Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Ms. USA -- but only if you have an approved list of beliefs

The interwebs are in an state of shock. Gay, gossipist and all-around freak, Perez Hilton, is all sorts of a titter, and calling someone who calmly, and succinctly spoke her beliefs a "bitch."

The 21-year old Miss California is even now getting death threats and what not.

In case you have no clue what I'm talking about, during the Miss USA contest the other day, Perez Hilton (one of the judges) asked Miss California what she thought of gay marriages. Miss California, whose actual name is Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

She wasn't ranting. She wasn't being mean. She responded with her beliefs, her familial and religious point-of-view on the topic being given.

A response which ultimately cost her the crown of Miss USA.

And created a firestorm of hate, and death threats and name calling from the lunatic left. Which, sadly to say, is a large cross-section of all of the left.

Of course, as is often the case, these things just get more, and more inane. In the related story, Fox News reports that
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement. "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

I have to admit that I'm truly and utterly confused by Mr. Lewis' statement. In the same breath, he says that he is hurt and saddened by Miss Prejean's comments, then he also states that religions should be able to create whichever marriage unions that they see fit. Then he continues his rather insane talking point on how government shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone, and concludes the statement with how religion has no politics in the Miss California family.

So why exactly did she lose the crown? If politics and religious beliefs had no bearing on the decisions, why did she lose. And why is Perez Hilton ranting and raving against her?

Of course, I know the reason. It's fundamentally simple.

The average, run-of-the-mill Liberal cannot succinctly and intelligently argue their beliefs. This is a fundamental truth to the liberal agenda. It's the reason that rather than discussing the politics behind the TEA Parties over the past few weeks, the liberals out there just hurl insults and mockery. It's the reason that when the gay-left lost the Prop8 vote last November they ranted and raved, and beat up little old women. It's the reason that liberals are trying so hard to get translate conservative concepts into Hate laws. It's the reason that those preachers of Tolerance, cannot tolerate any concept that doesn't fit squarely into their little round holes of political concepts.

Their entire belief structure is built upon pipe-dreams, and lollipops. Everything from charity-under-duress welfare to the magical barriers called "no-gun zones." Liberals react with their emotions and plan what new law they can enact to a) provide them more power, and b) make-believe that something bad won't happen.

Personally, I'm proud of Miss California. I'm heartened to see someone get up in front of, what is effectively a hostile crowd, and unequivocally stand for her beliefs. Regardless of the fact that it cost her the Miss USA crown, and regardless of the name-calling and death threats from the left.

It doesn't matter who walked away with that crown. I believe that Ms. Prejean is a better display of what an American is--someone who stands for their beliefs, regardless of the repercussions--than any of those leftists who react to the beliefs, values and ideals of others with hatred and a general lack of real tolerance.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Continuing the Fine Tradition of Home Grown Terrorism

Since my government has decided, once again, that I am an extremist, and/or a "radicalized" home-grown terrorist, I figured I should do everything in my power to ensure that I maintain that particular label.

The primary aspect of that is to ensure that I talk about what I view as the demonization of Constitutionalists, and the Constitution in general. I also must talk about how taxes and government are bad for you--because let's face it they are.

Here's the list of articles that have caught my fancy over the past few hours or so, and are things which I think everyone should get around to reading.
I'm heartened to notice in those articles that I'm not alone in fearing and decrying the government annexation of more and more of our rights. From what we are allowed to do with our property to what we're allowed to do with ourselves.

Let us remember and remind ourselves of just what and how we are supposed to be as a country.

Above all, let us remember that those heroes of our nation, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Locke, would all be considered violent, radicalized, home-grown terrorists in this statist nation which we now found ourselves within.

This is not a nation that Jefferson or Locke would be proud of. This is not the nation that Washington fought and bled for.

And I will say that as often, and as loudly as needed. After all, we still have the First Amendment.

At least for a little while longer.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Crazy Killing Machine Buyers...

ABC has an article up on its website currently about the EVVVILLL gun shows, and how they are such dangerous, evil things, that need to end.

I'm sickened by it. Truly. The Liberal, anti-Constitution bias in the article causes literal pain for me. They carry on about the evilness of gun shows, and even go to classify a LEGAL way to purchase a product a "loophole."

Basically, the entire article is an emotional call, made by one of the legally-mandated sitting ducks students of the Virgina Tech massacre's brother on just how bad guns are. Forget the fact that if someone had been armed that morning in that particular building that it would not be remembered as the largest massacre by a sole gunman. He waxes inanely about wanting to "protect" other people, and how he's trying to do so by showing how easy it is to get guns.

