There is a new disease popping up in the USA and other lands. It is (Or, should be) called "SUDDEN JIHAD SYNDROME". The carriers of that too often fatal-to-victims disorder are such as Mohamed Hassan Hadeyet who, on 7-4-02 left a note reading "Read The Koran" on the door of his apartment, went to the Los Angeles Airport and murdered randomly selected persons. Other carriers of this horrid disease are the highly educated Muslim man who attempted to use his 4X4 to kill students at a US college and the Muslim youth who very recently killed several persons at a Utah mall.
These are the carriers; The real victims are, of course, those they killed, the friends and relatives of those real victims and the entire People of the USA and the other civilized lands where this disorder is progressing from isolated outbreaks to endemic occurrences. (It must be stopped before it becomes epidemic!)
At this time, it appears that SJS occurs, in the USA, only in Muslim males who meet the following pre-conditions: They study the and Koran the other works of Islam; They compare the success of a largely Christian culture with the non-accomplishments of Islamic nations; And, they compare Mohammed (A bandit, murderer, liar and sexual abuser of a nine year young girl-child) with the examples of Jesus, Washington, Lincoln and so many others who made the USA great---And, express their dissatisfaction by going on a personal and sudden jihad with the intent to kill as many non-Muslims as possible.
In the year 1492 Spain has a similar disease rampant in its Southern areas which was "cured" by expelling all Muslims from the Iberian peninsula. Since our relevant public health officials (The police) seem unable to prevent outbreaks of this disorder in the USA the only responses to this fatal disease appears to be to either follow the Spanish example of 1492 OR allow all law-abiding US citizens to carry concealed weapons so that they may apply the necessary public health measures (Well placed shots with frangible bullets) upon local outbreaks and carriers of this disease.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Loving Atheists, Muslims, SPs & The Like
Could you believe it? There are some "folks" who actually maintain that I do not love Atheists, Muslims, Secular (Anti-Christian) Humanists and others of that ilk.
I so love even the worst of them (Jihadists, abortionists, those who warp the minds of our children by Anti-Christian/Anti-Religion educational programs) that I wish them only well when I wish to send them out of this world and before the Judgment of God asap and before they commit any more sins to the harm of their own souls and the well being of others---Especially both born and unborn children AND other innocents as the victims of Islamic terrorism.
I wonder what that Doctor of the Church, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, would have thought of my position as he proclaimed the need to use the sword against the pagans (Who worship the false gods of murder, rape, revenge, genocide, robber, perpetual war, etc.) of Islam. In fact, I wonder what the Christ, who strongly suggested tying a mill stone around the neck of those who harm children and throwing them into the sea) would have thought about my positions.
I so love even the worst of them (Jihadists, abortionists, those who warp the minds of our children by Anti-Christian/Anti-Religion educational programs) that I wish them only well when I wish to send them out of this world and before the Judgment of God asap and before they commit any more sins to the harm of their own souls and the well being of others---Especially both born and unborn children AND other innocents as the victims of Islamic terrorism.
I wonder what that Doctor of the Church, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, would have thought of my position as he proclaimed the need to use the sword against the pagans (Who worship the false gods of murder, rape, revenge, genocide, robber, perpetual war, etc.) of Islam. In fact, I wonder what the Christ, who strongly suggested tying a mill stone around the neck of those who harm children and throwing them into the sea) would have thought about my positions.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Ultimate Defense Of "Academic Freedom"
When attacks on "academic freedom" become physical and mob actions (As at San Francisco State University and Columbia U.), then would the Natural Law and Statutory provisions for the use of such force as is necessary (Including deadly force) be to resist and supress such attacks when speakers (Or those who are with them) believe that they are in danger of death or great bodily harm?
Do such speakers (Or, their on-site supporters) have a duty to accept physical violence against them in the hopes of some eventual police or judicial or university action (Which has proven a false hope in the past)?
As for myself and my walking stick, my reaction to such mob attacks would be measured in "dead and wounded" among the attackers.
Do such speakers (Or, their on-site supporters) have a duty to accept physical violence against them in the hopes of some eventual police or judicial or university action (Which has proven a false hope in the past)?
As for myself and my walking stick, my reaction to such mob attacks would be measured in "dead and wounded" among the attackers.
Bike Helmets & Body Parts
I have no objection to (Motorized or otherwise) bike riders going about without wearing helmets---If, and only if, laws are passed to make such action an automatic (And not revocable by rider or family) offer of body parts for transplants and other medical uses when such persons are declared brain dead after an accident. (As opposed to their being brain dead for not wearing a helmet)./Jim Pawlak
Decider Rider
By Reid Collins
Published 2/20/2007 12:06:08 AM
"I make the decision, this is America for God's sakes."
