"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, When the government fears the people there is liberty"
Sunday, April 29, 2007
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, When the government fears the people there is liberty"
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Great piece from myspace.
At some point in our history, truth became a taboo. Regardless of the issue, and of how important it may be, some truths are unfit to be revealed. So they say.
The mass media wants us to behave and obey the cult of political correctness, because it would be wrong and immoral to oppose it. Even if your belief or reasoning is composed solely of facts, if it is incompatible with our current politically correct construct, it shall be blacked out and buried. The people can't know the truth. Truth is dangerous. Truth has the power to destroy. As it should. Some truths are dangerous. But truth only poses a threat to lies. Only what is shrouded in deceit and secrecy can crumble under the weight of truth. That which is just and real welcomes truth as a companion for liberty.
Truth is a prerequisite to freedom. Where there is only lies and corruption, there can be no freedom.
They don't want us to know the truth because they don't want us to be free, and they don't want their positions of power to be lost. The list of elites that wish to suppress our god-given rights is too long to detail. Some of these people are in government, some in business and banking, others are average people like you and me, only ignorant. Ignorant to what is real and what is necessary to secure a nation of liberty and justice.
Our Constitution has been ravaged and raped by insidious forces within our own society. The fear that we may lose all we hold dear is real. Don't ever let them make you fear what is true, just for the sake of political correctness. Never relent on your values and what you hold to be right. As long as you value what our great forefathers fought and died to create, you will be rewarded with honor.
Our enemies are preparing to chop down our liberty tree. They are sharpening their axes as we speak. Now, more than ever, we must take arms to defend liberty, whether it be the weapon of our numbers or of our rifles and pistols.
I shall leave you with the words of the great Patrick Henry:
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?...I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Friday, April 27, 2007
This is great! I'm thinking of actually mailing it in myself!
Dear Elected Official,
As a native Coloradoan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent, (and hopefully an illegal one)
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The proposed federal hate crimes bill, H. R. 1592, that is being brought up in congress is nothing more that a disguised way to prosecute those who speak with a moral clarity against homosexuality and other objective evils of the day. This bill if passed will basically criminalize thoughts, emotions, and even speech. Goodbye first amendment.
Think it's not that bad? Check out these stories of 70-year-old grandmothers arrested in Pennsylvania for breaking state hate-crimes law by speaking out against homosexuality.
Want to help oppose this legislation? Contact your representative here.
Read more on the topic here and here.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Mexico has now joined the ranks of nations declaring that life is no longer protected by the state. With the passing of a bill legalizing abortion in the country, the traditionally Roman Catholic nation has entered the arena of murdering their unborn. Read the entire story here.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Fred Thompson is all the rage within the Republican presidential hopeful debate. I am still researching his background and history so I won't comment yet on his credentials or feasibility for the position. I do like the following article he recently wrote about federalism and the government's place in our lives.
My friend, Ramesh Ponnuru, over at National Review and I had a little disagreement over the issue of Federalism (you can read the original article here). It might seem a little like "Inside Baseball" but, actually, it deals with something that is of importance to everyone who is concerned about the expanding power of government. Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process.
Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing.
Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone's pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the "Washington solution" crowd. I fought this for eight years in the Senate. I remember one vote (I believe it was 99 to one) when mine was the only vote cast for Federalism. The bill would have created a federal good Samaritan law.
Now I can assure you that I have nothing against good Samaritans. If a person stops to help someone in distress on the highway and something bad happens, generally, the good Samaritan should not be sued by some overly ambitious trial lawyer. But states are, and have been for years, perfectly capable of handling this burning issue -- as well as all of the sub-issues that are raised, such as who should be protected as a good Samaritan. What if he was intoxicated and made a slight misstep while applying medical relief? What if he was not impaired, but made a gross error and turns a minor problem into a significant one? You get the idea. This is traditionally state law stuff. Is this really something the federal government should involve itself in?
I thought not, but even some of my conservative colleagues (as well as writers) get caught up in the desire to federalize an issue if they could help a "good guy" or stick it to a "bad guy." This may be a desirable goal in the abstract but I don't think our Founding Fathers had this in mind. Adhering to basic principles that have served our country well is much too important. That's why I suggested to Mr. Ponnuru that if conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country -- as well as to the cause of conservatism.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Here's an oldie but a goodie, courtesy of the Ludwig von Mises Institute
Who Killed Free Trade?
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Should free enterprise stop at the border? Of course not, and the attempt to make it so can drive us to ruin. Yet politicians are hammering free trade. Long-refuted myths are back in full force, and the voters are getting a miseducation in the economics of autarky.
