Thursday, November 6, 2008

California's Proposition 8

Now, isn't this surprising--leftists acting like the perpetual children they are when they don't get their way.

Just in case you've not heard, after California decided (for a SECOND time by democratic vote) that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, there were protests and marches. This of course included the usual arrests and vandalism (the protesters were seen banging on doors, walls and climbing on cars--all of which can be construed as vandalism because they damage property).

Of course what gets me, is that the protesters were carrying signs which read:
We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry
Color me confused, but I could have sworn that every one HAD the freedom to marry. They just couldn't marry someone of the same sex. The same way someone can't just marry a dog or a telephone pole.

Of course you still have Mayor Newsom out there jumping up and down trying to get the definition overturned as lawyers for the city of LA, San Fransisco and the ACLU jumped into action. But I do have the question: When are we going to stop allowing our politicians to actively try and thwart the will of the people?

Let's face it, I don't agree with who was elected President (and for the record, if McCain had gotten it, I'd still not agree with it), but you don't see me out there saying we need to do away with the voting system, and that we need to ignore the will of the populace.

But, I'm not a Liberal, so I can't do that in good conscience.

I can't use the courts to create laws for me, because I believe that the courts shouldn't be doing that. I can't use the courts to create laws for me, because I firmly believe that it is a gross misappropriation of power on the courts part, when they granted themselves that ability. After all, the Constitution I read stated that Congress is the folks who writes the laws.

But again, I'm not a Liberal so there are just things that I can't do in good conscience.

Alas, what's a soul to do?

Labels: , ,

Knife Ban--but at police discretion

One and a half inch. That's not a lot of length. In fact it's somewhat pathetically small.

I can admit, the pocket knife that I carry on a daily basis has a 1.5 inch blade. But that's a personal choice, and it wasn't that long ago that I carried a 4 inch blade on a belt holster every day.

Why am I bringing this up? It's because Worcester, Pennsylvania wants to infringe upon its citizens rights and attempt to strip them of the wonderful tool which is a knife. In fact the city council will be having a hearing on it tonight (11/6/08).

BUT it gets better!

It gets better because the imbeciles who want to be Big Brother to the citizens of Worcester actually told us their thoughts on the matter. Let's take a gander at what Council District 3 Councilor Paul P Clancy, Jr. had to say on this:
We have a zero tolerance for these weapons in our schools and now we need to extend it out into the community. This is an ordinance the council needs to pass. It will make it a safer community for all.
Yes, the same lunacy which is Zero Tolerance is shifting out of our schools and into the general populace.

Here's a not so secret, secret: I don't believe in Zero Tolerance policies. If I had my way, I would remove funding from every school district that imposed them until such time as they were rescinded.

But that's me, I believe that we should raise our kids to be mature, capable adults, so what do I know.

Digression aside, I hate Zero Tolerance policies, but let's take a look at this from a fundamental point of view. They want to make it illegal for anyone to have a blade over 1.5 inches in their possession. There's no clauses, no riders, it's just that simple.

My first concern would be for fishermen. My tackle box has a knife with a seven inch blade used for cleaning fish, and another with a smaller blade used for cutting line and other misc. tasks. If this law passed, I could no longer carry my tackle box.

Oh, but the morons writing this law thought of that. After all, District Attorney
Joseph D. Early Jr. has assured the city councilors that said law would be targeted primarily at the after-hours bars and nightclubs where all these knifings have been occurring.

So, why wouldn't they write that into the law?

Why not put a simple rider, stating that you can't have a knife over x inches on your possession while at a nightclub or bar? Oh, that's right, because these things are all happening AFTER the bars and nightclubs close at folk's personal properties.

So, not only can you not have a knife while fishing, but you can't have it at your house, because someone might stab one of your guests with it. So much for cooking.

Unfortunately, that's not the stupidest part of D.A. Early's statement. Early claims that the police would be able to "target" the law. Which is insane, as that means that someone could easily prove that the law wasn't being fairly enforced and either a) have it thrown out or b) sue the city government for racial discrimination and/or profiling (it'd be simple to prove that a cop didn't charge a white man for the law, but did a black man)--and the city would be lucky if it didn't end up being both.

All in all, kind of scary if you ask me, and if I were a citizen of Worcester, I would be up in arms over this latest example of zero tolerance nonsense and Orwellian government.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

President-elect Obama

While it's not quite "official" yet (the president's not elected until the electoral college meets on Dec. 18, 2008) Senator McCain has called and told his opponent that he is not going to actually run for president. Of course that still leaves Obama up against 5 0r 6 other folks (Baldwin, Barr, Nader, etc) but hey, since the Media doesn't talk about them they don't exist.

Anyways, current estimates put Obama at receiving ~344 electoral votes, an overwhelming majority in this cycle (McCain is listed at receiving ~168).

That's a nearly 3:1 spread. Why?

I don't care how fluent he is, it can't be that Obama is just that good of a speaker. So what can it be? His highly liberal, socialist, and anti-gun policies just don't create the kind of turnout that we're seeing.

In my opinion, it's just the simple fact that McCain isn't a conservative. He's a moderate with liberal leanings, the same as President Bush--and let's face it, if you're going to vote for a liberal, just go on and vote for one. I firmly believe that there are three types of voters out there for Obama:
  1. True Liberals who believe in his socialist, anti-gun, etc leanings (a majority of his voters)
  2. Folks who voted for him, just because of his race
  3. Folks who were scared of McCain being in office
I can understand number 3, after all, when I was some stupid young kid back in the 2000 election, I voted George Bush because I was scared of having Gore in the White Hourse. That was the first, and last, time which I wasted my vote, when I gave it away to someone, not because I believed in their message, but because I didn't want their opponent to take the office.

Now, I'm going to make a statement, it's probably going to bother a lot of folks, and I'm sure it will create all sorts of interesting issues for me, but I'm going to do it anyways.
The Republican Party has one more (Presidential) election to stay relative to the Conservative voter
And by that I mean that in 2012, I don't see how the Republican Party can maintain the illusion of being a conservative party if it provides us with Presidential candidates along the same lines as John McCain or Fred Thompson from this cycle.

So, what is the Republican party needing to do to ensure that it stays relevant? Truthfully, at this point it has two options.

The first, and the one it has been taking since Bush Sr, is to shift left. The problem with this is that the further left the Republicans go, the crazier the Democrats (who are left of the Republicans) get. If this process continues, I urge everyone to stop being Republican and take a good long look at some of the other options out there, specifically the Constitution Party (actually go take a good look at it regardless).

The second option, and one I personally endorse, is to take a hard turn back to the right. Get back to what it means to be conservative: small government, fiscal responsibilities, slowing down growth of social welfare projects, turning the government back to its Constitutional mandates.

Now, I guess it's time to sit back, see how the Republicans react to this fiasco of an election cycle (for them at least) and to hope and pray that Obama doesn't send us further away from a Constitutional government.

Odd, but I think that's the first time I've ever actually hoped that a politician doesn't keep his campaign promises.

Labels: