Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Supporting Starbucks

Source:
http://gunvictimsaction.org/starbucks-boycott/

I won't allow this link to be clicked to send you on to the opposition.  I don't want them getting 'hits' from me.  However, if you copy and paste that into your web browser, you can see why I'm choosing to support Starbucks.  They have the anti-rights crowd's panties in a twist.
Essentially they have decided to not ban firearms, and rather are simply following the state regulations on weapons.  They are choosing to stay neutral, and not infringe on anyone's rights, on either side.  They aren't forcing people to carry weapons into their establishments, nor are they preventing it.
Therefore, I will be visiting a Starbucks on 2/14/2012, somewhere in South-Western PA, spending my hard-earned money with them.  I would encourage all of my friends to do the same as well.

On the frustratingly-humorous side, check out this quote about a Glock:
It shot 31 bullets in 15 seconds, killed 6, and injured 14.
So, of course, the gun shot itself that often.  Not the person who pulled the trigger.  The gun chose to go commit the crime, not the criminal.  And the people were defenseless against an inanimate object.  If you listen to their arguments, you'd believe that guns were NOT inanimate objects, but beings with minds of their own, able to kill of their own volition.

Idiots.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Highway Shakedowns in TN - 4th Amendment is History

Sources:

I'm not the first to write about this, nor will I be the last.  In fact, this isn't even my first post on the topic.  Cemetery had his car searched for no reason, and is left with little recourse.  The governments are finding more and more ways to get around the protections we have of our rights, and it is costing us dearly.  
And clearly, if you watch the video, you can see that they do not care one iota about actually stopping the drugs.  They are focused on the cash.  If this really was about the drugs, there would be many more instances on the East bound side, and the officers would be facing that direction, looking for the contraband.  
The war on drugs has done more to damage this country than most people realize.  Daily it's costing us more and more, not just financially, but in far more important ways.  
But some people have hired lawyers after their cash was taken and, sometimes after months and months of litigation, judges have ruled that the money that was taken from them really had nothing to do with drug dealing at all.
Moral of that story is that if you want your money, you need to hire a lawyer to get it back.  They will keep it until you take legal action.  That is outright THEFT from civilians, especially when those civilians are charged with no crime, and have done nothing to justify that seizure of their property.
When do we draw a line in the sand which shall not be crossed?  To allow them to continue to trample our rights is to invite tyranny into our nation, not just turn a blind eye to it, and pour it a nightcap before we go to bed, ignorant of the schemes of tyrants.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Taxation without representation!

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11307/1187126-68-0.stm

Pennsylvania is at it again.  There has been talk about this, and I understand why.  However, any tax added without it being passed through the legislative and executive branches is unenforceable.  I'll be curious to see if they do start attempting to enforce this, how well it holds up in court when the population of PA objects, and files suit.

We're already in a bad economy, and some nitwit bureaucrat thinks it's a good idea to increase the tax burden on the citizenry.  When will they grasp that this form of idiocy is NOT the answer?

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Theif or Victim to blame?

Sources:
http://snarkybytes.com/2011/10/31/just-stop-right-there/
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8367794

Alan is exactly right.  The blame for guns being stolen lies with no one but the criminal performing the act of theft.  That would be like saying someone who had their car stolen is to blame for not putting their car in a safe.  Someone who had their jewelery stolen is to blame for not wearing all of their jewelery all the time.  This makes no logical sense whatsoever.  
Anytime you hear anyone suggest that there is any fault whatsoever with a gun owner for a theft of their weapon, remind them of the first rules of logic, and direct them to understanding that the victim is the victim, and the criminal is the criminal, not the other way around.

Bear in mind this is Australia, and their numbers are different than ours.  Specifically they are more alarming, and look worse.  And that's with the excess rules, laws, and regulations regarding firearms ownership.  

Friday, October 28, 2011

Hangun Ban Support Graph - 50 Years of Positive Trending

Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

This should be obvious by now, but we are clearly making significant headway in the public realm.  Especially see the first graph. 

For the past 50 years, we have been making positive headway with people understanding that they should not infringe on the right to own firearms.  It is becoming common sense, and accepted logic that freedom is the way to go. 
Let's keep the pressure on the antis, let's keep making their jobs more difficult, and let's keep working toward more freedom, and the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones!