Thus spake a retired fire chief in Montana as motorcyclists lined up in the state capitol to oppose a legislative proposal to mandate the use of safety helmets for cyclists in the Treasure State. Fire chief Ralph Elrod needn't have worried. The proposition was tabled in committee, 15 to 2, the latest failed attempt to bring Montana in line with 20 states that have mandatory helmet laws. Twenty-seven states, Montana among them, do have laws requiring such head gear for minors under 18. And three states have no such laws. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lists them as Colorado, Iowa, and Illinois.
A state senator declared the Montana matter to be "an issue of freedom," not surprising perhaps for a state that only recently acceded to installing a speed limit on its highways. Not even an amendment allowing those with at least a hundred thousand dollars in medical insurance to ride helmet-free could clear passage, but it holds a clue to the motivation of those who want to curtail the fire chief's freedom to decide. The traffic safety folk say helmetless cycle riding costs money-- and frequently it is public money. And hospital groups were among those leading the pleading for a helmet law.
NHTSA estimates helmets saved $1.3 billion in 2002 alone and that another $853 million would have been saved if all involved in fatal crashes had been wearing helmets. Figures show fatalities rising faster than motorcycle registration: 2,116 deaths in 1997, 4,553 in 2005. The NHTSA folk say helmets saved 1,316 cyclists in 2004 and if all wore them, another 671 could have lived. In short, helmet use, they claim, reduces likely crash fatality by 37 percent.
All the compelling statistics from the government files, and those adjacent in the nursing association notebooks, fail to take into account the psychology of "bike" riding. It is not done for reasons of safety. That tinnitus-inducing roar speaks of something else; that cervical-snapping acceleration treats of another time. The appeal is to adventure beyond reach of many, and alien to most.
Reid Collins is a former CBS and CNN news correspondent.
Decider Rider
By Reid Collins
Published 2/20/2007 12:06:08 AM
"I make the decision, this is America for God's sakes."
Thus spake a retired fire chief in Montana as motorcyclists lined up in the state capitol to oppose a legislative proposal to mandate the use of safety helmets for cyclists in the Treasure State. Fire chief Ralph Elrod needn't have worried. The proposition was tabled in committee, 15 to 2, the latest failed attempt to bring Montana in line with 20 states that have mandatory helmet laws. Twenty-seven states, Montana among them, do have laws requiring such head gear for minors under 18. And three states have no such laws. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lists them as Colorado, Iowa, and Illinois.
A state senator declared the Montana matter to be "an issue of freedom," not surprising perhaps for a state that only recently acceded to installing a speed limit on its highways. Not even an amendment allowing those with at least a hundred thousand dollars in medical insurance to ride helmet-free could clear passage, but it holds a clue to the motivation of those who want to curtail the fire chief's freedom to decide. The traffic safety folk say helmetless cycle riding costs money-- and frequently it is public money. And hospital groups were among those leading the pleading for a helmet law.
NHTSA estimates helmets saved $1.3 billion in 2002 alone and that another $853 million would have been saved if all involved in fatal crashes had been wearing helmets. Figures show fatalities rising faster than motorcycle registration: 2,116 deaths in 1997, 4,553 in 2005. The NHTSA folk say helmets saved 1,316 cyclists in 2004 and if all wore them, another 671 could have lived. In short, helmet use, they claim, reduces likely crash fatality by 37 percent.
All the compelling statistics from the government files, and those adjacent in the nursing association notebooks, fail to take into account the psychology of "bike" riding. It is not done for reasons of safety. That tinnitus-inducing roar speaks of something else; that cervical-snapping acceleration treats of another time. The appeal is to adventure beyond reach of many, and alien to most.
Reid Collins is a former CBS and CNN news correspondent.
T. Roosevelt, Tokyo Rose * Peaceniks"
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
In 1915 the USA was in the midst of a debate as to its role in opposing the aggressive warfare of the Empires of Germany, Turkey and Austria-Hungary. On August 25, 1915 ex-President Theodore Roosevelt appeared (In full "Rough Rider" dress) before a group of college students after their military exercises with US Army troops and complemented those students for "fulfilling the prime duty of free men" who were, as he continued, "...unlike those professional pacifists, poltroons and college sissies who organize peace-at-any-price societies."
There appears to be a great difference between Teddy Roosevelt and Teddy Kennedy---That difference is in the personal courage of Mr. Roosevelt on military duty in Cuba and giving a Milwaukee speech after being shot AND as opposed to "Fat Boy" who, unlike his older brothers, avoided military duty, left a young woman to drown and is in the process of stabbing our present troops in the back (With the support of too many of his Party) while they fight terrorism.
It appears that Mr. Roosevelt also had to contend with the white flag waivers of his day as Mr. Bush and our troops do today.
