Monday, June 30, 2008

More Nonsense From The Peoples Republic of San Francisco

The San Francisco Board of Education has decided that schools can no longer award physical education credit to students enrolled in the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. The San Francisco Chronicle described Thursday's board meeting as "hastily scheduled" and said the four-to-one decision "will likely cripple the 90-year-old military education program, because most students use it to satisfy their P.E. requirement." Adding insult to injury, two of the board members who opposed the change were not even in town to vote. A student enrolled in the JROTC program says, "It's completely unfair. What am I going to do for credit?" However, board President Mark Sanchez, who led the effort against the program because of its ties to the military, argues that "if students really love the program, they'll take it anyway." Yes, because there is so much wiggle room in the high school accreditation process that students could actually take a class that provides no scholastic credit towards college. Typical.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Crazy Court!

Three recent decisions by the supreme court and the subsequent split decisions and dissenting opinions is the failing testament to an entire branch of our government gone crazy! The judicial branch of our government used to be touted as the unequivocal pillar of justice and freedom that this nation was founded on, however somewhere along the way the pillar has become corrupt and the institution of checks and balances has become suspect due to the increasing number of activist judges. This has long been a problem in liberal California and New England, but over the last 20 years the activist judge infection has permeated the highest court of all.

The first decision that i want to mention is Kelo v. City of New London. This was the landmark Supreme Court ruling known as the Kelo decision. The case was decided by the Supreme Court in 2005, in regards to the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to "further economic development". This nation was founded on property rights and the protection of those rights. Some of you might be familiar with the term "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This little gem is the fifth amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This little gem is the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. However the court decided that eminent domain allowed the city of New London, Connecticut, to seize a private owner's land for economic redevelopment by another private owner. The ruling was very unpopular and forced Susette Kelo out of her home, which she never wanted to leave. Now, three years later, Kelo's house is no longer there and the lot where it once stood is vacant. In fact, Real Clear Markets reports that there is no new construction in the area because the city-sponsored developer has been unable to secure financing because interest is minimal. The end result is that "further economic development" is a relative term open to broad interpretation from city, local and state governments who have an eye on your property in order to increase their tax base. This is something you would hear about coming from the peoples republic of some foreign nation, not the U.S.A. Worth mentioning is the decision of the Kelo case was decided by a 5 - 4 split. The majority in this case included Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, and by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. This is the liberal wing of the court. The minority opinion (in this case the conservative wing of the court) was written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who objected to the fact that an unelected and therefore unaccountable private corporation was the primary beneficiary of the government taking. Her opinion suggested that the use of this power was in fact a type of reverse Robin Hood which would essentially take from the poor and give to the rich. Justice O'Connor stated that this would become the norm, not the exception "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Clarence Thomas weighed in with his own dissenting opinion in which he stated that the precedents the court's decision relied upon were flawed and that "something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution." he added further that "Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

The second case is the recent Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which Patrick Kennedy, 43, was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana. the rape was so severe that the child needed multiple surgery's. Worth noting is that of the approximately 3,350 inmates currently on death row only two people are on death row for any crime other than murder. They both happen to be in Louisiana and they both happen to be child rapists. five other states allow the execution of child rapist, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child. Forty-five states ban the death penalty for any kind of rape. No one has been executed in this nation since 1964 for anything other than murder. Having said all this it is an absolute travesty for the Supreme Court to flagrantly interfere with a historic states rights issue. Not to mention the heinous nature of rape in general and the enormous criminality of child rapists, this ruling is despicable. Of course the decision was a 5-4 split along the liberal-conservative lines that we have come to expect. The majority opinion (again represented by the liberal wing of the court) written by Justice Anthony Kennedy; he was joined by his liberal colleagues Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Anthony Kennedy stated "The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." Kennedy also said that the absence of any executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape." Since when was the Supreme Court empowered with anything remotely differing from interpreting the constitution as it relates to law. No mandate or precedent exists for the Supreme Court to "poll" "national consensus" and then rule accordingly. This absurd at best and criminal at worst. Kennedy did acknowledged that the decision had to come to terms with "the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape." However, Kennedy concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals, as opposed to treason, for example "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken." The minority opinion ) again represented by the conservative wing of the court, was penned by Justice Samuel Alito, who stated that in this case, proponents of the Louisiana law said the trend was toward the death penalty. "The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," Alito wrote. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."