The politicians criticizing free trade are merely acting and reacting to forces set in motion at the beginning of the Clinton presidency, and that stretch back to the mid-1980s and further. So rather than repeat long-established truths from classical economics and the Austrian School, let's look deeper.
The entire establishment has been attacking the ideal of free trade for years, claiming that foreign products and multinationals harm us, that we need industrial planning to ward it off, that we should browbeat foreign consumers for not choosing American products, that we need a New World Order to manage trade.
The whole point of free trade is that the private sector (producers and consumers) should have peaceful and voluntary commercial relations with the world, and the U.S. government should have nothing to say about it. Yet the Clinton administration disagrees, and it has practiced a trade policy that mirrors its statist domestic agenda.
Trade Rep. Mickey Kantor demanded that Japan open its camera shops to Kodak (even though its consumers like Fuji more). He demanded that China adopt and enforce U.S.-style copyright laws to benefit Hollywood. And he demanded that Japanese consumers put a Chrysler in every driveway.
Corporate privileges have also contributed to the backlash against free trade. Multinationals claim to favor free trade, but then demand subsidies and loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, the IMF, and the World Bank.
Few programs inspire as much public hatred as foreign aid. But who benefits the most from it? Not poor people abroad. Foreign and domestic politicians do, but most of the money goes to multinationals connected with the U.S. government.
Forgive me for not taking seriously the corporation that bills itself as "supermarket to the world" and warns of the dangers of protectionism, while benefitting from foreign aid and investment guarantees, not to speak of agricultural subsidies.
These aid recipients people are likely to cite Adam Smith and David Ricardo, and call any attempt to repeal such privileges and interventions "isolationist." They take a classical ideal and convert it into an instrument of graft and government privilege.
In normal times, people don't pay much attention to corporate salaries. But the middle class has been getting steadily poorer. Families can't afford to live on one income, and two and three incomes aren't enough to make families and communities economically secure. The reason? Taxes, inflation, and the wealth-destroying welfare-warfare state.
But politicians are anxious to fix blame on someone besides themselves. And it's always easier to grant government power than to take it away. And people are misled into turning to trade measures to stop the fall in living standards. There's a logical link between income-killing domestic interventions and protectionism, as John T. Flynn pointed out: "The first condition of a planned economy is that it shall be a closed economy."
The protectionist lobby has long pointed to corporate privileges and falling wages to make their case. Assisting them have been paleosocialists like John Judis, liberals like James Fallows, neoliberals like Michael Lind, and neoconservatives like Edward Luttwak.
These men were among the first to call for the anti-trade industrial policy now hip among Republicans. The theory was that any country with lower wages than ours is a threat to our "economic security." Never mind that this would mean Oregon shouldn't trade with Mississippi.
Ill-trained journalists also threaten free markets, as they have since the Progressive Era. They don't know profits from losses, subsidies from tax breaks, or causes from effects. Journalism schools teach that a good reporter should expose corporate greed, but never notice the colossal racket called government. So much for "investigative reporting."
Free trade has an even more conspicuous killer in the Nafta and Gatt treaties. Though advertised as free trade, Nafta set up supranational boards, expanded bad laws to the entire region, gave billions in direct subsidies to Mexico, benefited government-connected big businesses and hurt small and medium-size firms, and linked the dollar to the peso via a "stabilization" fund, thus foreordaining the bailout of Mexico.
The Gatt treaty created a Keynes-inspired, Geneva-based World Trade Organization. Here was a trade deal that was openly touted, along with the IMF and the World Bank, as the third pillar of the New World Order. It had a Secretariat, a General Council, a Ministerial Conference, dozens of committees and councils, and dispute settlement bodies. Signers had to vow to pursue Keynesian fiscal and ILO-style labor policies.
Every statist from Wilson to Carter had tried to create a world trade tribunal, but none had succeeded. We were better off for it. In the post-war era trade was becoming freer, tariffs lower, and the international economy less and less regulated by governments. Protectionism and tariffs were a problem, but increasingly less so.
But the entire establishment united in favor of Nafta and Gatt, as it does for most increases in government power. Even worse, the establishment used the Big Lie technique and stole the moral and economic credibility of "free trade" to do it. Leading the parade was the Nafta Network and the Gang of Gatt: think tanks, newspapers, magazines, academics, and even Rush Limbaugh.