"TOKYO ROSE"
She had the best music on her station and most people just laughed.
Tokyo Rose During World War II -- the Japanese developed a way to
demoralize the American forces. Psychological warfare experts developed a
message they felt would work.
They gave the script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose" and every
day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways,
hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale.
What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:
1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.
Does this sound familiar?
Is it because Tokyo Hillary, Tokyo Harry, Tokyo John, Tokyo Teddy, Tokyo
Nancy, etc. have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on
Tokyo CNN, Tokyo ABC, Tokyo CBS, Tokyo NBC, etc., to our troops?
The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they
demoralize them.
Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side,
too!
Come to think of it, "Tokyo Rose" was later found guilty of TREASON!
Some of the above-named imitators might consider that fate AND the great anger felt by our troops in the field and those of us who support them.
In 1915 the USA was in the midst of a debate as to its role in opposing the aggressive warfare of the Empires of Germany, Turkey and Austria-Hungary. On August 25, 1915 ex-President Theodore Roosevelt appeared (In full "Rough Rider" dress) before a group of college students after their military exercises with US Army troops and complemented those students for "fulfilling the prime duty of free men" who were, as he continued, "...unlike those professional pacifists, poltroons and college sissies who organize peace-at-any-price societies."
There appears to be a great difference between Teddy Roosevelt and Teddy Kennedy---That difference is in the personal courage of Mr. Roosevelt on military duty in Cuba and giving a Milwaukee speech after being shot AND as opposed to "Fat Boy" who, unlike his older brothers, avoided military duty, left a young woman to drown and is in the process of stabbing our present troops in the back (With the support of too many of his Party) while they fight terrorism.
It appears that Mr. Roosevelt also had to contend with the white flag waivers of his day as Mr. Bush and our troops do today.
"TOKYO ROSE"
She had the best music on her station and most people just laughed.
Tokyo Rose During World War II -- the Japanese developed a way to
demoralize the American forces. Psychological warfare experts developed a
message they felt would work.
They gave the script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose" and every
day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways,
hoping it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale.
What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:
1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.
Does this sound familiar?
Is it because Tokyo Hillary, Tokyo Harry, Tokyo John, Tokyo Teddy, Tokyo
Nancy, etc. have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on
Tokyo CNN, Tokyo ABC, Tokyo CBS, Tokyo NBC, etc., to our troops?
The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they
demoralize them.
Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side,
too!
Come to think of it, "Tokyo Rose" was later found guilty of TREASON!
Some of the above-named imitators might consider that fate AND the great anger felt by our troops in the field and those of us who support them.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
NO Separation Of Church & State !
The Constitution of the United States does NOT contain the expression "separation of church and state". It does contain Prohibitions against any federal law restricting the "free exercise" of religion and, likewise, of free speech. The provision against the "establishment" of a (State or official Federal) religion was to prevent the type of established churches (Church of England or the Scots Kirk) as had taxing and the ability to use the civil law of Great Britain at that time to enforce its own theologies and practices on others---And, for no other restrictive reasons.
The use of Christian symbols, prayers and speech in the public schools (When they were established much later) and in all public forums was expected, legal and not challenged until very recent and degenerate times.
If Thomas Jefferson's use of the term "wall of separation", in a private letter, means so much, then the many expressions of many founders of this Nation as to (At worst) "Nature and nature's God" and (More usual) "Almighty God" in their public statements and documents should carry much more weight in forming up our reaction and personal-and-judicial positions as to the place of religion in the public square or court houses or the public schools or any other public forum.
This is all our elected officials, judges, editors and other citizens need to know about the Constitution and religion.
The use of Christian symbols, prayers and speech in the public schools (When they were established much later) and in all public forums was expected, legal and not challenged until very recent and degenerate times.
If Thomas Jefferson's use of the term "wall of separation", in a private letter, means so much, then the many expressions of many founders of this Nation as to (At worst) "Nature and nature's God" and (More usual) "Almighty God" in their public statements and documents should carry much more weight in forming up our reaction and personal-and-judicial positions as to the place of religion in the public square or court houses or the public schools or any other public forum.
This is all our elected officials, judges, editors and other citizens need to know about the Constitution and religion.
Recruiting Young Republicans
I do not know the source-author of the little story below;
But, it may be the same person who defined a liberal as
"Someone who hasn't been mugged yet".
RECRUITING YOUNG REPUBLICANS
A young woman was about to finish her first year
of college. Like so many others her age, she
considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat,
and was very much in favor of the redistribution of
wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a
rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly
expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a
professor, she felt that her father had for years
harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he
thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his
opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the
addition of more government welfare programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her
professors had to be the truth and she indicated so
to her father. He responded by asking how she was
doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that
she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was
tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a
very difficult course load and was constantly
studying, which left her no time to go out and party
like other people she knew. She didn't even have
time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many
college friends
because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your
friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she
takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she
barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus;
college for her is a blast. She's always invited to
all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even
show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you
go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0
off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has
a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and
certainly that would be a fair and equal
distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's
suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be
fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've
invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.