And finally the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact. I listed this third due only to the fact that every other blogger, news outlet or person with a sharpie pen is talking and writing about this decision. I have talked in length on this issue in the past and those who read The Ghost of Jefferson on a regular basis have been inundated with it from its inception. I will spare you any further tirades on behalf of Heller and the nation. I do however want to point out that the decision was again a 5-4 split along conservative-liberal lines. The conservative opinion, in this case the majority, can best be summed up by someone not even on the bench, but by NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox, who stated “Anti-gun politicians can no longer deny that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right,” “All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves in their homes. Washington, D.C. must now respect that right.” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion and said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. He went further and stated The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home". The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. Justice Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."the majority opinion dealt almost exclusively with self-defense in the home, acknowledging only briefly in the lengthy historical analysis that early Americans also valued gun rights because of hunting. The minority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He further added such evidence "is nowhere to be found." Justice Stephen Breyer felt compelled to write an additional separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." I might add that this is exactly where law abiding citizens are most likely to need to defend themselves or their loved ones, but far be it from me to point that glaringly obvious point out to the liberal justice who would like to deny you your constitutional right to self defense. That very document that the Supreme Court is supposed to uphold. How ironic is it that the next president will likely hold sway over the makeup of the supreme court who obviously is hell bent on legislating from the bench. Wake up, take notice and get involved!

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Obama Urging Supporters to Pay Off Hillary Campaign Debt!!!!

Barack Obama on Tuesday asked his finance team to help Hillary Clinton pay off a debt of at least $10 million from her failed presidential campaign, so that Hillary would agree to joint appearances by the two former rivals later in the week. We all heard rumblings of this "help" as a carrot dangled by the Obama campaign in order to entice Hillary to suspend her presidential campaign. Now that it is apparently official, it raises several questions. First, should Obama supporters be upset that $10 million of their hard earned dollars that were donated to help "their" candidate go to pay off debt incurred by the same person that so venomously and systematically tried to tear him down and ruin his chances for presidential bliss. Second, should Hillary who unbelievably is still a senator, be allowed to use this money specifically donated to Obama to sell her endorsement and loyalty in the general election. It is well recorded what she and her husband have said about Obama during the primary process. So how is it that no one is talking about the complete 180 Clinton and company are doing by issuing such glowing support for a man she was quoted as saying would be worse for the country than John McCain? Could it be....oh i don't know.......maybe.......possibly......THE TEN MILLION DOLLARS! Worth noting is the fact that Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign released their tax forms from 2000-2007 which showed the Clinton's earned more than $100 million in that time period and donated $10 million of that to their own charity. The records, for the years 2000 through 2006, with summary information on 2007 indicate the Clinton's have seen their yearly income skyrocket from $357,000 in 2000 to $20.4 million last year. We are not even going to go into the $15 million they earned from a business arrangement with his friend Ron Burkle in addition to the whole Kazakhstan mess. Additionally the Clinton's have also collected at least $8 million from undisclosed foreign sources. Most political analysts say the number is far greater and predominately comes from China. I am not trying to fuel conspiracy theories about how, why or if the Clinton's sold out, i am not even trying to ascertain where all this new found wealth was derived from, i am merely pointing out what should be glaringly obvious to all Obama supporters who have donated hard earned dollars........Why are the Obama supporters footing the bill for the Clinton's $10 million dollar mistake when the Clinton's themselves could easily do the honorable thing themselves and simply write a check?

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Obama Caught With His Pants Down........Again!