And I'm still trying to figure out, just how not letting additional guns be purchased legally will stop someone willing to murder others? I mean think about it, if someone is willing and wanting to take the extreme step of killing someone, do you think that creating magical legal barriers will stop them from doing it with a gun?

If you do, I have a very nice bridge I'd like to sell you.

Personally, I have long thought it the height of insanity to create these nice shooting galleries where those willing to carry out massacres can go, safe in the knowledge that folks whom are actually concerned about carrying out the law will not be carrying their guns.

Yet, that's not the worse thing about the article. I can say this, because ABC allows comments. Which of course, provided me this particular gem of utter tripe and stupidity by someone named "truth_2_power":
only crazy people would support the ability to buy killing machines this easily... the world has changed and the laws need to as well
I'm going to take a look at the second part of that stupidity first. "The world has changed, and the laws need to as well." From a certain point of view, he's right. The world has changed, and the laws do need to. We need to open up, and make it easier for the populace to own guns.

Of course, that's not what he's meaning. This fine, upstanding, member of the easily-victimized-by-criminals brigade wants everyone to be as helpless as he himself is. Forget the fact that places with concealed carry have less crime. Forget the fact that the police are more likely to use their weapons in an illegal manner than the non-police. Truth_2_Power wants everyone to be as unprotected, and victimizable as he himself is. He insanely believes that making it harder for people who are good upstanding citizens to procure guns will stop people who have no respect for the laws already.

And no matter how you cut it, that's just not true.

Now, let's look at the brilliance of the first part of his statement: only crazy people would support the ability to buy killing machines this easily.

I went to Bass Pro Shops the other day. While there, I purchased a number of machines whose sole purpose was to kill. That's it. That's what they are designed to do. I bought two-dozen of them. It took me minutes, fifteen at the most. My identification wasn't checked. I didn't have to fill out any paperwork. Yet, I was in and out with those killing machines with a "thanks, come again."

What machine was this? Fishing hooks. Which killing machine is not the point. The point is that truth_2_power thinks that just because something can be utilized to hurt someone, then no one, but those magically blessed by the State (or those willing to break the law), should have it.

Any day of the week, you can go into nearly any store and purchase something with which to kill:
  • Lowe's -- good night, that's a cornucopia of mayhem--chunks of wood, power tools, saws, axes
  • Target -- walk through the sporting goods section, see all those baseball bats and golf clubs?
  • Any gas station sells me the needed ingredients for a molotov cocktail
  • Pharmacys & grocery stores are slower in their killing machines, as they sell poisons
What truth_2_power seems unable to comprehend is that there are people out there who are willing to kill, steal, and rape. They have no problems with this, and are happiest when they know that their victims do not have the means with which to protect themselves.

And don't even think of saying the word "police." The Supreme Court of the United States has clearly stated (Castle Rock v. Gonzales--June 27, 2005) that individuals have no inherent right to police protection. And this isn't the first time. That particular judgment was based upon a long history of case law. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

And in some states, this concept is embedded in actual state law. For example, California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 state (in part): "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

Yet, truth_2_power, and his liberal, anti-Constitution brethren, wish us to believe otherwise. He wants us to happily become the sheep which the police, the government and the criminals fleece.

The only way to truly protect ourselves from those who wish to do us harm is to do it ourselves. We, are the only people capable, and concerned enough to do so. Go out, buy a gun, and get a concealed carry permit. It works, even the police agree.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, April 3, 2009

The Taxman Cometh

And apparently he's bringing friends.

In an, at least to me, un-amazing move, numerous state, county and even city governments are dreaming up hundreds of ways in which to tax you their constituent.

Here in Mississippi there is talk of both a new cigarette tax, and a new healthcare tax, all in an effort to keep from having to raise the taxes on automobiles.

And Mississippi is not alone in these things. States and municipalities across the nation are taxing everything from tobacco products to strip clubs. And this is even before the trillions in new taxes which Obama's budget promises to crush us with.

The new law of the land seems to be "if it exists, then it can be taxed."

Every tax that's being proposed, has the sole effect of hurting a business, investor or the population in general (don't believe me? check that budget again, there's a cap-and-trade tax which will raise electric rates).

Yet our elected officials seem oblivious to the simple fact that rather than raising taxes, why don't we cut out the pointless, duplicated and un-needed government programs.

Do we need a Federal Department of Education, when traditionally, education is a LOCAL matter, and we elect superintendents on a per-county basis? No!

Do we need huge swatches of income taken from people, under duress and threat of imprisonment, and have that money be given to other people in wealth redistribution schemes? No!