She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
"Welcome to the Republican party
But, it may be the same person who defined a liberal as
"Someone who hasn't been mugged yet".
RECRUITING YOUNG REPUBLICANS
A young woman was about to finish her first year
of college. Like so many others her age, she
considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat,
and was very much in favor of the redistribution of
wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a
rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly
expressed. Based on the lectures that she had
participated in, and the occasional chat with a
professor, she felt that her father had for years
harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he
thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his
opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the
addition of more government welfare programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her
professors had to be the truth and she indicated so
to her father. He responded by asking how she was
doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that
she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was
tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a
very difficult course load and was constantly
studying, which left her no time to go out and party
like other people she knew. She didn't even have
time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many
college friends
because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your
friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she
takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she
barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus;
college for her is a blast. She's always invited to
all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even
show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you
go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0
off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has
a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and
certainly that would be a fair and equal
distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's
suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be
fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've
invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!
Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree.
She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently,
"Welcome to the Republican party
Saturday, February 17, 2007
MItt Romney & The Mormon Elders
There has been too much written or spoken to the effect that the Elders of the Mormon Church will have an undue influence on a Presidient Mitt Romney. Those Elders are likely to have as much influence over Mitt Romney as the Bishops of the Catholic Church had over the Kennedys---None.
As a Catholic, I can reasonably hope that Mr. Romney's personal standards of morality are better than the Joseph (Best friend of gangsters), John F. (Back staircase) and Ted (Drown Them And Leave Them) Kennedys.
As a Catholic, I can reasonably hope that Mr. Romney's personal standards of morality are better than the Joseph (Best friend of gangsters), John F. (Back staircase) and Ted (Drown Them And Leave Them) Kennedys.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The Rule Of Law OR Of Lawyers???
RULE OF LAW OR OF LAWYERS
One of the pride-filled statements of those who live within our
Anglo-American systems of government is that we live “not under the rule of men, but that of laws”. More-and-more I wonder if that is true. Each year it appears that we live under the “rule-of-lawyers” and not within any other structure or constraints.
Our laws (Including “rules” and “regulations”) have become so many, so complex and so convoluted that it is all but impossible to carry out even daily tasks without paying (Or paying off) some lawyer. This is most specially true in the production of real goods and services so basic to the economy. (Perhaps, the real economic advantage of such nations as Japan and China is their relative lack of attorneys.)
It is hard to think of any class of persons, in the USA who produce less for and drain more from the real economy than do lawyers. (Even stock brokers, as a smaller group of persons, do less harm that those, too often self-serving, agents and abusers of the law.) Lawyers, in fact, craft our laws, rules and regulations and, as far as I can determine, make an effort to do so t in such a manner as to ensure the full employment of other attorneys.
[One of the worst abuses inflicted on the People of the USA is that trial attorneys, especially in “class actions”, all too often suck up most of the judgments awarded.]
After all, attorneys already control one of our three branches of government (The judiciary) and should not have a lock on controlling the legislative or, even, the administrative branches of government.
There are some possible solutions, among which are:
1.Pass a Constitution amendment making, after ten years from approval, the prior possession of a law degree a disqualification to hold any legislative position in the Congress or the legislatures of the Several States;
2.Pass another amendment limiting the total number of words in
the laws, regulations and rules of the Federal government to ten million (At ten characters/numbers for each word; With like restrictions (With a smaller limit) for the governments each of the Several States);
3.Require, by whatever means, that all such laws, rules and regulations be “passed” by the majority of a jury of randomly chosen citizens, none with a law degree, as understandable to persons of average intelligence and education;
4.Require that, in all lawsuits, the attorneys on the “winning side” are not to receive more than 40% of the moneys awarded as fees or for costs of legal actions;
5.Require that all settlements made in our civil courts be made public even if such are made before a verdict is given;
6.Shut down all Law Schools for not less than five-years (To eliminate the current excess of lawyers and to adjust for the solutions above), And,
7.Require that the “loser” in suits-at-law pay the costs and attorneys and other fees of the “winner”; And, that any person who fails to do so would be barred from further suits for 20-years (However, awards made by arbitrators or referees would not be so regulated as the cost in such case are generally far less than in court cases, require the agreement of all parties and are not a burden on our courts and, therefore, our tax payers).
Of course, there is the alternative represented by a theme in one of Robert E. Heinlein's novels, referred to as “The Year We Killed All The Attorneys”.