Barack Obama's first general election ad says about 46 seconds in that the Illinois senator passed laws that "extended health care for wounded troops who'd been neglected." The ad titled "Country I Love", which was released Friday, provides a citation at the bottom of the screen which reads "Public Law 110 - 181." The problem is Senator Obama never voted for that legislation. Public Law 110 - 181 is part of the defense authorization bill which passed the Senate in January by a vote of 91 to three with six senators not voting. Barack Obama was among those six absent senators. I suppose, since he did not claim that he missed the vote for the piece of legislation that he is trying to take credit for due to his avoiding sniper fire, the public should give him a pass. One more lie in a long long list. Just yesterday Barack Obama reneged on a pledge to take public financing for the general election and to sit down and discuss open finance policies with John McCain before the General Election. Obama's explanation for pulling his 180 is partly because he needs funds to counter those 527 committees that may attack him from the right. And he argues John McCain will do nothing to "stop the smears." However, Cybercast News Service reports that Democratic 527s have raised three times as much as their Republican counterparts: $87 million to $24 million. Not to mention that he has set all kinds of financial fund raising records during the primary season. The director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute says that Obama "wasn't complaining when he went to the American Federation of State and Municipal Employees Union this week, which ran an ad paid for by its 527 to attack John McCain." Additionally that same organization has stated that it will contribute upwards of 50 million to Obama's presedential campaign. I find it extremely unerving that politicians think the public is either to ignorant or to uninitiated to call them on their B.S. and even more disheartning is the chance that they may be right.

Monday, June 23, 2008

The Truth about The Bill of Rights

Few know, or care to learn just how tumultuous the early stages of this nations history were. How precarious the "grand experiment" was to failing. by the end of May, 1787 just over a decade from the Declaration of Independence, the nations government was foundering and the Articles of Confederation were collapsing. The politicians of the day wearily agreed to meet in order to discuss the sad state of affairs in the hot Philadelphia summer heat. As the summer months dragged on it looked like a compromise was all but out of the question with battles over states rights vs strong central government proponents and slavery vs abolitionists and of course taxes. The was even talk of re instituting a monarchy. By the end of August, the delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention George Mason was quoted as saying "I would rather chop of my right hand" than sign the Constitution as it stood. He, along with James Madison urged the Nation adopt a Bill of Rights in order to ensure the individual liberties that the revolutionary war was fought over. As the Constitutional Convention continued, zealots from all corners argued in periodicals across the nation that the new Constitution was lacking an essential component. A Bill of rights guaranteeing the deeply held principals of individual freedoms, such as freedom of religion, speech and the freedom to be armed. The ratification process was long and tenuous, but by the dawn of 1788 5 of the 9 states needed for ratification had approved the constitution. The remaining states that were needed to ratify the document agreed to if the document was amended by adding a guarantee of essential individual rights. Votes for ratification were contentious and close, most felt that the majority of citizens were against the constitution as proposed, however it was the Bill of Rights that carried the vote and established the Constitution that our government is based upon. On October 2 of 1789, President Washington mailed each of the states a copy of 12 amendments adopted by congress, ensuring individual freedoms. By December 15th of 1791 the states had ratified 10 of the amendments guaranteeing individual rights to the new Constitution, the second of which was the right to keep and bear arms. The rest is as they say history, and history tells us that it has ALWAYS been an individual right. revisionist historians and gun hating politicians try to confuse and mislead but the truth is in the founding fathers own words. I encourage all of you to research the early constitutional process and the writings of Madison and Mason who were credited with the founding of the Bill of Rights.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Gun Control Fact vs. Fiction!