Do we need a special police force dedicated to alcohol, tobacco and firearms? No!

Do we need state police forces, when each county has a sheriff's office, and most towns a police department? No!

Our governments are big, lumbering bureaucracies in this day and age. This is a bad thing. It is an evil thing, and as such needs to go away.

Now, I'm not encouraging anarchy, but I am encouraging a small, streamlined government presence, with a focus on personal liberty.

After all, that's what the Constitution promises us.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Here, There Be Slavery

Ah, the sweet joys of Freedom. America is a bountiful land, where laws which force our children into mandatory "service" programs, removing their ability to speak out against potential legislation and their ability to practice their religion would never pass.


Oh wait, that was BEFORE the Obama Administration. Apparently, I've been dreaming about the standards which our Founding Fathers placed into our Constitution. After all, H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act managed to get passed.

Now, despite the wonderful wording, this act has NOTHING to do with volunteers. Volunteers still have their rights, and volunteers are not forced to perform a service in order to gather the needed high-school credits to graduate or to get financial aid for college.

This is what Rahm Emanuel describes as the Obama Administration's "vision" for this plan:
We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.
"Universal civilian service" is not volunteerism, it's a draft. Yet because this is not for the military, and worse, it's enforced across the board, the Liberal Left is not up in arms over it. Because it's for organizations approved by the Left they're quiet and inattentive.

But if the scope and vile of the act itself is not enough to turn one's stomach, then one can just look forward to the amendments. Here's my personal favorite:

Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:


(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
Yes, you read that correctly. An individual who "volunteers" for this mandatory, universal service (i.e. this enforced slavery at the hands of the State) must give up their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

And people wonder why I get so irked when they claim that the Bill of Rights "gives" us our rights instead of the more accurate description that the Bill of Rights enumerates certain of our God-given rights as a reminder to the State.

This is a firm step that the government believes that it can legislate itself out of the Bill of Rights.

Sadly, both of the Senators for Mississippi (Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker) voted YES for this act. Even worse, 3 out of 4 Mississippi Representatives voted Yes for this bill (Travis Childers, Bennie Thompson, and Gene Taylor). That means out of all of Mississippi representation to Congress, only Gregg Harper stood up for personal rights, and against this monstrosity of a draft into indentured servitude of our children.

The purpose of this bill is to create a body of individuals who place their full faith in the Government and do not question their orders. Additionally, it is to be structured as a paramilitary system, for "civil defense" that is as "well-funded as the real military."

Compare this concept with how the Encyclipedia Britanica describes the values of a Fascist dictatorship:
Fascists favoured military values such as courage, unquestioning obedience to authority, discipline, and physical strength. They also adapted the outward trappings of military organizations, such as paramilitary uniforms and Roman salutes.
This is what our nation is becoming. This is the horror that our Congressmen have voted to force onto us. This is the change that Obama promised.

And people wonder why I voted for Ron Paul.

To see how your state fared, look here for the House, and here for the Senate.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

I Wish Today's News Was All Just an April Fool's Day Joke...

I like GM cars. And in fact a majority of the vehicles that I have owned over the years are GM vehicles. So, it saddens me to see them in such dire straights, but such is life in a free-market economy like ours.

At least it was until the Government got into the business of handing out billions of dollars in an effort to shore up bad business decisions.

And much to my dismay, my beloved GM was one of the companies who went begging. Of course they are paying for it now. There are reports that the White House is planning on "reorganizing" the GM board of directors in an effort to make GM continue dancing to the tune it sets.

Not that surprising of a move after the shenanigans that the Treasury Secretary pulled while trying to get the power to seize random businesses and place them into the public domain.


After all the hoopla and the insane tax plans to tax bonuses at nearly 90%, it comes to light that members of Congress handed out 9.1 Million dollars in bonuses.

I wonder if those bonuses are going to be taxed at 90%, after all, that's TAXPAYER MONEY that those dirty Congressional aides cum thieves are receiving. How dare they take that taxpayer money?

Of course, not all the news out there is bad. Walter Williams has a great article up, describing the fallacy of Liberal policy, and points clearly to what is wrong with our society today.

Fundamentally, he proposes two questions which should be answered with a "yes" or a "no" and then defines why he answers the way he does, and also why Liberals (especially Liberal professors and politicians) would try to expound, and explain away their "maybe" answer. Those questions are:
Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?
Good questions. I have to say "no" to both. Now, if only more folks saw it that way, maybe my tax money wouldn't be used for Corporate and Personal bailouts.

Labels: , , ,