Working alone, principled libertarians exposed these depredations, including the Mexican bailout, in an effort to save the ideal of free trade from corruption. But against the will of the American people, both treaties were slipped through Congress and signed by Bill Clinton.
Both treaties have been a disaster, and every one of the rosy economic forecasts has proven wrong. Experienced businessmen tell stories of mountains of paperwork and having to attend classes to plow through new regulations. There are new fines, fees, waiting lists, quotas, and every other kind of roadblock. These treaties didn't make trade freer--and even if they had, it would have been the wrong means to a worthy end--but only increased government oppression of enterprise.
The backlash has arrived at last. Thanks to those who gave managed trade a free-trade cover, the target of public hatred has been the classical ideal of a global free market. Politicians in both parties are seeking to reimpose a system of trade restriction, against the rights of consumers and producers.
All this is dangerous for our liberty and prosperity. Trade restrictions, Ludwig von Mises argued in "Autarky and its Consequences" (1943), are the fulfillment of domestic economic intervention. When governments destroy prosperity, there are always politicians--FDR comes to mind--willing to take the fast track to economic stimulus, the long term be damned.
But as Stuart Chase, the New Dealer who coined the term, said, "National planning and economic nationalism must go together." He favored both, just as believers in free enterprise must reject both. The free market at home and abroad is not an option, but an indispensable basis for prosperity and peace, and the uncompromised policy of any truly civilized nation.
Friday, April 20, 2007
I happen to consider myself something of a beer connoisseur/snob, so I'm always on the lookout for something that I've never tried before, which usually entails only microbrews. I have recently been turned on to an amazing new rye pale ale called Terrapin Ale. Terrapin Beer Company was founded by two brewers from Georgia who first met in 1997 while working together in Atlanta. Spike and John started Terrapin Beer Company to satisfy their passion for creating innovative and aggressive beers. I wasn't sure what to expect from a rye ale when I first tried it, but I can tell you that it is phenomenal! Check 'em out and see what you think.
Lorie Byrd has a great article at Townhall today about the price of freedom and how it relates to the security of the places we frequent everyday.
As more becomes known about the Virginia Tech shooter, there will be more arguments made that if only a specific gun law had been different or if only a medical privacy law that might have kept the information of the shooter’s mental history concealed were not in place, or any number of other things had been different, this horrible event might have been prevented.Read the entire article to get the full picture of what she is saying, but the truth is that freedom and security are a trade-off, the more of one you have the less of the other you get. We as Americans have to make a choice, do we value security so high that we are willing to give up personal freedom?
Certainly we should examine the specifics of the recent rampage at Virginia Tech and seek to learn any lessons from it that might prevent future school shootings. In the short term, a likely reaction will be to strengthen security measures in our schools and public places, and to attempt to understand and treat the underlying reasons a person might commit such an insane act.
But, unfortunately, without being able to read the murderer's mind, there is often not much that can be done. Short of erecting maximum security schools, it is difficult to stop a madman determined to kill. That is a horrifying thought, but sadly it is true. These are senseless acts of cruelty that are difficult to prevent.
I am often amazed that there are not more frequent terrorist attacks in the United States considering the great freedom we enjoy. There is little that could stop a madman with a weapon (gun, bomb, or whatever it may be) intent upon mass murder. We enjoy being able to go shopping and to the movies and to eat in restaurants without being stopped and searched by security. Most Americans don’t want metal detectors in every school and church and other public gathering place -- we already have to deal with them at all the airports and court buildings. But we do want to feel safe.
For me the answer is a definite NO! Criminals sitting in a jail cell are completely secure, but they have no freedom. With freedom comes the individual responsibility to take care of yourself and not play the blame game every time something happens that effects you adversely. As Americans we should have the utmost respect for our freedoms and liberties and do whatever it takes to keep them in their entirety.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Joseph Farah at WND has a great article about the VA Tech murders and protecting oneself when push comes to shove.
Americans need to learn to protect themselves. They need to understand the limitations of police. They need to be become independent, self-governing, responsible citizens rather than innocent victims.Check out the entire article here.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Supreme Court today upheld a federal ban on partial-birth abortions in a 5-4 decision. This is most definitely a victory for the pro-life movement as it outlaws the most hideous abortion procedure in use today. However, in pondering this decision I am struck by the complete illogic of the entire argument, both for and against its usage.
In banning the partial-birth abortion procedure we are basically saying that this singular procedure is wrong because of how it is carried out. In a partial-birth abortion the child is delivered feet-first, then a scissors is inserted into the base of the skull to create an opening, after which the brain is then suctioned out. All other types of abortion are not affected by the ruling and are still perfectly legal to use.