A Boston based gun ban group, "Stop Handgun Violence" has put up what they claim to be the nations largest billboard just outside of Fenway Park. The advertisement proposes that due to their states anti gun laws that "you're more likely to live" in Massachusetts. According to the FBI, nothing could be further from the truth. In 1998 Massachusetts passed the "Gun Control Act of 1998" which effectively cut the number of licensed gun owners in the Commonwealth by approximately 1.26 million. Yes, that is million with an "M". They did this by sneakily changing the requirements for gun licenses, raising fees, lengthening the list of "disqualifying reason" to be denied a license, requiring licenses for ammunition, pepper spray and many other benign things. The result was many gun owners lost their RIGHT to own a self defense firearm due to minor misdemeanor infractions that occurred decades ago. Additionally the commonwealth gives local law enforcement the right to rule the local population with middle ages like oppression in regard to firearm ownership. Now, the good news. Fortunately for most of us here in the U.S. we are offered little proving grounds for the effect of these draconian gun control measures, unlike our brothers overseas. The U.K., Australia and South Africa have all passed severe restrictions on the general population and have been rewarded with increased violent crime rate. In the U.K. alone the number of police officers shot in the line of duty has risen 60% in the years since more restrictive gun laws were installed. South Africa and Australia have both seen violent crime rates rise in direct correlation to the more gun control regulations forced upon their respective populace. This is not partisan pandering but rather cold hard facts. Back in the U.S. we unfortunately now have a few locals where the unwitting local population has been duped by the anti gunners into allowing passage of legislation that severely limits their individual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. The two most notable locations are the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We are all aware of the current state of affairs in the District of Columbia, with their skyrocketing violent crime rates and their perennial throne as the murder capital of the country but somehow the state of Massachusetts has avoided the national spotlight. Of course this could not possibly be due to the fact that the main stream media in this country would be loath to report the facts in a case like this that refutes their maligned belief that less guns in the hands of law abiding Americans make its safer for all. This Utopian vision is shattered by the recent FBI's Uniform Crime Report which revealed that the commonwealth's murder rate rose 49% between 1997 and 2006, while the nation wide number dropped by 16% over the same time span. Worth mentioning, is the fact that in the eight years prior to the passage of the "Gun Control Act of 1998" the Massachusetts murder rate declined by 55%. In 2006 the FBI statistics reflect that Massachusetts' per capita murder rate was 192% higher than New Hampshire, 66% higher than Maine, 50% higher than Vermont and 10% higher than tiny Rhode Island. Perhaps more telling is that since the Mass. law has been passed is the fact that assault related emergency room visits have increased by 331% and assault outpatient observations have increased 590%. All sharply contrasted by the 40 states that have "Right to Carry" laws which have seen a marked decrease in violent crime across the board. There is no denying that over the past 20 years since "Right to Carry" has become more commonplace that those states that chose to entrust their law abiding populace the constitutionally guaranteed right of self defense that violent crime has decreased exponentially. So we can definitely say, unequivocally, that more guns equals less crime and if we look at the most recent FBI statistics we can honestly conclude that less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens equates to more crime and more hapless victims. When will the anti gunners understand the most basic principal of "Gun Control" is flawed. Passing a law that is observed only by the lawful puts the law abiding at a disadvantage to the lawless who by definition violate the very law naively passed by local and federal governments pass off as protecting society from itself. This is worth repeating: ONLY LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOLLOW THE LAW. PASSING LAWS IN ORDER TO STOP CRIMINALS IS INSANITY! CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW OR THEY WOULD NOT BE CRIMINALS. please climb to your nearest rooftop and shout this to all who will listen!

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

P.C. is B.S.

Below are just a few recent stories published around the world or on the net of insane political correctness.

A hairstylist in London was forced to pay $7,800 to a Muslim woman because she "hurt" her feelings. That's right, she "hurt" her feelings. Apparently the Muslim women applied for a hair stylist position wearing her traditional garb and stated that she could not show her hair but wanted to be employed to style the hair of others. The hair stylist was quoted as saying "She is simply someone I met for a job interview, who, for a host of reasons, was not right for the job. I cannot see how she deserves $7,800," "Because of this, there will be a black mark against my name for the rest of my life. I feel I have not done anything wrong, and this is a terrible price to pay for a meeting that lasted 10 minutes." She was unable to prove to the court that employing someone with a headscarf would have a negative impact on her business' stylistic integrity. The Muslim women later admitted that she had attended 25 interviews and had not been chosen for any of them before she met this particular hairstylist. The extremist Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir later admitted it had "advised her."