One of the pride-filled statements of those who live within our
Anglo-American systems of government is that we live “not under the rule of men, but that of laws”. More-and-more I wonder if that is true. Each year it appears that we live under the “rule-of-lawyers” and not within any other structure or constraints.
Our laws (Including “rules” and “regulations”) have become so many, so complex and so convoluted that it is all but impossible to carry out even daily tasks without paying (Or paying off) some lawyer. This is most specially true in the production of real goods and services so basic to the economy. (Perhaps, the real economic advantage of such nations as Japan and China is their relative lack of attorneys.)
It is hard to think of any class of persons, in the USA who produce less for and drain more from the real economy than do lawyers. (Even stock brokers, as a smaller group of persons, do less harm that those, too often self-serving, agents and abusers of the law.) Lawyers, in fact, craft our laws, rules and regulations and, as far as I can determine, make an effort to do so t in such a manner as to ensure the full employment of other attorneys.
[One of the worst abuses inflicted on the People of the USA is that trial attorneys, especially in “class actions”, all too often suck up most of the judgments awarded.]
After all, attorneys already control one of our three branches of government (The judiciary) and should not have a lock on controlling the legislative or, even, the administrative branches of government.
There are some possible solutions, among which are:
1.Pass a Constitution amendment making, after ten years from approval, the prior possession of a law degree a disqualification to hold any legislative position in the Congress or the legislatures of the Several States;
2.Pass another amendment limiting the total number of words in
the laws, regulations and rules of the Federal government to ten million (At ten characters/numbers for each word; With like restrictions (With a smaller limit) for the governments each of the Several States);
3.Require, by whatever means, that all such laws, rules and regulations be “passed” by the majority of a jury of randomly chosen citizens, none with a law degree, as understandable to persons of average intelligence and education;
4.Require that, in all lawsuits, the attorneys on the “winning side” are not to receive more than 40% of the moneys awarded as fees or for costs of legal actions;
5.Require that all settlements made in our civil courts be made public even if such are made before a verdict is given;
6.Shut down all Law Schools for not less than five-years (To eliminate the current excess of lawyers and to adjust for the solutions above), And,
7.Require that the “loser” in suits-at-law pay the costs and attorneys and other fees of the “winner”; And, that any person who fails to do so would be barred from further suits for 20-years (However, awards made by arbitrators or referees would not be so regulated as the cost in such case are generally far less than in court cases, require the agreement of all parties and are not a burden on our courts and, therefore, our tax payers).
Of course, there is the alternative represented by a theme in one of Robert E. Heinlein's novels, referred to as “The Year We Killed All The Attorneys”.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Standing Orders To Protect The USA
In order to fulfill his oath-of-office as to defending the USA, the President should (Must?) issue the following standing orders to all Border Patrol members and military (Regulars, National Guard and, if ever used, the "General Militia") within one mile of our border with Mexico.
1. Unarmed persons illegally entering the USA are to be
immediately returned across that border using such
force as is necessary to to so.
2. Armed persons crossing our border are to be fired upon
without warning as invaders.
3. Any attacks from across that border are to be resisted and
the attackers destroyed.
I do not believe, based on the evidence before us, that any lesser directions will protect the USA from drug smugglers, members of
very dangerous Latino gangs (Many of whom previously deported), potential terrorists, bearers of untreatable and contagious diseases (eg Drug resistant TB), identity thieves, Pancho Villa style raiders and the other criminals now flooding across that border.
1. Unarmed persons illegally entering the USA are to be
immediately returned across that border using such
force as is necessary to to so.
2. Armed persons crossing our border are to be fired upon
without warning as invaders.
3. Any attacks from across that border are to be resisted and
the attackers destroyed.
I do not believe, based on the evidence before us, that any lesser directions will protect the USA from drug smugglers, members of
very dangerous Latino gangs (Many of whom previously deported), potential terrorists, bearers of untreatable and contagious diseases (eg Drug resistant TB), identity thieves, Pancho Villa style raiders and the other criminals now flooding across that border.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Jesus, Swords & Humanity
Jesus the Christ was a lover of humanity. That is clearly shown by His healing, casting out of demons (Real of psychological—Take your pick), feeding the multitudes, making glad the hearts of the wedding guests by turning water into fine wine and the other like acts of His public ministry on this earth.
Most of all, He offered Himself to a horrid and most painful death to be the
Salvation of humanity!
In doing so He forbade his followers from interfering, by use of a sword, from having others place Him under arrest. This special case of stopping the use of a sword was necessary for the promises of God to come into being.
However, Jesus also demonstrated His love of His followers by insisting
(Please see Luke 22: 35-38) that they arm themselves with swords (The
AK-47s or AR-15s of that time and place) before going out on the unpoliced and dangerous roads in that land.