So what does all of this tell us? In my mind it says the method now determines whether an action is right or wrong, not the action itself. This is a problem. If abortion is a constitutional legal right that is always justifiable to use, then when, how, where, or why it is performed should not matter. If however the act itself is not a constitutional legal right and is morally reprehensible then once again, when, how, where or why should not matter, as abortion should never be allowed based solely upon it's own objective evil.
A great analogy of this would be a father who kills his handicapped two-year-old because he decided its life wasn't worth living. This man would not be prosecuted if he did it in a "humane" way, as opposed to another man who in the same situation and with the same objective, butchered his own child to death but is prosecuted because of the "inhumanity" of his act. The same act is committed by both men with the exact same intention, but it is carried out in a different manner and therefore judged differently.
This is completely ludicrous! You can't have it both ways. Either the act of abortion is always legitimate or it never is. When the Supreme Court mandated Roe v. Wade in 1972 it stated that women have a 'constitutional right to abortion'. If such is the case then is this new ruling not unconstitutional? Or, if it is constitutional then doesn't this mean women do not have a 'constitutional right to abortion'? If so then all abortions are deemed illegitimate and should be prosecuted just as partial-birth abortions now will be.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
I've gotta tell you, I really agree with him on this one.
From: The Politico
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.
"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there," the GOP presidential candidate told Politico reporters Tuesday. "A concealed gun carried by a responsible person -- that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed."
Paul, 71, is the kind of lawmaker, and presidential candidate, gun control advocates love to hate at moments like this. And, based on public opinion polls and reader feedback at Politico.com, he's far from alone.
Echoing the views of many Americans, he sees calls for restriction on guns as an affront to freedom. The libertarian-minded Texan is one of the most outspoken defenders of gun rights in Congress. Since the obstetrician was first elected to Congress in 1976, he has never voted for a bill restricting gun ownership. And he said the tragedy in Blacksburg, Va., could have been prevented if the school allowed students and professors to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Paul, who ran for the Libertarian presidential nomination in 1988, is well known on Capitol Hill for his outspoken, maverick positions. He opposed authorizing federal funding to victims of Hurricane Katrina. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Department of Education. He has called for a return to the gold standard. He argues that tighter gun control laws would have no impact on gun crime.
"It's the lack of access to law-abiding citizens to have guns in many places that increases our crime rate," he said. "We just can't prevent every tragedy of a maniac. So to pretend this happened because of lack of laws would be the wrong thing to assume."
Despite his pro-gun rhetoric, Paul also often finds himself voting with Democrats, particularly in the area of civil liberties. He was one of only three Republican lawmakers to vote against the USA Patriot Act in 2001. He expressed concern that the Virginia Tech shootings would be exploited to crack down on civil liberties.
"I know there will be a call for, 'Boy, we've got to take hold of every single gun and register the gun.' It's sort of like after 9/11, we had to worry about terrorists, but what we've done is register every American," he said. "With national ID cards, inspection and loss of our liberties, warrantless searches, we've attacked law-abiding citizens. So, no, I don't think we need more gun control for law-abiding citizens."
Paul suggested that the Sept. 11 attacks could have been avoided if the pilots on the hijacked airliners had been armed. "If terrorists knew that every pilot had a gun in the cockpit, they wouldn't have done it," he said. "They would have all been shot and wouldn't have accomplished their mission."
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."
Monday, April 16, 2007
The tragedy that has befallen the Virginia Tech campus today is immeasurable to summarize in words. Whenever something of this magnitude happens the first response is to always ask "why", or "how could this happen"? The sad reality is that we live in a crazy, messed up world where life doesn't always make sense. That being said, there are several things within this issue I'd like to touch upon.
First of all, it has not been determined for sure that the first shooting which took place in the dormitory and the shooting within the class room building were perpetrated by the same individual. Preliminary reports are stating it is the same person by this has not been verified by the authorities. If they are one and the same, then how did this guy get out of the dorm and all the way across campus without being seen by witnesses or apprehended by security? Granted, there was a two-hour lapse between shootings, but what caused this delay?
It is being reported that the murderer used two handguns, a 9mm, and a .22-caliber, and continually reloaded throughout the rampage. If this is the case why did no one try to apprehend or subdue him while reloading? Apparently chains were used to bar the exit doors shut to keep those inside Norris Hall from escaping. This would make it appear to be a premeditated event. The two events seem very different based upon these immediate details. It has been confirmed that there were two separate bomb threats last week at Virginia Tech, but no details if these events are related.