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Privatization Report!

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11299/1184947-454.stm

Finally, a report on the privatization of the sales of alcohol in PA.  This is one of the best things possible for the state to do at this point.  The profits of the PLCB have been in decline recently, and their overhead and government-style control have been having nothing but negative effects on the process.
We've needed this for a long time, and it's finally being taken seriously.
One thing I have to laugh about are the unions, touting their usual ignorance and anti-freedom propaganda.  For instance:
Mr. Young also argued that the report all but ignores the negative impact that privatization, which could eliminate up to 5,000 state jobs, would have on the state's economy.
Mr Young clearly either is biased and WANTS government control, or he is a clueless buffoon who doesn't grasp simple math. 
The report suggests selling off 1,500 licenses, which in Philadelphia would quadruple the number of retail outlets from the current 55 stores to 219.
So, to quadruple (or in the case of the Pittsburgh area, only double) the number of licenses, means that many more stores.  If we quadruple around the state, and the stores all higher a 1-1, that's 20,000, if we only double, that's 10,000 jobs.  So, splitting the difference, we're looking at  possibly 15,000 jobs.  Now that's not a scientific calculation, it's just simple logic. 

Mr. Young, if you are sincere in your concern about jobs for the people, why don't you support an idea which will provide jobs for 3 times as many jobs as there currently are?  I challenge you to stand for jobs and economic growth, and do the right thing, rather than selfishly fighting to keep only a few jobs for just your closest friends!

Monday, September 12, 2011

9/12 - The Morning After

I thought long and hard about what to post yesterday.  I was fully intending to put aside my 'typically don't post on Sundays' habit and write something for the anniversary of the attacks against our nation.
But I couldn't bring myself to do it.
Why?  One simple question:  What has changed?
Sure I could talk about what I was doing, or how I felt, or what awakened in my understanding of the world around us.  I could go on for hours about what it felt like when I realized we are hated simply because we are free.  I could go into detail every minute of my day: Evacuation to talking to my friend in Army Ranger School at the time, to the trouble I had sleeping that night.  But the point is, it doesn't really matter.
When America awakened on 9/12, we all knew something was different.  We all realized we needed to change our outlook on the world around us.  We all knew that life would never be the same again.  What we didn't know was that we were going to do more harm to our own country than the combined efforts of every terrorist have done.
I know I typically write about freedom, firearms, and the like.  But today I'm going to temper that writing with something a little more faith-driven.  I've never attempted to hide the fact that I believe the God of the Bible, who sent His Son Jesus to pay the penalty for sin, and die a substitutionary death on the cross for us.  For me.
So what does that have to do with the events of the decade following this tragedy?  The answer is simple:  Everything.
I've learned much in the past decade, not the least of which being that those of us who have this faith have an obligation to lead people.  We are to the the ones holding the standard, encouraging people to continue on when it seems there is no hope.  We are the ones who are to be willing to give our lives for others, even strangers, because our eternal security is assured.  We are the ones who are to bring hope to those who don't see any, and joy to those who don't know her touch.
And we are to do it, not because of anything within ourselves, or because we are better than anyone else, or because we are supposed to do it.  We are to do it because greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world.  It's not our own power, it's not our own love, and it's not our own means.
So in the decade since that tragedy, while our rights have been being systematically stripped by an oppressive government bent on crushing the people, and we've watched loved ones giving their lives in an attempt to free others from the control of similar evil governments, we continue to stand.  We are called to be salt and light to a world in need.
Are we?  Are we taking those difficult stands, choosing the right path, even when our own nation seems to be turning completely against us?  Are we calling evil for what it is where we find it?  Are we prepared with an answer when people ask us questions, or attack us unjustly?  Are we ready to defend our faith with our minds and hearts?  Are we ready to reach a world in need?

