Friday, November 30, 2007

According to the House, I'm a terrorist now.


With the passage of this particular bill from the House (by a 404 to 6 vote) that has now been referred to the Senate (Senate Bill 1959), I have been ever closer brought into line with being an evvvilll terrorist. Why do I say that? It's quite simple, the above bill has these definitions in it:

    (2) Violent radicalization.— The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

    (3) Homegrown terrorism.— The term ‘homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

    (4) Ideologically based violence.—The term ‘ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

Pay close attention, and how they separate the use of force and violence. In other words, they are NOT the same thing according to this particular law. So, what does force mean if it isn't talking about something physical? Well, that's why we have, which provides us with a whole bunch of definitions. Yet it was these which attracted my attention first:
6. persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
7. mental or moral strength: force of character.
any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
value; significance; meaning.
22. to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.
Scary eh?

Still don't understand? Consider, the use of force is using something to convince someone of something. It is persuading someone of something, by its very definition. So, every time you win an argument, and persuade someone to your point of view, you've imposed your values upon said person by force.

Now, go re-read this law's definition for Ideologically based violence. I'll wait.

You with me again? Good.

Notice that part about the use, planned use or threatened use of force or violence? That just defined that any time someone writes for or against laws, politics, politicians, religions, or society in general, they are now, by House definition, a "homegrown terrorist."

Mike Adams has an article up on Newstarget that goes on to describe other ways which this law destroys things such as grassroots movements, and tells how you should get in touch with your Senator to express your disdain for this particular law.

Of particular interest in his article is this quote:
In terms of the upcoming election for U.S. President, there is only one candidate that actually believes in freedom: Ron Paul. He needs your support to win:

All the other candidates are nothing more than tyrants of different political affiliations. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly understands the fundamentals of freedom. That's why he's the only real choice for our next President. Can you imagine what Hillary Clinton would do with the police state powers that Bush has now created? That's the danger of all laws that centralize power in Washington: It's not necessarily what today's President will do with them, but what some future President will do with them.
All I have to say to that is "Hear! Hear!"

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Breeding for Stupidity

I'm one of those folks, who firmly believe that if you raise a kid right, he'll go the right way (hey, it's a firm, Biblical principle). Overall, it worked for me. I'm happily capitalistic, pro-privacy, pro-life, a firm believer in small government, and a die-hard Constitutionalist. Additionally, I have a healthy disdain for the government, and anyone who takes the effort to attempt to tell me what the truth is, especially when they do so after repeatedly being caught in partisan lies (i.e. the MSM).

So, imagine my surprise, when I discovered an article on the Blogger News Network discussing those environmentalists who believe it's bad environmental policy to have children. The BNN article points on towards an article from the Daily Mail (an UK newspaper) entitled: Meet the Women Who Won't Have Babies... Because they're not eco friendly.

Frankly, I was dumbfounded at first. I have always found it hard to believe that there are folks out there who just don't want to have children. It truly does make my head hurt on occasion, as I ponder such things.

Yet for all the various reasons one could use to justify the decision to not have children, the concept of them being "not eco friendly" is just so off the wall, that in my ruminations I had never considered it.

I was flabbergasted; nigh upon shocked speechless.

And, as my wife would love to point out, it takes a lot to do that to me.

Of course, now that I've had a bit of time to consider things, and after reading the additional lunacy which is evident in the comments to said thread, I have to say that I applaud their decision. How could I not?

Especially, if you consider my view of things related to the rearing of children from the first paragraph.

Consider this, if all the nut job liberals stopped having kids, only the kids of us who believe in small government and the Constitution would be around.

Unfortunately, liberty through natural selection isn't fast enough for my taste, as there are enough socialists/liberals out there to make my life miserable today.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Republican Frustration

There's an YAHOO/AP poll flickering around the MSM today, decrying just how frustrated and out-of-sorts Republicans and Independents are concerning the 2008 elections. All this while the Democrats are happy-go-lucky, and oozing joy at their candidates. All of this is happening, while a majority of everyone thinks that this election is very important and matters even more than usual.

Of course, I have to agree with that; after all, the top two Democratic candidates are both eager and ready to implement huge social health initiatives.

Additionally, I can see why Republicans are concerned and frustrated by their choices. After all, if a Republican isn't paying close attention, they have these options to choose from:
  • Guilani
  • Thompson
  • Romney
  • McCain
These are the four folks who routinely pop up on polls and other odds and ends. Of course these polls then have links to "more information" where you can find that there are additional candidates such as:
  • Huckabee
  • Paul
And quite often, it's just Paul who is hiding on the far side of a poll's jump, if he even appears.