Most of all, He offered Himself to a horrid and most painful death to be the
Salvation of humanity!
In doing so He forbade his followers from interfering, by use of a sword, from having others place Him under arrest. This special case of stopping the use of a sword was necessary for the promises of God to come into being.
However, Jesus also demonstrated His love of His followers by insisting
(Please see Luke 22: 35-38) that they arm themselves with swords (The
AK-47s or AR-15s of that time and place) before going out on the unpoliced and dangerous roads in that land.
Defining A Good Liberal/Secular Humanist
Martin Selznick wrote:
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran , China and North Korea .
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
12. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
13. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.
14. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
15. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
16. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
17. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Oops, can't do that either
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran , China and North Korea .
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
12. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
13. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.
14. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
15. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
16. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
17. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Oops, can't do that either
Friday, February 02, 2007
Tattoos & Smoke
About 55-years ago I visited my mother at her place-of-employment and noted a rough tattoo of numbers on the arm of one of her co-workers. I later found out that that lady was one of the too few survivors of Nazi death camps who lost all of her immediate and extended family in such places; THOSE LOST SOULS BECOMING SMOKE IN THE SKY—Out of the chimneys of crematoria.
She, as a few others, were rescued by the Allied Armed Forces of that earlier and superior generation who defeated Nazi, Imperial Japanese and foolish Italian forces and liberated a good part of the earth from the horrors and slavery imposed by the Axis nations.
For the last 1400-plus years Islam has imposed its own horrors and slavery on all non-Muslims (And, some Muslims who interpret Islam differently from others). The so-called “War” in Iraq and Afghanistan is only the most recent battle against those who use the ideology of Islam to enslave and terrify (In the fullest sense of that word) others.
Now that at least one Islamic nation (Pakistan; Which always teeters on the edge of an internal take over by those basic Muslims who favor Jihad over reason) has the A-Bomb and the Mullah driven government of Iran is on the verge of having such weapons (With the declared intent of destroying the State of Israel), we must consider what should be done to prevent our becoming SMOKE IN THE SKY—In mushroom clouds.
The days of waiting for a “Pearl Harbor” as moral cause for reaction as self-protection are over! It is necessary to consider and plan for a preventative military action to keep Iran from starting an atomic war. My suggestion is to send them, via ICBM some inert warheads to their uranium processing centers---With the message that the next warheads will be “live rounds”.
Other supporters of basic Islam, as is the Saudi government/family, can be then reminded that the cities of Mecca and Medina can become glass lined and radioactive craters.
Better that they should go up in smoke than us.
She, as a few others, were rescued by the Allied Armed Forces of that earlier and superior generation who defeated Nazi, Imperial Japanese and foolish Italian forces and liberated a good part of the earth from the horrors and slavery imposed by the Axis nations.
For the last 1400-plus years Islam has imposed its own horrors and slavery on all non-Muslims (And, some Muslims who interpret Islam differently from others). The so-called “War” in Iraq and Afghanistan is only the most recent battle against those who use the ideology of Islam to enslave and terrify (In the fullest sense of that word) others.
Now that at least one Islamic nation (Pakistan; Which always teeters on the edge of an internal take over by those basic Muslims who favor Jihad over reason) has the A-Bomb and the Mullah driven government of Iran is on the verge of having such weapons (With the declared intent of destroying the State of Israel), we must consider what should be done to prevent our becoming SMOKE IN THE SKY—In mushroom clouds.
The days of waiting for a “Pearl Harbor” as moral cause for reaction as self-protection are over! It is necessary to consider and plan for a preventative military action to keep Iran from starting an atomic war. My suggestion is to send them, via ICBM some inert warheads to their uranium processing centers---With the message that the next warheads will be “live rounds”.
Other supporters of basic Islam, as is the Saudi government/family, can be then reminded that the cities of Mecca and Medina can become glass lined and radioactive craters.
Better that they should go up in smoke than us.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Economics 202--Tax Cuts Explained
Tax Cuts Explained
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine had to pay the bill. They discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, PhD Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine had to pay the bill. They discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, PhD Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
Friday, January 19, 2007
Candidates, Gun "Controls" & Repeating History
Let us be very, very, honest with such "leading lights" as New York's Mayor Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, those who blindly support the corrupt UN (Unneeded Nations), Hilary Clinton and the Democrat Party leadership (As well as some RINOs) that our American Revolution began with THE GOVERNMENT attempting to seize arms held by citizens. It happened then and can happen again!
Those anti-Constitution banner carriers should recall that many of the individuals who supported such tyrannical acts were coated with tar and feathers and provided other encouragements to leave this nation. It happened then and can happen again.
Those anti-Constitution banner carriers should recall that many of the individuals who supported such tyrannical acts were coated with tar and feathers and provided other encouragements to leave this nation. It happened then and can happen again.
