Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Roadmap to Break the Law

70,000 maps, in comic book form, of the United States border marking roads and water tanks are going to allow illegal immigrants to sneak into this country easier and safer. Of course our good friend Mexico is the government giving these things out to Mexico's citizen.

And Mexico says there's no invasion of the U.S. by Mexico.

This on top of the Mexican military being inside the U.S. protecting gun runners, and by inside, I do not mean some random section of the Arizona border, but rather the Texan border where the countries are separated by the Rio Grande. Yes, the Rio Grande, which even during the dry season has a 200 foot river bed.

And Mexico says there is no invasion of the U.S. by Mexico.

These excursions by the Mexican military have almost become routine for the U.S. Border Patrol. Even to the point that Edward Nelson, former Chairman of the Border Patrol stated in 2003 that "we are in a state of war, and we are fighting enemies who have brought the battle to our shores. If ever there was a time for the United States to put troops on the border, it is now." That was in March of that year.

And Mexico says there is no invasion of the U.S. by Mexico.

A catholic priest wrote an editorial in a Georgian newspaper claiming the wonders of illegal immigration, and how businesses need to be able to hire illegals to support the wonderful social services that those businesses provide.

And Mexico says there is no invasion of the U.S. by Mexico.

Sooner or later our government is going to have to accept that the sieve we call a southern border needs to be closed. Sooner or later, we're going to have to stop the Mexicans from walking into our country and attacking our government agents. We as a people need to stop believing that protecting our borders is a racial thing. The Lefties out there want you to believe that folks such as the Minuteman Project are racists for attempting to protect our borders, but they're not. People such as the Minutemen are not singling out people because of their race; they're stopping individuals from coming into our country. Just because those people all come from Mexico, and happen to be Hispanic, has no bearing, the fact they're coming across our borders illegally does.

The truth of the matter is that regardless of what Mexico says, their military and citizens are pouring into our country. If that is not an invasion, I'm not certain I know what that word means any more.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

The Sexual Revolution: Men-1: Women-0

As a guy, I must say that men have finally won the sexual revolution. This is much to the chagrin of fundamentalists (especially the father of little girls) everywhere.

How exactly did men win the sexual revolution? It's quite simple actually. You see, there's a concept out there among the youth of America called "hooking up." A Georgetown University student described hooking up as anything from kissing to sex, while another called it a shallow thing without strings attached. This shift from traditional dating means that women are now actively looking for one-night stands. What is better is that organizations such as NOW and the left-ran schools push this as "progressive" and "liberating." While I was growing up, girls like this were called "easy" or more often "sluts." Men won the sexual revolution because they no longer have to make an attempt to get shallow meaningless sex. Of course NOW doesn't see this because the behavior is labeled "Liberated" rather than "Slutty." Which, of course makes them happy, after all, it's all about the labels.

This is the situation that the feminist movement and sexual revolution has brought to fruition. This is the fruits of their labors. Grand isn't it?

How exactly can we fight this? While I do not have a little girl of my own (which I hope one day to have), I do not want my son growing up in this type of environment, mostly because it is a harmful environment. To truly believe that there are no physical, mental or emotional repercussions to hooking up is irresponsible on the part of everyone.

Of course, harming our children's emotionally is never really at issue with liberals, especially feminists, as all their choices are aimed more at making adults feel better about themselves, than for the psychological welfare of children.

Dating takes a lot of effort. Hooking up, that's easy. It's just one night. No strings. Except that is not how it works. There are emotional and physical bonds formed with whomever you sleep with, especially for women. That's just how God made us. The entire concept of hooking up just screams disrespect for women and for the body. It screams, all I'm after is getting my kicks, you can go….well you get the idea.

Hopefully, my son will never "hook up" with a girl. If he does, I may have to give him some nice old-fashioned corporal punishment, just to remind him that he should be upholding those old-fashioned values of mine.

Labels: ,

Sunday, January 22, 2006

The Eminent Domain of Justice Souter

Justice David Souter was one of the brilliant legal minds who ruled in favor of the City of New London, New Hampshire in Kelo v. New London. For those of you wondering, Kelo was the Supreme Court case which granted cities like New London even greater abilities to use eminent domain to take property away from private individuals and give it to some other private individual. Brilliant legal ruling that was.

Well, there is a California man by the name of Logan Darrow Clements who has decided that the small township of Weare in New Hampshire should evict Justice Souter from his home, and give the land to Clement's group, allowing Clement's activist group to build a hotel on that land. After all, that is what Souter's decision did to some private citizens.

I for one, found it deliciously funny.