Friday, September 9, 2011

Jobs - Now in Brighter Packaging

Source:

I didn't bother listening to the speech last night.  I don't think I was anywhere that I could have even if I wanted to watch my blood pressure climb, and feel my pulse race.  That said, it seems to be the buzz today, getting the most attention from outmoded news media (newspaper, tv, radio, etc), as well as current, relevant news publications (such as blogs, online reporting, etc).  
While I am not an expert in things of economics, I do have a fair amount of common sense.  So I'm going to comment on some of the things I've read.
Under Mr. Obama's plan, the unemployed would see several additional programs to help get them back to work.
 When I  hear/read that, I can't help but think 'More spending, more government agencies, more cost to the people who do have jobs, more cost to the people who can create jobs.'  Government programs have a tendency of backfiring, or resulting in the opposite of their intent.

Meanwhile, employers would get a tax credit of up to $4,000 to hire people who have been out of work for more than six months, a move that would help level the playing field for the long-term jobless, said Rutgers economist Bill Rodgers.
The level playing field should not be forced based on an outside force.  It should be level to the people in the playing field.  Each person should succeed or fail by their own efforts.  If this goes into effect, it will have the result of people who see companies hiring those who are unemployed for a longer period of time choosing to spend  that time living off the government teet, and not being a productive member of society, opting rather to wait until they are part of the 'group' which gets special treatment.
As with the 2009 stimulus package, much of the proposed policy is directed toward the construction industry and the more than 1 million unemployed construction workers in America.
Again, special treatment for one group of people.  Rather than focusing on the root problems, and how they impact the entire economy and nation, this package seems to be carefully directed at specific people.  That sounds a LOT more like a campaign strategy, or a vote-winning strategy, than a 'fix the problem' strategy to me.
The plan would put $30 billion into renovations at schools and community colleges, $50 billion into the modernization of roads, airports, waterways and railroads, $15 billion into "Project Rebuild," a program that refurbishes vacant and foreclosed homes and $10 billion into financing for a national infrastructure bank that would use both public and private investment to finance infrastructure projects. Mr. Obama said these initiatives would create "hundreds of thousands" of jobs.
So, rather than taking steps to increase the availability of jobs overall, this will focus on specific, short-term jobs which may or may not last once the indicated projects are done.  
Mr. Obama's plan would cut payroll taxes in half for up to the first $5 million in wages businesses pay and offer a $4,000 tax credit to companies that hire long-term unemployed. It would also extend the so-called "100% expensing," which allows firms to take an immediate 100% tax deduction on capital investments, an incentive that would otherwise expire at the end of the year.
Two out of three ain't bad, right?  Anytime taxes are cut, especially taxes which can be seen directly relating to the number of employees, will always benefit job growth.  So he's got that part right.  But why stop at $5 million?  Why not make it across the board?  Additionally, the ability to write-off capital investments is extremely beneficial to the economy, as it removes some of the burden of that type of expenditure.  The removal of that burden gives more willingness to  the companies to spend the money, which provides work for other companies, and more jobs overall.  But, again, see above regarding the tax credit for hiring long-term unemployed.  
Still, because the proposed tax breaks are temporary, their effectiveness in creating hiring will be blunted, said Bill Rys, tax counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business association.
So make those tax incentives permanent.  

As of right now, I see nothing in what I've been able to find which gives me any confidence that this plan will have a positive, lasting impact.  There are steps here which will help, but only if taken to their logical conclusion.  The rest is just another stimulus package, and more 'spreading of the wealth.'  
If the purpose of the money being given for these projects is job creation, how about a tax refund to everyone equally based on what they paid?  Match that with permanent tax cuts, and you'll see job growth.  Anything less than that is merely lip service for the purpose of garnering votes.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Setback for Freedom in VA Court

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE7874S720110908

The court ruled that the federal government has the power to FORCE the citizenry to purchase health insurance. 
This is just one more loss we face as we attempt to fight to keep the American way of life intact.  The very concept of a government forcing it's citizens to participate in any activity is as tyrannical as it gets.
It also appears the VA court thinks the federal government can undermine the state's own laws.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

The TSA is Evil

Source:
http://www.popehat.com/2011/09/06/complain-about-being-sexually-assaulted-by-a-tsa-thug-theyll-sue/

DISCLOSURE:  This post and the link contain graphic descriptions of non-consensual  sexual encounters.  Not appropriate for all ages.

I highly recommend reading this entire article.  I also highly recommend offering any support you are able to Amy.  She did what every one of us who has flown under the TSA should do.  This gradual taking of more power by them, and more denial of our rights needs to stop, and be reversed.  The TSA needs to be disbanded.  They are an evil organization, which takes pleasure in using what little authority it has to sexually assault US citizens, and pays it's employees to do that. 
Not only is that rape, but it's inverted prostitutional rape.  Yes, I made up a word and phrase.  But think about it.  When someone pays for sex, it is prostitution.  When someone is sexually assaulted, it's rape.  When someone is paid to rape someone else, it becomes a new issue all together. 
Don't believe me?  Just ask any of the women who have had fingers and hands pushed "...between their labia."  Ask any of the men or boys who have had their penises grabbed.  This is legalized rape.  This is the dehumanization of the citizens of the USA.
The TSA is a criminal, evil organization and must be stopped.

Friday, September 2, 2011

Idiocy Begets Idiocy

Source:
http://christopherburg.com/2011/09/02/citations-and-anti-gun-stupidity/

I always enjoy reading a solid refutation of idiocy.  Simple logic, common sense, and any ability to reason more than a mouse will lead to the logical conclusion that restricting freedom does not lead to safety.  Quite frankly, it leads to the opposite.
I have always found it rather telling as well that so often their arguments are either unsupported by any statistic, or they simply repeat the same things they hear within their own circles day after day.  It's the old adage that if you tell a lit often enough you'll start to believe it.
Take a look through the post, follow the links to the data, and smile to yourself as you gain even more firepower to use in the war for freedom.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Privatize the PA LCB?

I'd love to see the LCB privatized for more reasons than I can count.  The biggest are as follows:

1 - Why does our government think it's a good idea to sell it's citizens something?
2 - Broader selection and variety.
3 - Lower prices.
4 - The ability to order wines from around the world, and have them shipped to your home.  (Other drinks as well, not just wines.)
5 - Opens the door to transporting across state lines and not violating any laws in the process.

The list can go on, but these are the most important aspects of this effort.  So please, if you live in PA, and care about freedom, contact the president of the state senate here, and ask that he move the liquor privatization bill forward:
http://www.senatorscarnati.com/connect.htm

Update:
Turns out Sebastian talks about it as well.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Ugliness Gets a Handout

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html?_r=2&hp
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/29/hey-shouldnt-we-have-some-extra-legal-protections-for-ugly-people/

Before I go any further, I accept without any hesitation that I am ugly.  Those of you who know me understand this to be true.  

The first thing I wish to mention is a fairly simple, yet profound, question that begs answering:  What makes ugly people more deserving of special treatment than attractive people?  The entire point of the American system is that we are all created equally, and as such no one deserves any special treatment over any others.  To say someone deserves special treatment for any reason is to say that they are a lesser person.  That's one of the largest issues I have with the concept of affirmative action.  By it's very nature, it's encouraging the thought that those benefiting from the program are lesser humans, and as such deserve more than the rest of the human race.

There are several excellent questions surrounding this issue which would need to be addressed as well.  Who determines ugliness?  Would there need to be yet another bureaucracy established for the purpose of determining that?  What will it do to the psyche of the people who are deemed ugly?  What method of qualification will there be?  Where will that line be?  What about the people who fall just on the fair side (pun intended) of the line? 

Once we get past those questions, we get into the social ramifications, the bitterness created between yet another two classes of people, more division between Americans, and the like.  If I'm offered a job because I'm ugly, how unfair is it to someone who is far more qualified, but is just too pretty?  Or too white?  Or too young? Or too healthy?  This is just more classism being created to drive wedges between the people of this land, and destroy any semblance of unity.  Quinn speaks of classism frequently, and has some excellent thoughts.  

How do you feel about the ugly class?  Do you hate us?  Do you want to see us be given a chance to get ahead?  Please share your thoughts.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Zo is no Dummy

Source:
http://www.pjtv.com/s/GQZTMMY

I've enjoyed AlfonZo Rachel for a while.  He has a great sense of humor, and watching him stand for his faith, and what he knows to be true about our history, and conservative values is fantastic.  He's gone after the black community as a member of it, pointing out so many of their bad choices, mostly due to believing the lies of the left.  It is well worth watching his archives to better understand what I mean.
This particular episode is from a little over a month ago (7/19/11).  The best part is his correct interpretation of 'Render unto Caesar' which he explains shortly after 3:30.
In this particular video, he is destroying the concept of income tax, and pointing out why it's such a bad idea, why the founding fathers did NOT include it in the constitution, the questionable ratification of the 16th amendment, etc.  It's classic Zo, saying exactly what's on his mind, and pulling absolutely no punches.  My hat is off to you, sir!