Dispatches From Londonistan
Society
Undercover Mosque
Broadcast: Monday 15 January
A Dispatches reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and finds preachers condemning integration into British society, condemning democracy and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.
Prime Minister Tony Blair recently described tolerance as 'what makes Britain Britain' but in this extensive investigation Dispatches reveals how a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK and examines how it is influenced by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia.
Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached.
He captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs - and predict a coming jihad. "An army of Muslims will arise," announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must "dismantle" British democracy - they must "live like a state within a state" until they are "strong enough to take over."
The investigation reveals Saudi Arabian universities are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology, then sending them back to the West to spread the word. And the Dispatches reporter discovers that British Muslims can ask for fatwas, religious rulings, direct from the top religious leader in Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti.
Saudi-trained preachers are also promoted in DVDs and books on sale at religious centres and sermons broadcast on websites. These publications and webcasts disseminate beliefs about women such as: "Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete", and girls: "By the age of 10 if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her," and there's an extreme hostility towards homosexuals.
The investigation reveals that the influence of Saudi Arabian Islam, Wahabism, extends beyond the walls of some mosques to influential organisations that advise the British government on inter-community relations and prevention of terrorism.
The Dispatches reporter attends talks at mosques run by key organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and mainstream - and finds preachers condemning the idea of integration into British society, condemning British democracy as un-Islamic and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.
Undercover Mosque features interviews with moderate British Muslim figures who are speaking out against the influence of Saudi Arabia's extreme brand of Islam, which is seeking to overturn Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence: "We are losing our children to extremists," says Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council. Dr Al Alawi of the Islamic Heritage Foundation also warns: "If this continues, you will have extremist mosques in every corner of the UK. You will not have moderate Muslims walking on our streets anymore."
MECCA DELANDA EST-----------------------DEUS VULT
Undercover Mosque
Broadcast: Monday 15 January
A Dispatches reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and finds preachers condemning integration into British society, condemning democracy and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.
Prime Minister Tony Blair recently described tolerance as 'what makes Britain Britain' but in this extensive investigation Dispatches reveals how a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK and examines how it is influenced by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia.
Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached.
He captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs - and predict a coming jihad. "An army of Muslims will arise," announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must "dismantle" British democracy - they must "live like a state within a state" until they are "strong enough to take over."
The investigation reveals Saudi Arabian universities are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology, then sending them back to the West to spread the word. And the Dispatches reporter discovers that British Muslims can ask for fatwas, religious rulings, direct from the top religious leader in Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti.
Saudi-trained preachers are also promoted in DVDs and books on sale at religious centres and sermons broadcast on websites. These publications and webcasts disseminate beliefs about women such as: "Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete", and girls: "By the age of 10 if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her," and there's an extreme hostility towards homosexuals.
The investigation reveals that the influence of Saudi Arabian Islam, Wahabism, extends beyond the walls of some mosques to influential organisations that advise the British government on inter-community relations and prevention of terrorism.
The Dispatches reporter attends talks at mosques run by key organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and mainstream - and finds preachers condemning the idea of integration into British society, condemning British democracy as un-Islamic and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.
Undercover Mosque features interviews with moderate British Muslim figures who are speaking out against the influence of Saudi Arabia's extreme brand of Islam, which is seeking to overturn Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence: "We are losing our children to extremists," says Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council. Dr Al Alawi of the Islamic Heritage Foundation also warns: "If this continues, you will have extremist mosques in every corner of the UK. You will not have moderate Muslims walking on our streets anymore."
MECCA DELANDA EST-----------------------DEUS VULT
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
New Telephone Tree Greeting
Subject: NEW TELEPHONE GREETING
New Telephone Greeting.
Wouldn't it be pretty amazing, if this caught on, all over the country...?
"GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES"
"Press "1" if you speak English." "Press '2' to disconnect until you can.
New Telephone Greeting.
Wouldn't it be pretty amazing, if this caught on, all over the country...?
"GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES"
"Press "1" if you speak English." "Press '2' to disconnect until you can.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
History-PoliSci-Economics 101
BY MAKING THE BELOW BETTER KNOWN YOU CAN SAVE MANY THE COSTS OF EXPENSIVE, UNIVERSITY, COURSES IN HISTORY, POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS.
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. *_That's how villages were formed._*
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is *_known as the Conservative movement_*.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. *_This was the beginning of the Liberal movement._*
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. *_The rest became known as girliemen_*.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. *_That's how villages were formed._*
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is *_known as the Conservative movement_*.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. *_This was the beginning of the Liberal movement._*
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. *_The rest became known as girliemen_*.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Poli-Sci/History Lesson RE: Weapons
Columnists / News Columnists / J.D. Mullane
Even blue states love guns
Bucks County Courier Times
It didn't take the gun guys long to spot me wandering among the tables at the Gun and Knife Show in Bristol Township.