Of course individuals such as state representative Neal Kurk do not quite have my point of view on such things. In fact, Representative Kurk has declared that Mr. Clements is doing this out of revenge.

What utter drivel.

For this to be an act of revenge, then Mr. Clements would have had to been a party involved in the losing side of Kelo. No, I think it is more of a matter of the fact that Mr. Clements merely wants Justice Souter to feel the evil that Souter helped unleashed. Why should judges who make idiotic rulings such as this one, be exempt from the evil of said ruling? This is not revenge. This is making these idiot judges realize what evil they have inflicted upon the populace by granting the government the power to steal private lands to give to others.

I mean, come on. The government already steals my money to give away to people to lazy to work, now they can steal my land, and give it to people too cheap to pay me what it would take to get me to sell.

Labels: ,

Friday, January 13, 2006

10,000 Wal-Mart Employees Can't Be Wrong

Maryland is trying to enact a brand new law. One that states that those companies with 10,000 employees (or more) in their state, must pay a certain amount of their payroll into health care.

Of course, only Wal-Mart has that many employees in state, but hey, the Democrats say that this legislation is not aimed at them. Surprisingly enough, I believe them. I think that the Leftists just put that 10,000 number in there, to make their first victim of this un-capitalistic practice Wal-Mart so that the effect would be more palatable to people. After all, it's Wal-Mart with billions in sales, and millions employed. What could making them pay a little extra to employee health care matter?

This is where the Lefties want things to stand. They want the people happy that they are legally forcing companies to give employees a certain amount of healthcare, because once that is legally acceptable, they can then start lowering that number. After all, if it's ok at 10,000 employees, then it's ok for 9,500, then 9,000 and before you know it for 10. One must remember that for this type of law there is no difference between 10 and 10,000. It is a random number, set high to make it acceptable, because it can only affect one company. That that one company is Wal-Mart is just a bonus in the Lefties eyes. In the same way that the minimum wage is set low to make it acceptable to the most people (I'm still waiting for the $2,000 per hour minimum wage, I could get behind that).

Of course the esteemed lawmakers in Maryland have failed to realize the simple realities of business. They are trying to pass a law that states that the business spends 8% of payroll on healthcare. Now, Wal-Mart has a few options for doing this:

  • Pay for it out of profits
  • Close stores until they are under the magic number
  • Pay their employees less

Gee, I wonder which I would do if I were in Wal-Mart's shoes. There is no way I would pay for it out of profits. That is hurtful to my shareholders. Even if I tried to pay my employee's less, there are artificial limits on how low I can pay them, which a higher minimum wage in conjunction with this health care tax would cause me convulsions. So that leaves the close stores until I'm under the magic number.

Yup, to keep from paying this particular tax, I will close stores, stopping jobs, and depriving thousands of consumers a cheap place to shop. After all, I would be in this for the money.

Who knows, Wal-Mart could do something different, after all, I'm not in charge over there. They could even attempt to question the constitutionality of this law. Unfortunately, capitalism, though a corner stone of our society, has no protection in the Constitution.

Sadly the labor unions are pushing this law in other places. If your state has the misfortune to be one of them, I would get in contact with your legislature. This health tax is not a good thing.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Methan, Frogs, and You

There has been a couple interesting articles put out recently, the first has to deal with greenhouse gases, most specifically methane (click here for link). In what I'm sure is a amazing surprise to those crazed eco-whacko's, plants are a major contributor to greenhouse gases. To me, this is no surprise, as for a long time, I've realized that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions occur where there is the fewest people, such as the blue ridge mountain ranges in the Carolinas. It's just those many people who want to blame all the world's ills on human environmental impact (less than .1% of greenhouse gases mind you) that this is bad news for. Personally, I don't care if the ambient temperature raises a degree point over the next hundred years. After all, according to evolutionists (and geologists) the world has spent more time as a greenhouse than it has in an ice age or what we would consider normal temperatures (and what they call normal temperatures are those temperatures recorded during the past 100 years or so). So what is the response to this interesting tidbit? Why rather than any form of common sense, we just get "well this may mean we need to reconfigure the Kyoto protocols slightly."

Can I get a bah?

On to interesting story number two. It actually is related in a round about way, but it deals with the mass extinction of various frog types. Apparently during unseasonably warm winters certain fungus gets to grow in different areas and take out whole species of frogs. Apparently this fungus thrives when there is less of a temperature differential between day and night. So what's to blame you ask? Global warming. Apparently, global warming causes nights to be warmer and days to be cooler, allowing these fungus to thrive. As a side note, global warming has also been cited as the cause of record low temperatures in Europe this winter, as well as the replacement of various cold-water plankton with warm-water plankton.

