong, Islam says that homosexuals are to be put to death.)
Now jump to the 'fairness doctrine'. In the field of talk radio, the left, which has not been able to have a successful talk show, want to impose 'the fairness doctrine' to force broadcasters to air, at their expense, opposing views with the same amount of time as the successful (conservative to moderate)talk shows.
In this sense, placing a Koran in a toilet is not a hate crime, but free speech or a work of art. It is a man 'in touch with his feelings' and 'expressing his inner emotions". This is not a 'hate crime' it is the bloom of the flower of tolerant, open thought. It is 'fair'.
Now that we have been through that 'left wing, pinko, fag' version of looking at it, let's be more pragmatic. The Koran is the textbook of the people who are trying to murder us all. These lowlife throwbacks do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight. The Germans fought hard and well against all military forces, the Japanese did not attack U.S. civilian centers, they attacked the U.S. Military. These civilian murderers are that. Murderers. They were murderers when they were planting bombs in Paris in the early 1960's; murderers when they slaughtered Israel Olympic athletes; murderers when they threw a man in a wheelchair overboard from a cruise ship; a murderer who shot Bobby Kennedy; murderers who flew planes into the twin towers. The Koran is their textbook. Just as in Mein Kampf Hitler told the world what his intentions were, in the Koran believers are told to convert or kill infidels. The Koran then should be banned for the 'hate crime' of inciting murder. If you follow the 'hate crime' train of thought. I don't buy into it, nor does the vast majority of Americans. The Koran should not be banned, nor should it be a 'hate crime' to deface it. It is in bad taste and disrespectful to deface any religious icon. I do have a serious problem with burning the U.S. flag, unless the person burning it is wrapped up in it.
(As a side note, it is very interesting that the atheists who take great pleasure in attacking all things Christian, have said not word one against anything Islam. Also, that the homosexuals have not protested Islamic teachings against homosexuality, but they readily attack Christians preaching against homosexuality. Christians just preach that it is wrong, Islam says that homosexuals are to be put to death.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