The anti-gun crowd is already crowing for more gun restrictions to help "protect" our college campuses. Truth be told, it is because of these restrictions that such a horrible travesty had such a high amount of casualties. The scenario could very well have ended with many fewer causalities if anyone of the faculty, staff, or students had been packing a firearm for just such an event as this. It must be noted that a bill allowing college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus was shot down last year without much second thought. Here is one students thoughts about this law.
That's my two-cents worth on the topic. My heartfelt prayers go out to all the victims, their families, and the perpetrator of this terrible atrocity.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Come and get it while they're hot, your very own personal nappy-headed ho bear ! I know this story has been beaten to death by now, and I am personally sick of hearing about it, but the best article I've read on the entire Don Imus fiasco is by Sports columnst Shaun Powell from Newsday. He lays out the complete hyprocracy and the real "racial" issue at hand. Pat Buchanan has some great points on the topic and WND makes the case for the much bigger issue at hand for talk radio.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Oh the hypocrisy! Check it out!
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is at it once again, promoting bigger government for his socialist state. His latest attempt is to make health insurance mandatory for everyone or else face a large fine. The plan is similar to the structure of auto insurance. GOPUSA has the whole scoop.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
By: Bobby Eberle
America’s racial “crusaders,” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are at it again. If there’s a racial injustice to right, they are on the scene to save the day. But… who is doing the saving, and who is doing the self-promoting? If Jackson and Sharpton really cared about ridding America of words and actions which are degrading to women, they would realize that Don Imus’s idiotic comments are small potatoes.
The other day on his radio program, talk show host Don Imus referred to the women of Rutgers University’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.” The comments set off a fire storm of reaction, which led Jackson and Sharpton to enter the scene.
The fact of the matter is that Imus’s comments are wrong and have no place on the airwaves. Racial slurs are not a “joke,” and Imus’s crude remarks should be rebuked. That’s why Jackson and Sharpton are stepping forward… to be the champions of racial and gender justice, right? Not so fast…
The good “reverend” Al Sharpton has a history of using racial attacks to further his cause. As noted in the 2003 column by Jeff Jacoby, in 1987 Sharpton spread a hoax that a 15-year-old black girl was “abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men.” Sharpton singled out one particular white man, saying, “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” The man does sue and wins $345,000.
Jacoby also notes other incidents in his column, including:
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin’s funeral he rails against the “diamond merchants” — code for Jews — with “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and stabbed to death.
1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart, Freddy’s white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by,” he warns malignantly, “and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Sharpton’s National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy’s are spat on and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms.” Some protesters shout, “Burn down the Jew store!” and simulate striking a match. “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers,” says Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy’s, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.
Jesse Jackson, the other “reverend,” has an equally infamous past when it comes to racial attacks, particularly against Jews. As noted in a Larry Sabato column, Jackson has had a tenuous relationship with America’s Jewish community dating back to his “Hymietown” comment:
Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown” in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman. Jackson had assumed the references would not be printed because of his racial bond with Coleman, but several weeks later Coleman permitted the slurs to be included far down in an article by another Post reporter on Jackson’s rocky relations with American Jews.
And these two are now purporting to be the spokesmen for injustice against black women? If they truly cared about getting degrading words against women pulled off the airwaves, as they appear to want in going after Imus, they would shift their focus to the rap music industry.
As covered in Michelle Malkin’s latest column, the current rap songs at the top of the charts are littered with racial and gender slurs at least equal to Imus’s. These “songs” are played over and over and over again. They sink into the minds of young listeners everyday. What kind of culture does Sharpton and Jackson think it promotes? Treating women fairly? Treating women as equals? No… and yet Jackson and Sharpton will spend countless hours attacking a white man and ignore an entire industry that is doing so much damage to young blacks.
The media need to stop turning to the likes of Sharpton and Jackson as if they were the racial police. Stop giving them a platform, and maybe they will just go away. Their words have no meaning, and their credibility is less than zero.
By: Jacob Sullum
Despite his promise to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court if he is elected president, Rudy Giuliani recently said he has no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that discovered a previously unnoticed constitutional right to abortion. Offending social conservatives (and strict constructionists) even further, he told CNN this constitutional right may require government financing of abortions for women who otherwise cannot afford them.