Once confronted, I was certain I would be bounced from the place. To them, I am “the media.”
Gun-rights defenders feel toward media the same way a blue-stater feels toward George Bush.
Yet, they let me stay.
“Write whatever you want,” said Bob Sarb, a show organizer. “But we never feel we get a fair shake from you people.”
I spent a half-hour among 200 tables of guns and ammo, as well as knives and long blades that appeared capable of cleanly lopping off the head of your common infidel.
I made my way back to Sarb, who was selling raffle tickets for a Harley motorcycle and a .50-caliber gun signed by Ted Nugent.
We chatted about law, order and gun rights. I told him I had been to Washington, D.C., last week to see the swearing in of the Congress and was in the company of many happy Democrats. Two were engaged in a lively discussion of gun rights.
The pair concluded that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee any Joe Six-pack the right to keep or bear arms. They agreed the Second Amendment is really about arming militias, that is, the government armed forces.
Sarb chuckled.
“They should look at Pennsylvania's Constitution and what it says about guns, because it is clear what we are guaranteed,” he said.
He quoted from article 21 of the Commonwealth's Constitution, which was drafted in 1790 when most of the Founding Fathers were still living: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
“Shall ... not ... be ... questioned,” Sarb repeated to me.
I was unaware that the right to gun ownership in this state was so unambiguous. What, are we gun nuts? Or just plain-spoken on the matter?
It made me wonder what other state constitutions ring as clear. I checked. Here's the red state of Texas:
“Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
Texas aims to “regulate” arms? I thought they were all shoot-em-up cowboys down there.
What of the constitutions of the blue New England states? Certainly they would be as regulatory as Texas.
Maine, Art. 1, sec. 16: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Vermont, Ch. I, Art. 16: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. ... ”
New Hampshire, Part I, Article 2a: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”
Connecticut, Art. I, sec. 15: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
Rhode Island, Art. I, sec. 22: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Massachusetts, Pt. I, article 17: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.”
What, are they all gun nuts up there? Or are they just —well, you get it.
Even blue states love guns
Bucks County Courier Times
It didn't take the gun guys long to spot me wandering among the tables at the Gun and Knife Show in Bristol Township.
Once confronted, I was certain I would be bounced from the place. To them, I am “the media.”
Gun-rights defenders feel toward media the same way a blue-stater feels toward George Bush.
Yet, they let me stay.
“Write whatever you want,” said Bob Sarb, a show organizer. “But we never feel we get a fair shake from you people.”
I spent a half-hour among 200 tables of guns and ammo, as well as knives and long blades that appeared capable of cleanly lopping off the head of your common infidel.
I made my way back to Sarb, who was selling raffle tickets for a Harley motorcycle and a .50-caliber gun signed by Ted Nugent.
We chatted about law, order and gun rights. I told him I had been to Washington, D.C., last week to see the swearing in of the Congress and was in the company of many happy Democrats. Two were engaged in a lively discussion of gun rights.
The pair concluded that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee any Joe Six-pack the right to keep or bear arms. They agreed the Second Amendment is really about arming militias, that is, the government armed forces.
Sarb chuckled.
“They should look at Pennsylvania's Constitution and what it says about guns, because it is clear what we are guaranteed,” he said.
He quoted from article 21 of the Commonwealth's Constitution, which was drafted in 1790 when most of the Founding Fathers were still living: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
“Shall ... not ... be ... questioned,” Sarb repeated to me.
I was unaware that the right to gun ownership in this state was so unambiguous. What, are we gun nuts? Or just plain-spoken on the matter?
It made me wonder what other state constitutions ring as clear. I checked. Here's the red state of Texas:
“Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
Texas aims to “regulate” arms? I thought they were all shoot-em-up cowboys down there.
What of the constitutions of the blue New England states? Certainly they would be as regulatory as Texas.
Maine, Art. 1, sec. 16: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Vermont, Ch. I, Art. 16: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. ... ”
New Hampshire, Part I, Article 2a: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”
Connecticut, Art. I, sec. 15: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
Rhode Island, Art. I, sec. 22: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Massachusetts, Pt. I, article 17: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.”
What, are they all gun nuts up there? Or are they just —well, you get it.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Walking With Tyrants
In Truth---All it takes to correct the misbehaviors of tyrants is a short walk
with them---13-steps up and one step down.
Perhaps, we should apply the same corrective walk with those who are tyrants
in our inner-cities.
with them---13-steps up and one step down.
Perhaps, we should apply the same corrective walk with those who are tyrants
in our inner-cities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
