Friday, October 19, 2007
Apparently, the citizens of Venezuela aren't as keen on the ensuing communist regime of the dictator Hugo "I'm a pinko" Chavez. Just take a look at what they did to a monument to Che "rich white kids wear my t-shirts" Guevara. It's been shot repeatedly and smashed up.
I wish them the best of luck in their revolucion versus Hugo and his henchmen. I hope freedom prevails.
I did my part, the other day, to ensure that tyranny's grasp doesn't spread to America. I went out and exercised my Second Amendment rights. I bought a firearm. In fact, I just got back from the range. What's that? You don't need to know what type. That's personal--and it limits the protection it affords me. And besides, I don't want Government Man knowing either. The Communistwealth of Pennsylvania only requires certain types of arms to be registered.
You should go exercise your Second Amendment rights too. I would go so far as to say that it is your duty as an American. Remember, once the Second Amendment is taken away from us, the others won't be far behind. Sounds alarmist, I know, but here is what some great Americans of the past have had to say about it:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."--- Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."--- Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principals of the Federal Constitution, 1787
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived the use of them . . ."--- Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775
And you may have heard of this gentleman:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour."
George Washington (Address to 1st session of Congress)
Thursday, October 18, 2007
But luckily, my fingers are unaffected. Thank goodness for blogs. I request you watch the linked video.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he just say, "Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."?
This will be amongst the first blogs leaping to protect Free Speech, as guaranteed by our Constitution, but can you believe this? Granted, this idiot is from California, but can you believe what he just said? Aside from calling the occupation of Iraq illegal (I will not call it a war. That part is over. This is the occupation. Not sure how? Ask me and it'll be the next post) despite the fact that Congress approved military action against Iraq, he is accusing the President of the United States of intentionally killing innocents, which I believe is still called murder, and laughing at the deaths of our men and women in uniform.
While not a Hemingway or Frost, I am fairly capable of expressing myself in writing, no thanks to any public education I received, but I am unable to convey with enough weight how mad this makes me. Livid. Irate. I'm fuming.
I am hardly a fan-boy of President Bush, as I think his administration, for its strengths, has done a great deal to limit our Constitutional Freedoms in the name of "security", but this is just too much. I am writing the following letter to my Congressman, Rep. Jason Altmire:
Dear Congressman Altmire,
I was angered and shocked when I heard the statements made by your peer, Representative Stark, of California, during the discussion on whether or not to override President Bush's veto of the the SCHIP expansion.
I saw from the Congressional Record that you spoke in favor of SCHIP, and like Mr. Stark, must also be disappointed with the President's decision to veto.
That being said, Mr. Altmire, we all have disappointments at work. The way that Mr. Stark chose to express his disappointment in the President's actions is not, in my opinion, how I would like an elected Representative in the United States Congress to conduct him or herself. He actually implied that the President of the United States laughed at soldiers getting killed while serving their country!
I understand that Congressman Stark was using his First Amendment Freedoms of protected political speech, and as a veteran, I have fought for those rights for others. As such, I will not ask for something like a public censure or resolution condemning Mr. Stark. I, personally, believe that Congress has better things to be doing than inhibiting the speech of others.
I would ask, however, that when you next meet Mr. Stark you let him know that at least some of your constituents still find accusing the President of the United States of such outrages is inappropriate in the extreme and behavior not befitting a Congressman of the United States House of Representatives--he is an embarrassment to your party.
I cannot emphasize sufficiently how upset his comments have made me. I am glad that you are representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania better than Mr. Stark is representing California. Thank you, sir, for your time and consideration in this matter.
I urge you to talk to your Congressmen too! Use the links on the right side of the page to get in touch with Congress.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I've got a couple of issues with the bill, specifically, the section that outlines how an application for surveillance is made to a judge, who then isn't even required to review it for 15 days. Why are we giving the judge 15 days before he is required to review it? Pretty much any intelligence gathering made against foreign nationals is a matter of national security, isn't it? I mean we don't go around trying to figure out the ending to the next Harry Potter book, do we? Shouldn't we maybe give it a little more priority than a 2 week wait?