Since Giuliani also claims to support "the right to bear arms" (a right that is actually mentioned in the Constitution), he should, by similar logic, advocate the use of taxpayer money to buy guns for poor people. But the idea would never occur to him, because his sudden interest in the Second Amendment, like his sudden interest in strict constructionism, is merely an affectation intended to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters.
In his stump speeches, Giuliani, whose campaign Web site calls him "a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," praises the federal appeals court decision that last month overturned the District of Columbia's ban on keeping guns in the home for self-defense. Yet that ban is only slightly stricter than the gun laws that Giuliani still brags about vigorously enforcing when he was mayor of New York.
Giuliani tries to reconcile his support for strict gun control in New York with his newfound commitment to the Second Amendment by saying that different jurisdictions should be able to choose the gun laws that are appropriate for them. As his Web site puts it, "Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn't necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana."
But the right to keep and bear arms has no meaning if politicians are free to impose any kind of gun control they think "works." In the D.C. gun ban decision that Giuliani says he supports, a federal court overruled the judgment of local officials because it was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
Giuliani's commitment to federalism in this area seems shaky in any case. As mayor, he supported a federal law that required waiting periods and background checks for gun purchases. He wanted to go further, creating a national system for handgun registration and licensing.
Giuliani also supported a federal ban on "assault weapons," semi-automatic guns that were targeted based on their militaristic appearance rather than their capabilities or use in crime. When the ban lapsed in 2004, he wanted it renewed, although his campaign now says he would not necessarily support reinstating it. If Giuliani sees this utterly arbitrary law as the sort of "reasonable and sensible" gun control he says is consistent with the Second Amendment, that standard is easily met.
In addition to these explicit forms of national gun control, Giuliani sought to impose restrictions throughout the country indirectly by filing a lawsuit that blames firearm manufacturers and distributors for criminal use of their products. The suit demands changes in the way guns are made and sold that would affect their cost and availability nationwide.
Giuliani explained the rationale for the lawsuit during a June 2000 radio show: "We are dealing with a problem that is foisted on the city by the rest of the country. 95 percent of the guns in New York City can be traced to someplace outside the city. A lot of the problems in New York City are caused by very, very lax regulations outside the city." So much for letting each city or state go its own way on gun control.
Giuliani also made a revealing comment when he accused gun manufacturers of knowingly supplying criminals by "overproducing guns, way beyond the number that's necessary for hunting and for law enforcement." For Giuliani, it seems, hunting is the only legitimate use of guns for people who are not police officers. Presumably that is what he imagines folks in "Mississippi or Montana" are doing with their guns, while law-abiding New Yorkers are disarmed in the name of fighting crime.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Arnold Toynbee once said about apathy within a civilization,
"Civilizations proceed from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage. Apathy is also anti-democratic: democracy requires the informed consent of the governed, and will not last if the people can't be bothered."Depending on who you ask you will get a different response as to where America is now in the cycle of civilization. My opinion is that we are in the selfishness to apathy stage, but beginning to lean towards the dependency stage. One way to combat this is to get back to the basics of what brought us our liberty and abundance to begin with.
In conjunction with this topic an alliance of conservatives recently held a news conference to announce the American Freedom Agenda, a coalition launched to defend civil liberties and roll back excessive presidential power. They explain their ten principles and invite all presidential candidates to pledge their support. What does this support entail? A return to the Constitution, the basics upon which our country was founded. Only by educating people about the reality of where we have come and where we are headed will apathy subside and change occur.
Check out the press conference video and the ten steps below.
The American Freedom Agenda’s (AFA) mission is twofold: the enactment of a cluster of statutes that would restore the Constitution’s checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers; and, making the subject a staple of political campaigns and of foremost concern to Members of Congress and to voters and educators. Especially since 9/11, the executive branch has chronically usurped legislative or judicial power, and has repeatedly claimed that the President is the law. The constitutional grievances against the White House are chilling, reminiscent of the kingly abuses that provoked the Declaration of Independence.
The 10-point American Freedom Agenda would work to restore the roles of Congress and the federal judiciary to prevent such abuses of power and protect against injustices that are the signature of civilized nations. In particular, the American Freedom Agenda would:
* Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
* Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
* Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
* Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
* Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
* Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
* Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
* Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
* Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.
This is hilarious, I hope this guy does the same thing with all the candidates!
Hat Tip: The Loft
Am I the only one who is fed up with hearing about the Don Imus radio fiasco? Give the guy a break, he's a shock jock, he gets paid to annoy and offend people! Is he insensitive and heartless at times? Of course, but who isn't? Doesn't the First Amendment apply to him? Yes it does but idiots like Al Sharpton believe that it shouldn't because he touched on a racial topic that would not even have made the news if it was said by a black radio personality. Enough with the double standard!
