What's your name? 4Real!

Okay. First off, the article of the day: NZ parents may lose battle to keep baby '4real'

So, the basics are, there's this couple in New Zealand who wants to name their munchkin 4Real when it gets here. Why? Because they had some odd epiphany that they were pregnant, and it was, according to them, some type of "for real" moment.

Stupidity of that statement aside, the problem comes in that the New Zealand has some type of government agency which polices what parents name their children.

Let me start off with saying that I think it's incredibly stupid that someone would want to name their kid 4real. I also wouldn't name my child Apple, Pilot Inspektor or any of the other insane things parents tend to think up these days.

If the kid in question wishes to take an internet handle of 4real when he's older, that's fine. That's the internet. To stick this innocent child with what is effectively an internet handle as his name, for his entire life, well, that's just sick.

Of course, the concept of a government agency telling you what to name your child is even sicker, in my opinion at least.

What right does the government have to tell these parents that they must name their children something specific.

To me, it is just more socialist, big-government evil, which seems to infect the entire world these days. If these parents want to call their children anything, it should be allowed them. They're (supposedly) adults. It's not like they're hurting anyone (future name-calling from the kid's peers aside). Why on earth, would the government have any interest in stepping in and saying something here.

Which is why I love the fact that we have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to protect us here in the States from such abuses of power in the hands of the Federal government.

That said, Federal Judges, don't necessarily see it that way.

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.

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.

The New Deadbeat Dad

Let me tell you a story about a man named Gary. He is a loving father, a U.S. Navy Seal, and an all around good citizen. Gary got deployed to Afghanistan. While there he wrote lullabies for his son. A son that he is no longer allowed to see.

Apparently, his wife visited family in Israel, and decided to stay, and requested a divorce from abroad. Gary has been fighting in the California courts (which may explain SOME of the problem) to gain some form of access to his son. He's not asking for full custody, but we're talking visitation. Oh yeah, let us not forget that Gary must pay $2,100 a month in support.

Gary is the new deadbeat dad. He lost his wife and child while on deployment, and was given the deadbeat moniker while nowhere near where he could defend himself. No longer are deadbeats the wife beaters, the uncaring scum that have been portrayed through the years. While they still do exist, today's deadbeat dads tend to be stable upright citizens, which the "family" court system has punished just because they are the father.

What is saddest is that Gary is not alone. There are thousands of Reservists out there who are facing government sanctions, huge back payment debts, and even possible jail times because their active duty military pay is nowhere near the amount they made in their civilian jobs. Of course the Family Support Act of 1988 allows non-custodial parents to request a child support modification for decreases in income; but most state agencies do not honor the requests. One of the main reasons they do not is that the agencies are reimbursed by the federal government for every dollar they collect. That is a lot of incentive for them to keep the child support payments high.

This is all due to the idiocy of zero-tolerance laws. Rather than having intelligent guidelines, the government places hard and fast rules which must be applied regardless of circumstance. A good example of that would be Mr. Bobby Sherrill. Mr. Sherrill worked for Lockeed in Kuwait prior to the first Gulf War, and was captured and held hostage in Iraq for about five months during that conflict. When he was released, and finally made it back to the states, Mr. Sherrill was arrested by our government. What did he do wrong? Well, while he was being held hostage, he did not pay his child support.

While I think Child Support laws are a good thing, especially with the advent of the no-fault divorce, they need to be fair to non-custodial parents, especially fathers. Without this fairness, all you have is prosecution of fathers, which is of course what the feminists want.

For The Children

In all the hype and hoopla concerning Mrs. Schiavo there is an issue that is even bigger and direr than that one. We know Congress loves making laws and what not, but I have to say this one does not fall under Congress' purview (though I doubt that will bother them, they love passing laws that according to the Constitution, Congress is not allowed to pass). This is something for each and every state of the union.

Our states need to start imposing death sentences on Child Rapists and Murderers.

How many of our children must we sacrifice in the blind rush to attempt to rehabilitate these monsters? I realize that to the Loony Left (who support pedophiliac organizations such as NAMBLA) that it is just a child, something they believe should have been aborted a while back. Of course to me, I think we need to have these monsters drawn, quartered, shot, hanged, stabbed, poisoned, and castrated. Not necessarily in that order either.

Of course maybe I am biased. After all, I am a father, and would have no compunctions doing such to anyone who harmed my son. Yet I fail to see exactly what's so bad about being biased.

Regardless, we all need to write our state legislatures and demand they instill mandatory death sentences for those who destroy the lives of the most precious, and innocent, among us. We must remember that our children are our future, and they must be nurtured and protected. Letting the monsters that have destroyed a child in the past, free so they are able to do so again is the height of irresponsibility and needs to be put to a stop.

As well, until we get these laws passed, then we need to be vigilant in identifying the sexual predators among us. State Laws require that they register with the police, and that information is public record. Go to the court house, some website, whatever, get that information for your neighborhood and ensure that it is released for all to see. Do not allow these very real boogeymen to thrive in your neighborhood because none knows they are there.

Remember Jessica Lunsford, Samantha Runnion, and all the others who have been raped and killed by these monsters. As well, do not be afraid, but rather be mad. Mad that these monsters have been allowed to destroy so many children over the years. Mad that there are thousands out there ready to do so again. Mad that they can so easily escape the requirements for registration (as Jessica's killer has done). As Jessica's father said, it is now time for these monsters to go away and rot in hell.

9th Circuit Appeals Court At It Again...

That wonderfully liberal 9th Circuit Appeals Court has yet again pulled off a brilliant activity. Known for the infamous ruling which declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, they have now said that the average citizen cannot bear arms, and it is actually unconstitutional for them to do so (Reuters News Story).

Now, I can see that incredibly liberal section of the country, having 3 judges who just happened to sit on that particular court to say this. Yet once the ruling was handed down, the appellants tried to get it brought before the entire Appeals Circuit Court. Out of the 28 judges on the appeals court, only 5 of them think that this ruling is as stupid as it truly is.

Now let's look at the amendment in question:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Hmm... it seems that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. To me that actually means that there should be NO laws regulating guns and gun control, for any laws that the federal government places upon arms, is infringing my right to bear them. From concealed weapon to waiting periods. These all are infringing upon my right to bear arms. How can I say this? Well let's look at exactly what infringe means:

To hinder; to destroy; as, to infringe efficacy;

So with this definition, the second amendment reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be hindered."Makes a world of difference doesn't it. Remember this appellate court if and when someone breaks into your home. Remember this appellate court if and when someone hurts your loved ones, while all you can do is stand by, because you don't have the means to protect yourself and your loved ones. Remember that this appellate court, the liberal left and the ACLU (because they still have yet to defend the second amendment) all think that the common man is to stupid and careless to have guns. I personally think they're afraid we might get tired of their liberal agendas and finally overthrow this bloated government, and reinstitute our Constitution.

The Judge Who Didn't Know The Law

Why would a State's Supreme Court flat out ignore a clear and concise law? Why would a State Supreme Court throw away the entire concept of Representative government?

Why to help a democrat of course.

Our good friends in New Jersey, not satisfied with existing laws, decide that the law does not apply to democrats. I wonder does that apply to those pesky theft, assault, and rape laws to, or is it just the laws concerning elections?

Oh well, at least Florida isn't the laughing-stock of elections this week.