While it does give provisions for what it calls "emergencies", I have one question to ask. Why are we required to prove anything to a judge for these cases? I'm fairly certain that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its Amendments are extended only to American Citizens. While it wouldn't exactly be neighborly to eavesdrop on Mohamed over in Iran, it certainly shouldn't be subject to any judicial system. I would've thought that that would fall under war-powers and the domain of the Executive.
Not that they have been particularly neighborly, over there in Iran. At least since 1979.
Besides the emergency procedures outlined in the bill don't seem particularly expeditious anyhow. Read it and decide for yourself. What do you think?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Goracle continues to amaze me. Despite only a limp two-point jump in the polls since being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, will continue his campaign for president. His new ad can be seen at YouTube. He seems to be running, but in which direction?
So, what, precisely, is Congress trying to pull this time? Just as soon as so much overwhelming progress is being shown in Iraq that the liberal MSM is finally reporting what independent journalists like Micheal Yon have been telling us for months, they attempt to torpedo our efforts by poisoning our relationship with one of our closest allies in the region.
You know, I thought it was kind of suspicious that hints of success had started to get published. I'm pretty sure that it was a cover for what Congress is really trying to do. It's kind of a "Wag-the Dog" to keep us from noticing that they are just trying to be sneaking in defeating their own country. Turkey, NATO partner since 1952--long before they started letting in anyone with a pulse--is currently our major supply line into Iraq. They have recently recalled their ambassador because Congress is trying to pass a resolution to condemn a genocide that occurred 90 years ago.
That's right. 90 years ago. No one in Congress even has a living memory of the event. It happened when my Grandfather, rest his soul, was only 7. It has gone this long un-condemned, this is not the right time for Congress to get a conscience--they have been operating more or less without one since 1776. Why start now? All it can possibly do is derail some of our efforts in Iraq.
They have failed to sabotage funding for the War on Terror. They have failed to pressure the President in backing down and pulling the troops out prematurely and irresponsibly. So, now they turn to subterfuge. We should hardly be surprised by this tactic coming from individuals who think that taking money from Norman Hsu is a keen idea.
Was the Armenian Genocide a deplorable, almost unimaginable evil on the scale of the Holocaust? Yes, in my opinion it is. Is now the right time to push through this resolution? No. People with a conscience don't need the government to pass a resolution to tell us that mass murder is wrong. I would even go so far as to say that since we know its wrong, and we also know it's history that our government has better things to do than to go around passing non-binding resolutions that do nothing more than grind the faces of foreign governments in the dirt of their past problems. We would be upset if the Turks passed a resolution condemning our treatment of the Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears, I would imagine.
I urge you to write your Congressmen and tell them to spend a little more time fixing America's problems and a little less time trying to apologize for history.
Monday, October 15, 2007
As if we really needed more? For those of you in doubt, here is a list of 5 reasons to Hate Hillary Clinton:
1. She's in favor of a debacle known as the "Strategic Energy Plan" where she describes how the government can waste 60 billion dollars to force us into green energy. Because the government is doing so well with the money we are already giving it.
2. She supports the "Dream Act". This nightmare legislation would grant illegal immigrants in-state tuition and immunity from prosecution. Look, if my brother-in-law can't get in-state tuition and has been an American his whole life, some illegal who just hopped out of the U-Haul shouldn't be getting it. This Act makes me mad.
3. She's in favor of the "Employee Free Choice Act" Which would remove the secret ballot from workplaces seeking to unionize. Just imaging what would happen if Union reps, like the Teamsters, found out you didn't want to unionize--and now they know where you live.
4. She supports amnesty of illegal workers through the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act"--giving demonstrated criminals a path to citizenship that is easier than immigrants doing it legally.
5. That evil cackle of hers--reminiscent of the Wicked Witch of the West. It's almost as if she's trying very hard to be human--too hard! I think she is probably one of those lizard people in human skins from that old miniseries, V.