Why is everyone so damn sensitive to every little thing said anymore? American society has become a cesspool of whining girlie-men who can't take an insult or put-down without throwing a temper tantrum and crying "mean spirited"! This is what happens when the girlie-men homos and butch fem rights activists run roughshod through the media and political organizations. Grow up people, get a set of balls! Quit worrying about what everyone else is saying and doing, mind your own business and life your life to the fullest!
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
How about this one for hypocrisy. An 18-year-old has pleaded guilty to attempting to hire a hit man to kill his unborn child carried by his ex-girlfriend.
Now explain this to me. If a woman can go to a "clinic" and have the "fetus" "terminated" any time she wants then why can the man not have it killed as well since he is half of the "fetus'"DNA being carried? Should this guy not have the same rights as his ex-girlfriend would have if she decided to make this "choice"? If he is going to prison because he attempted to kill a living being, whether you call it a baby, a fetus, or what not, then by the same logic should any woman who makes the same attempt not summer a similar fate?
Oh wait, I'm being logical again and that doesn't work when it comes to politics, the government, or society in general anymore. And for those who are wondering, no, I am not sarcastic or cynical....ever....I'm just a product of my environmental upbringing.
There has been a lot of talk about Rudy Giuliani's views toward abortion as the issue will play a large part in the '08 presidential election. Any doubt about where he stands has been squashed today after his interview on CNN where he declared that he still supports taxpayer funded abortions. Read more here and here.
View 'em all here, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
April 3, 2007
James Dobson Just Doesn’t Get It
By Chuck Baldwin
Please know that I cut my eyeteeth as a political activist with the so-called Religious Right. I was the Florida Moral Majority Executive Director and participated in numerous local and national meetings that featured the Religious Right’s most eminent spokesmen. My personal history with the Religious Right goes back more than thirty years.
That said, it is my studied opinion that many, if not most, of our national conservative Christian leaders have lost touch with the reality of our nation’s ills and how to cure them. I hate to say it, but it seems to me that they have become either perilously shallow and unthinking or myopically focused upon their own success. Either way, the leadership being provided by this once-great group of champions seems to be seriously deficient in both discernment and resolve.
For example, just last week, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson laid an egg of gigantic proportions when he brazenly proclaimed to U.S. News & World Report senior editor Dan Gilgoff that Republican presidential aspirant Fred Thompson was not “a Christian.”
In an attempt to smooth over Dobson’s gaffe, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger said that Dobson “has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian-someone who openly talks about his faith.”
This debacle might seem like an insignificant misstatement by the Christian radio guru, but it’s not. It represents the kind of shallowness and naïveté that has come to dominate the Religious Right.
Schneeberger accurately articulated the thinking of James Dobson and many conservative Christians today: In order for a politician to be acceptable, he must be someone who “openly talks about his faith.”
Understand, too, that shortly after the moral recklessness of President Bill Clinton, it would have been necessary to include another requirement: an acceptable candidate must be one who keeps his pants zipped up. However, this is no longer a litmus test for the Religious Right, as I will demonstrate in a moment.
How is it that Christian conservatives have come to put so much stock in the religious rhetoric of a politician on the campaign trail? How is it that they expect a candidate, especially a presidential candidate, to “openly talk about his faith?”
Please recall that it did not do Jimmy Carter much good to openly talk about his faith. The Religious Right was almost unified in its opposition to Carter. However, the ultimate hero of the Religious Right, Ronald Reagan, was never known to carry his religion on his sleeve. He was not one who “openly talked about his faith.”
It has been the George W. Bush presidency that has helped turn the minds of Christian conservatives away from a politician’s actions and policies to his or her rhetoric. Bush has been given a free pass (by Christian conservatives) on his unconstitutional, liberal, big-spending, socialistic, and imperialistic policies, because he “openly talks about his faith.”
Never mind that President Bush’s presidency more resembles Bill Clinton’s than it does Ronald Reagan’s. Never mind that if George W. Bush did not have an “R” behind his name, one would assume that he was a protégé of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. Because Bush “openly talks about his faith,” he is accepted, defended, and lauded by the Religious Right.
If that is not shallow, I don’t know what is.