Bonfires along the Pacific Northwest coast are a long-standing tradition. But the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper reports the Parks and Recreation Department there might be dousing the custom. Why? Because of global warming. The Parks staff is recommending reducing fires at both Alki Park and Golden Gardens Park. A memo from the staff to the city's Parks and Recreation Board says the question is "whether it is good policy for Seattle parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon emissions contributes to global warming." I kid you not!

Female Islamic extremists are insisting that Al Qaeda give them the right to become terrorists. Usama bin Laden's right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, recently praised the wives of Al Qaeda fighters on an Islamic Web site. But, he declared that a woman's role should be limited to the household and caring for children, and that there are no women in Al Qaeda. But he failed to mention that women in the terror network's Iraq branch have carried out at least 20 suicide bombings since 2003. Now, The Scotsman newspaper reports a number of extremist Web sites are buzzing with complaints. One letter written by a female extremist says, "When Zawahiri said there are no women in Al Qaeda, he saddened and hurt me." Another woman pleaded with God to liberate women so they can participate in holy war. And, there is even an online magazine which explains how women can take part in terrorist training camps and features biographies of female fighters.

The administrators of Anglia Ruskin University outside London are asking graduating students not to throw their mortar board hats into the air when celebrating — because they might hurt someone. A statement on its Web site said: "This not only causes damage to the hats, but it can also cause injury if the corner of the hat hits the graduate or others who may be nearby."
As you can imagine, such a warning has inspired ridicule far and wide. So a new statement on the Web site says that the school has not "banned" hat throwing, but says one student had to be hospitalized after being hit with a hat several years ago. Yeah, right.

Academy Award-winning actress Susan Sarandon says "anywhere but here" if Republican John McCain wins November's election. She says she will "be checking out a move to Italy. Maybe Canada, I don't know. We're at an abyss." However, celebrities in the past do not have a stellar track record of making good on threats to flee if their candidate loses. Numerous stars vowed to pack up if George W. Bush won the 2000 election, including Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin and even Sarandon's long-time boyfriend Tim Robbins. All still currently reside in the U.S.

Chicago's handgun law requires all existing firearms to be re-registered every year. The Chicago Tribune reports proposals to re-open the registration window for people who forget, have been steadily rejected for nearly 20 years. But now, Democratic Mayor Richard Daley says he's in favor of a one month amnesty. The change comes as longtime Democratic Alderman Richard Mell faces penalties for — you guessed it — failing to re-register what is described as his arsenal of shotguns, rifles and pistols. Mell helped pass the original law in 1982. Daley says he advocates the amnesty to get a realistic handle on the number of guns in Chicago, not as a favor to Mell. Do any of you actually believe this?

Former Vice President Al Gore says global warming is to blame for the Myanmar cyclone. In an interview with National Public Radio, Gore called the storm one of the "consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with global warming." But many experts say it is impossible to make such a link. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for astrophysics states "It is an alarmist statement and Vice President Gore wants to confuse the crowd" adding "there is no way to blame any single event on CO2 and global warming."
That's a sentiment supported by Dr. Adam Lea at the University College of London who says, "it's impossible to say." And Jeff Poor of the Business and Media Institute writes that "using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists."

It isn't just the rights of animals that some are promoting. The Weekly Standard reports an ethics panel in Switzerland is expressing concern that the arbitrary killing of plants is morally wrong. The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology says that humans cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants; that "individual plants have an inherent worth," and that man may not use them as he pleases. It cites a hypothetical example of a farmer "decapitating" wildflowers as expressing a moral stance toward the organism and possibly doing something bad to the flowers themselves.One critic of the report says the concept of plant dignity provides what he called "another tool of opponents to argue against any form of plant biotechnology."

Sunday, June 15, 2008

D.C. is now a defacto Police State!