Friday, August 26, 2011

Part of a Greater Whole

Source:
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/blogroll-of-the-antis/

When I started this blog, all I knew was that I had a lot to say about various things.  As I started writing more, I learned what grabbed my attention most often, and ran with it.  Today, I consider this blog to be a mashing of several topics, but primarily Liberty, Politics, and Firearms.  It's only over the last several weeks that I've come to realize just how many other people are passionate enough about these topics.  It's intimidating to try to read everyone.
Last night I attempted to read all the 'current' posts listed on the Black List.  I fell asleep long before I get far into it.  The worst part, I felt badly about it.  This community is filled with people who have a passion for these things, and really understand what it means to be American.  And as I look through this list, and find other similar blogs, I realize how much of an honor it is to be included in such company.  At the same time, I am also humbled and a little intimidated as there are people far more talented, many who have been writing far longer, and those who are able to find stories and information far more efficiently than I am.
Weer'd says it best:
Meanwhile Gun Blogs you simply have to play favorites, because there is too much for any one person.
 The opposite side of the issue (I would say the "wrong" side of the issue) seems to have the opposite problem.  Take a look at the information Weer'd provides.  Quite enlightening, and frankly a bit amusing.  I know it's not polite to laugh at the expense of someone else; but sometimes I just can't help myself.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Carry Restricted in a Mall of Fear

I've been meaning to post this for quite some time.  Today, I have finally finished writing the incident in a way which I think is fitting for here.  This is purely a personal experience, so there is no source material today.  I hope this anecdote is useful to you, and you are able to benefit from my experience.

As you know, I possess a CCW in my state, and carry constantly.  One evening, I was doing so in a local mall.  Being in one of the more upper-class neighborhoods in the area, I rarely visited it.  As such, (and as is my habit) I checked the doors as I entered.  No signage.  In PA, if there's a sign indicating firearms are not allowed, you leave. If you don't, they are required to ask you to leave. If you don't leave at that point, they can charge you with civil trespassing.  So, no huge risk even if there is a sign posted. 
My fiance (then girlfriend) and I were in one of the kitchen stores when I reached to a high shelf to retrieve an item for her.  My shirt lifted, and one of the employees saw my weapon in my belt.  She just happened to be looking at just the right place she'd need to look to see it. 
As we continued perusing their goods, we were in a corner, to the side and fairly far back in the store.  I was in the midst of a conversation with my girlfriend regarding some item in her hands, when I noticed out of the corner of my eye mall security (unarmed, older gentleman, who I'm pretty sure couldn't fight his way out of a burlap sack, no offense intended toward him, but not the kind of guy who could be effective in stopping any sort of determined criminal), but didn't realize they knew I was armed.  I had in no way been acting suspiciously, so I just assumed he was making his rounds, or coming to socialize.  Next thing I know, he's standing immediately behind me, tense as one could be.  He was polite enough to wait until my girlfriend and I ended the current conversation thread in which we were engaged prior to interrupting. 
Now, I'm not a small person, by any stretch of the imagination.  When he said 'Excuse me, sir,' and I turned to face him, he lost most of the color in his cheeks.  It was all I could do to keep from laughing.  He then said 'I would like to talk with you, would you care to come with me?' 
Not knowing what was going on, and not about to comply with someone who had as yet not identified himself, I opted to go the public route, and said 'We can chat here as well as anywhere.' 
Long story short, he proceeded to tell me that the employee saw my weapon, and he asked why I felt I needed to carry in a peaceful mall.  I responded that it was to keep my girlfriend safe and in one piece, not that it was any of his business thankyouverymuch.  He then said weapons are prohibited, and I asked where the signage is, he said it is in the office, on the top floor, behind the counter.  So, in short, there wasn't a visible public sign, but he attempted to enforce it.  He suggested a compromise that I return my weapon to my car, and continue my shopping.  My answer was that I was not about to do business with any organization which has a complete disregard for the rights and safety of their clients.  I also was not foolish to leave a weapon unattended anywhere, as that is an enormous liability to me.  I looked at my girlfriend, and told her to come out to the car whenever she was ready to leave, and that I'd be waiting for her there. 
The looks she got from all the women in that store were priceless.  The snobish folks who frequent that particular establishment were expecting to see her pull some heat out of her purse, especially as she tends to carry a large purse. 
I eventually wrote them a letter, indicating that I'd be informing all my friends about how poorly I was treated, and how unsafe I would feel shopping in a place like that, and how their policies restrict the freedoms and rights of theirs customers, and that I'd not be doing business with them until they changed their policies.  I also sent a copy of that same letter to the stores in the mall, and the corporate offices of those stores. 
It may not be much, but it's a little chip in their customer base.  Out of curiosity I stopped by while I was in the neighborhood several months later.  The proper signage was added to both sets of doors past which I drove.  Rather than understanding a customer's perspective, they stuck to their ideology of fear.  Now, rather than having an armed, concerned, engaged, aware and alert citizen in their building, willing to step up if the need arises, they are more likely to have the people who ignore such things enter, and act without any others willing to protect the innocent lives and property there. 
Complete and utter disregard for common sense, simple logic, and most importantly, the rights of the American Citizen.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