Illustrating further the depth of Dobson’s shallowness is the way he and other leaders of the Religious Right are treating the philanderer Newt Gingrich. Dobson told Gilgoff that the former House Speaker was “the brightest guy out there” and “the most articulate politician on the scene today.” Jerry Falwell added his praise for Gingrich, saying in his Liberty Journal, “He is a true American statesman and a brilliant political innovator.” Falwell has also invited Gingrich to be the commencement speaker at the graduating ceremonies at Liberty University this year.
This about a man who has a history as a serial adulterer. A man who used the occasion of his wife’s hospitalization for cancer treatments to tell her he was leaving her for another woman with whom he had been having an affair. This about a man who had to be taken to court to pay what was due his abandoned wife. This about a man who was a major culprit in the House Banking Scandal, having written 22 bad checks at taxpayers’ expense. This about a man who, just five months ago, brazenly called for the curtailment of free speech. This about a man who, after having orchestrated the GOP revolution of 1994, used the power of the Speaker’s office to try and intimidate the conservative House freshmen into compromising their conservative commitment, including trying to force them to support tax increases. This about a man who is a long-standing member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a think-tank of internationalists working toward global government.
But now Dobson, Falwell, et al. apparently hold Newt Gingrich in the highest regard, with Dobson gushing over him during the very interview when Gingrich admitted his adultery, and Falwell saying that Gingrich has made a “fresh commitment to God.” Just in time for the presidential campaign. How convenient!
However, poor Fred Thompson now has the “smell of death” put on him by James Dobson with what is sure to be a ubiquitous moniker, “He is not a Christian.” Does James Dobson really believe that it is better to be an admitted adulterer who “openly talks about his faith,” than to be a faithful husband who doesn’t?
When will conservative Christians wake up? When will they come to understand that when it comes to political office, we are not electing Sunday School teachers? We are electing men and women to do one thing: faithfully discharge their duties to the Constitution of the United States.
What matters more than religious rhetoric is whether or not our elected representatives fulfill their oath of office and obey the Constitution. (Of course, it should be obvious that we cannot be expected to trust a man who has no fidelity to his marriage commitment to be faithful to his commitments to the American people.)
America is in serious trouble, because our political leaders (from both parties) are continually ignoring and overtly disobeying constitutional government. They treat the Constitution (and their loyalty to it) as a pile of dung. This irresponsibility has brought our nation to the brink of the abyss.
We are almost ready to lose our national identity, our culture, our standard of living, and even our military superiority. Our education system is in the toilet. Our manufacturing jobs have almost vanished, our nation is being systematically merged into a “North American Community,” and James Dobson’s focus seems to be merely that our future president is a man who “openly talks about his faith?”
Obviously, James Dobson just doesn’t get it. It would be far better to have an honest, God-fearing man in the White House who is more concerned about faithfully following the Constitution than he is about giving a bunch of religious lip service. And that means we need to pay far more attention to his record than to his rhetoric. The day that our conservative Christian leaders and pastors wake up to that truth is the day that we can begin to restore this constitutional republic.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Here's a great take on the illegal immigration debate, it certainly puts things a little more in perspective.
Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.Only in America today would this rational fly. Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests...
Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hardworking and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hardworking and honest, except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hardworking and honest person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.
And what a deal it is for me! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE! so you can communicate with me.
America's politically correct educational system is bad, but England's is even worse. A government study has recently shown that many teachers are refraining from teaching history lessons that might disagree or upset students beliefs.
Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed. It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial. There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.Check out the entire article here.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
I'm a little behind in getting this up, but for all those who support General Peter Pace and the moral belief that homosexuality is wrong here's a great way to show your support. Feel free to copy the picture and post it on your own site. I've also posted the letter drafted by Sen. Sam Brownback to President Bush in support of Gen. Pace.
Dear Mr. President:
We write in support of General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has recently received criticism for expressing his personal moral views.
During an interview on Sunday, while offering support for existing U.S. policies, General Pace discussed some of his personal moral convictions. These statements led to criticism from various groups and the media. Such criticism is both unfair and unfortunate.
As the highest ranking military officer in the United States Armed Forces, he is duty-bound to support the policies of the United States – support which he reiterated in a statement yesterday. But we should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues. In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views. We should be concerned if they do not have strong convictions on key issues.
The moral behavior of members of the Armed Forces is of the highest importance, particularly during this time of war. The question is whether personal moral beliefs should disqualify an individual from positions of leadership in the U.S. military? We think not. General Pace's recent remarks do not deserve the criticism they have received. In fact, we applaud General Pace for maintaining a personal commitment to moral principles. He has demonstrated great leadership during a very difficult time and he continues to do so today. We look forward to his continued service as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.