Why does this matter? Because Paul is the only candidate out there who is running on a small government/Constitution-based platform. He's the only candidate out there who is actually running a campaign that makes sense to me as a Constitutionalist. Here's some of the things that Paul is for:
  • Lower taxes
  • Stopping illegal immigration
  • Ending NAFTA-like trade agreements
  • Stopping personal data collection by the government
  • Pro-life
  • Property rights
  • Ending Unconstitutional Federal interference in the Education of our children
And that's just a small sampling. So it's no wonder that the MSM despises and ignores him. It's no wonder that if most Republicans polled don't know he's out there (or worse, are still in the "I need to vote for a front-runner to keep so-n-so out of office" mindset) that they're frustrated. My suggestion, vote for what you believe. If we all did that, rather than trying to vote to keep someone out of office, then maybe our country would be a better place.

And have Ron Paul in the oval office.


Monday, November 19, 2007

Clinton's Las Vegas Trip

The main-stream media is abuzz. The holy grail has been found! Yes, I'm talking about Mrs. Clinton hiding out there in the dessert. It's almost been obscene, as ever since last Thursday story after story of her supposed triumphant debate has flickered across myRSS Reader.

It would be sickening, if not so scary.

Yet, not even the reports that the MSM planted questions for her at the debate could work me up enough to write a rant. At least until I stumbled across MSNBC's latest rave review of her campaign.

HRC: TCB in Vegas. A Conversion Story

A less than surprising (in light of MSNBC's admitted shift Left) endorsement of the Clinton campaign, which starts off with these sentences:
She came, she saw--and she conquered.

After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Now, this is a MSNBC "blog" so it's perfectly reasonable that its author has a pronounced bias, but since it is on a MSM website, one still expects... well journalistic integrity? That post just reeks of "Hey, look at me! I'm an HRC fanboi!" Now I can admit to be a Ron Paulite, and I know that my Constitionalistic leanings influence my writings, and that I'll have a tendency to support anyone who pushes a platform which I like. But, I never claimed to be a news site. This here is a place for me to rant and rave about things without driving my beloved wife batty.

Slightly different venue.

All that aside, that's not what caused me to frown and think up a rant. Rather it was this quote (as Mrs. Clinton discussed the Thursday night debate):
I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't.
In effect, she's bragging about socialism; big government.

It still boggles the mind that anyone would willingly take a handout from the government through the welfare and other social programs, which FDR (the guy that put the initial systems into place) said would destroy this country if they weren't revoked.

I can admit, I hate social welfare programs. They are evil things, and in effect are enforced charity. It is the government, taking money from me to give to someone it deems worthy by some arcane stricture. A modern-day Robin Hood if you will. While Robin Hood is often classified as a folk hero, let us not forget that he was fighting against the high taxes and social ills which big government impose upon us. If eitherObama or Clinton manage to make it into office, this is the future we have to look forward to. Yet another attack against the capitalistic, small-government dream which our Founding Fathers held dear.

Presidential candidates should not be bragging about expanding the Federal government's powers. Frankly, I'm of the mind that attempts to expand Federal powers beyond that which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be considered treason. Especially, if that Presidential candidate was already an office holder in the Federal government which forced them to take an oath of office to protect said Constitution (such as bothObama and Clinton did when they became Senators). Let's look at that shall we?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Makes sense. It means that they promised to SUPPORT and DEFEND the Constitution. So, tell me again, how does a Federal Welfare System (or Education System for that matter) support the Constitution? There is no article, section or clause which grants the Federal government that particular right or ability, and as we all should know by now, any right not specifically given the Federal government is reserved for the States and the citizenry.

Just one of the many, many reasons why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

It's nearing Election Time again.

I don't know why, but I seem to have the most rant-like things to say during election years. Especially Presidential election years. Maybe it's because I tend to despise both candidates equally, and in the end vote for the lesser of two evils.

Luckily, this election cycle there's actually a candidate whom I like on the ballot: Ron Paul.

But that's neither here nor there. I live in Mississippi these days, and yesterday was an Election Day here. So, the Clarion Ledger is here to provide the results of this election (11/06/2007) which caused me to be fifteen minutes or so late to work.

What saddens me the most about those election results are all those "Noncontested Elections." I mean what is up with that? Couldn't they drag someone up who would have been happy to run for that particular office? I mean couldn't the Democrats find someone on Welfare to run for State Senate District 14? It would have served two purposes, given the voters an actual choice, and possibly gotten someone off the welfare roles. Similar annoyances apply to the Republicans and State Senate District 13. And a whole bunch of other elections as well.

It's a sad state of affairs.