California Open Carry

Source:
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/morning-video-2/

This gem from Weerd.  The video is very to-the-point, and it is amusing to listen to Portantino.  He's so far out of touch with reality that it's hard not to feel sorry for him.  As Weerd says:

Great arguments if you’re an emotional hand-wringer. Not much if you ever….you know…think.

Do you want to reduce crime?  Do you want to see people take personal responsibility?  Do you understand that the police have neither the ability nor the obligation to protect each and every individual citizen in each and ever circumstance throughout the course of a day?  Do you have the ability to think critically and apply logic?  If your answer to any of these is 'Yes' the odds are that you are in favor of enabling the private citizen to take an active stand the protection of his person, his family, and his property.  This means repealing the legislation which prevents individuals from performing those duties.  This means drafting and enacting legislation which supports the law-abiding, and protects them from criminal and civil liability when engaged in the act of defense (see Castle Doctrine laws).  

At the end of the day, the nanny-stateism that is rampant in this country is doing nothing to better the lives of our citizens, but rather is doing more to hinder freedom, and take responsibility away from people who are more than capable of behaving like adults.  The problems which need to be addressed are with those who intend others harm, not the idea that any sort of inanimate object is to blame.

Thanks for the video, Weerd.  Fantastic.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Jumping at Shadows

Source:

Most of you, by now, have heard about this incident.  Back in 2007 there was a mass shooting at the school.  While that was a sad, and even unfortunate incident, it has had the effect of making people at the school jumpy and afraid.  Rather than encouraging the students, faculty, and others to be aware of their situation, and prepared to handle it, they are skittish.  One person, who saw something they weren't even certain about having seen, led to a lock-down of the school, a massive amount of expense to the school, local tax payers, and emergency responders.  This comes with the additional side-effect of putting many officers into play in a non-issue, and leaving other areas un-patrolled, and reducing the response time to any other issue.  
In what world does it make sense for the masses to live in perpetual fear?  In what world does it make sense for people to blindly rely on the reactions of someone else to save their lives?  But most importantly, in what world is it the business of one person what any other person is or is not carrying on their person?  If you are worried about someone else carrying a weapon, train yourself in their use, and be prepared to do something about it yourself.  Otherwise, shut your mouth, stop whining like a nitwit, and leave the rest of us to live our lives the way we want.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Amendments in Danger

Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-10-muslim-women-mosques_n.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ever-hear-of-the-first-amendment-an-argument-to-watch-52222/

While I typically write most passionately about the importance of the Second Amendment, I would be a terrible citizen of this nation if that was the only amendment I supported.  The first 10 are all vital to our way of life as a Free people, and we must defend them all. 

The First Amendment (you know, the one that says Government can't force us to practice our religion or not practice our religion in any fashion?) is coming under attack, by a Muslim woman, who reported for the Wall Street Journal.  Apparently she hates freedom too, and would use the legal system, and the overwhelming weight of bureaucracy to crush it. 