What gets me is that most of this eco-whacko's are evolutionists as well. They believe that whole survival of the fittest shtick. That life has no intrinsic value and all of us have evolved from some lower life form to fill an ecological niche. Except humans, who are evil incarnate, and are put on this planet merely to destroy the environment. That alone makes me wonder what the big deal about the dying frogs are? After all, they did not survive, they were weak, now the earth will have to bring something else to fill that particular niche.

But hey, what do I know. After all, I believe in neither global warming nor in evolution. However, I do believe that this earth of ours is much, much hardier than the eco-whacko's give her credit to being. I think we could probably wipe out whole ranges of species, and something would just move in to take its place. As has been happening for thousands of years as us evil humans have exterminated other species. After all, there was not a huge ecological impact after the dodo bird was wiped out in its entirety.

Oh wait, I forgot that we can't let little things like logic or past experience get in the way of what the Left want us to believe. So go on and worry about that .01% of atmospheric carbon dioxide that humans put in the air actually has a bearing on our global environment. Then go cry over those little froggies who will never get to be bait for me to catch a large-mouth bass with.

But why you are doing this, can you at least wonder why the Left wants us to worry and cry about this. After all, we do have more important things to worry about, like Big Government.

Labels:

Saturday, January 7, 2006

Anger Doesn't Solve Anything, Violence Does

A judge in Vermont, Edward Cashman, wins my personal enmity. As judges go, he's probably the lowest of the low. As people go, he is basically scum of the earth. It takes a lot to make me truly hate someone, especially public servants. While I believe they are fools and misguided, I don't hate liberals, homosexuals or drunkards.

But Eddie takes the cake.

Why? What has this judge, who lives hundreds of miles from me, done that irks me so?

To know what this judge has done to earn my ire, you must know the story of Mark Hulett. Mark confessed to the repeated rape of a young girl. Mark started this when the girl was 7. Mark continued his abuse and destruction of this poor child for four years. Remember that number. Mark raped a girl, from the time she was 7 until she was 11. Also, remember that I am a firm believer that rape should be a capital crime.

So, we have Mark, after his four years of torturing the innocent, finally arrested, and in front of a judge. He admits his guilt. There was nothing stopping this guy from going away for a long, long time, where he can get rapped for the next 20 years or so. That is there was nothing stopping Mark from a lengthy jail term until Judge Cashman stepped in. The sentence Cashman handed down was 60 days. That's what, 15 days per year of rape.

Yes, that is justice for that poor child.

Of course, when queried, what did the judge say about himself? That he didn't believe in punishment and this quote "We feed on anger, that's not my job. I've got to do something that solves problems. The one message I want to get through is, anger doesn't solve anything."

Sadly, Judge Cashman is not the only stupidity in regards to this case. The Vermont Department of Corrections gave Mark a low risk of repeat offense classification, which among other things means that if he did serve a prison sentence, he would not get sex offender counseling. Which I guess it's valid, for I doubt Mark will go out of his way to rape another little girl repeatedly over a four year period. He'll just rape them for a single year, and then move on to someone new. I mean, this classification from the DoC is just as stupid and inane as the sentence handed down by Cashman. After all, Mark admitted that he rapped this girl multiple times over multiple years. He is already a repeat offender. Just because he was caught only once, does not negate the number of times he violated and tortured this poor girl.

Anger doesn't solve anything. Of course it doesn't, but what I want to know is what does anger have to do with just punishment? There should be no anger in punishments. Consider this, when I give my son a spanking, quite often I'm trying to not break out laughing. I have found whatever misbehavior that my son has performed quite funny. Of course, since he is misbehaving, he still gets a scolding and a spanking. There is no anger on my part during his punishment.

The point is that this judge has failed in his duty. As a criminal trail judge, he should, without anger, apply the punishments which fit the crime an individual is convicted of. Failure to do this is a failure to do his purpose. What is worse is that it sets a legal precedent where individuals who repeatedly rape a young girl over multiple years, can get off with barely a slap on the wrist. One has to wonder why Cashman would want this as a legal precedent, it makes me wonder what type of materials would be found on his PC.

This animal that hurt this little girl needs punishment. If the punishment was up to me, we would, in a fit of happiness, beat Mark to death over a four year period, and force Cashman to be raped repeatedly over those same four years. Mark is a rabid animal, and needs to be put down as such. Cashman, well Cashman is worse.

Labels: ,