The attitude behind this approach is disgusting in so many ways.  Speaking from an American perspective, I would say that 'There are enough other religions and sub-sects within those religions that you can find one with any set of beliefs in this land that match those which you hold.'  As someone who understands what it means to be faithful to a 'religious concept' (In my life, I would refer to this as a relationship with Christ, not a set of beliefs, or book of rules, or anything limited and man-centric such as that.) I would suggest that she either needs to understand what her faith teaches, and adhere to it, challenge it from within using any examples or scripture or teachings or any other source needed, or leave it. 

If a government attempts to force religions to practice within their set of rules, it defeats the entire purpose of any religion.  Following a set of beliefs based on faith is an understanding that a higher power than man is the source of those beliefs.  To give government authority over religion subverts the purposes of both.

This is something our founding fathers understood, and specifically wrote 1A to protect us from that very real, very evil reality.  

Our rights are under attack daily.  This is why it is vitally important that we the people make our voices heard.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Another Unwasted Tragedy

Source:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/caylees-law-gains-over-250000-signatures-to-prevent-another-casey-anthony-case-51949/

Rham Emanuel said:
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

That's what it looks like is happening again.  I was not planning to comment on this case, as it has been covered so extensively by others, and it's been all over the MSM as well.  However, this result of the case is enough to get me commenting.

The jury seems to have reached their conclusion based on the evidence (or lack thereof) as presented by the prosecution.  Regardless of what people believe happened, there was not enough clear-cut evidence to convict.  At least, as far as the jury was concerned, that is the case.  Personally, I'd rather one guilty person go free, than one innocent person be convicted wrongly.  Every time. 

However, rather than be grateful for the American justice system, which is designed to protect innocent people as well as convict the guilty, there are those who would suggest a new law, or more regulations, or other requirements on the American people.  This is another example of those in the government using a tragedy to their advantage, to push legislation they would otherwise not be able to push.  To be perfectly blunt, I do not care how sad or terribly you feel about what happened to an innocent child.  I despise that evil exists, and that these things happen.  However, as a person who loves freedom, and loves having the right to choose how I live my life, I would be remiss to not extend that same freedom to everyone else.  That includes small details about my life, such as deciding when to alert authorities that my child is missing.  There is no way to legislate a time-frame which makes sense across the board.  Every family is different, every instance of a child 'getting lost' varies. 

When I was growing up, in the rural mountains of Pennsylvania, it would have been very easy for me to go 'missing' any given day of the year.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that at some point along the way, I probably did.  If my parents had been required to alert authorities every time they didn't know precisely where I was, it would have been a tremendous waste of tax-payer resources, additional unneeded stress in the family, and a myriad of other negatives.  This is just one problem of having a nanny-state. 

I would suggest that any legislator who thinks it's a good idea to enact a law because of a single tragedy is a traitor to the very concept of personal liberty and responsibility.  Rather than pushing for more regulations, or more restrictive rules regarding parenting, perhaps the government should consider getting out of the way of families, and giving them the freedom to grow how they wish. 

Now, obviously that is all speaking to the missing portion of the issue.  This bill also mentions (and has a focus on) death of a child.  My one question is this:  Why do we need another law to push parents to do this?  Several reasons come to mind as to why we don't.  Firstly, give the parents a chance to mourn the loss.  In the case of accidental or unintentional death of the child, it's simple respect toward the parents.  Secondly, there's the issue of all the other legal reasons which exist for the death to be reported.  The need to have a burial, the need to notify the IRS, and SS office, and any other governmental agency involved.  Also, acquiring a death certificate for the child needs to go through the system.  However, an even more obvious reason is simple: In the case of intentional death (which is the logic behind this bill), IT......WOULD......CHANGE......NOTHING!  If the parent murdered, or intentionally allowed the death of, their child, what makes anyone with  the ability to reason think that said parent, who is now a criminal, would follow that law, which would carry a much less stiff penalty? 

The very logic behind this bill is flawed, and in a way that inhibits innocent people, rather than promoting freedom, and preventing crime.  It's the same concept as why gun-control laws fail:  Criminals are already committing crime, why would they stop a crime because of one more law?  I urge you to let your representatives know that this bill is a waste of tax-payer resources, and a drain which we do not need on our system.