Washington D.C. is the home to some of the most Draconian gun laws this nation has ever seen. We are all aware of the pending U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which is an appeal from Parker v. District of Columbia, that is basically trying to strike down a 1975 law enacted by the districts city council instigating a total ban on handguns, and prohibiting keeping any gun assembled and loaded at home (i.e. negating any possible use of a firearm for self defense). D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty outrageously claimed that D.C.`s gun laws "decrease gun violence." The facts however are that D.C.`s murder rate rose 200% within 15 years after the laws were imposed, while the rate for the rest of the U.S. remained comparatively stable and even declined. The District has become known as "the murder capital of the United States," and according to the FBI, usually has the highest murder rate of any major U.S. city, and always far worse than the rest of the country. This does not come as a shock to anyone with a little common sense. The simple principle the negates any effective gun control laws is the fact that only law abiding citizens respect the laws. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the letter of the law and consequently love the naivety of gun control measures that do nothing but disarm law abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self defense and turn them into easy prey. I could write for months on the specific instances of the failure of the District's draconian gun laws but it is self evident in the current police state that is the District of Columbia. D.C. police have installed "checkpoints" in areas of the city still reeling from violence that left several people dead and numerous wounded. Police Chief Cathy Lanier's plan designates certain parts of D.C. as "Neighborhood Safety Zones." The idea being that police will be able to stop anyone entering the neighborhood, demand to know what business they have there, and either let them pass, turn them away, or search them if they're deemed "suspicious." Mayor Adrian Fenty and Police Chief Cathy Lanier say "sealing off" the areas which recently witnessed the violence will keep the peace. The same people who disarm their residents in order to save them from themselves now have a crime epidemic, which they chose to fight with gestapo type tactics and continually blame the guns not the criminals using them who violated their precious gun ban. Does anyone else see the irony of the seat of democracy and freedom for the entire world being a gestapo police state besieged by violent gun toting criminals in spite of the most severe gun ban in the nation? Gun control at its finest.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

"Michelle Obama Conspiracy" Fact or Fiction?

There has been a lot of accusations flying from both sides of this political fight and we are just in the embryo stages of an all out political bender that apparently brings out the worst in some of us. The "Michelle Obama Conspiracy" has been the most recent version getting the most airplay on news networks and blogs around the globe. The Obama campaign is accusing the GOP of going after his wife with sordid attacks, the most recent stating that she gave a speech at Trinity United Church of Christ were she used the term "whitey". The accusers also state that there is a video of the incident that reportedly happened in the summer of 2004. First off, the GOP has absolutely nothing to do with the accusations. Second, the rumor mill is in full force and right wing extremists want it to be true so bad that they can almost visualize the speech after seeing so much anti white video footage coming from the pulpit of that "church". To make a long story short if there was an actual video of this alleged incident every news organization on the planet would be looping it during prime time (with the exception of ABC, NBC and CBS). My hunch is there was never any speech and there certainly isn't any video, because this story broke before Hillary Clinton's concession speech, and nobody vets a scandal like the Clinton's, who would have just the ammunition needed to attain the coveted Democratic nominee status. I not sure what else to add except that if this all the facts there are to this story than there isn't a story and if there are more facts or god forbid an actual video than the Obama campaign is in deep trouble. Since today's poll shows him 6 point ahead of McCain, The Ghost of Jefferson is calling B.S. and end of story. However there is more to the front runner to be the First Lady. The "Sr. Thesis" incident. This is a much older story and has been well explored in other blogs and news coverage but here is the short version. Yes, Michelle Obama's Sr. thesis at Princeton was a racially charged sociological view of "Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community". Yes there were some eye raising quotes and some connotations that will make white America take notice. No, there not as bad as some right wing blogs would have you believe. some of the quotes were taken out of context which altered the perception of the meaning drastically. I'm not giving her a pass on this, merely pointing out that it would be just as easy to make an issue out of the paper without resulting to cheap tactics and misquotes. Also true is the fact that Princeton would not reveal the thesis to the public until after the 2008 political election, of course this is tempered somewhat by the Obama campaign making it available on their website after the news broke that it would not be made available. Smart move on the part of the Obama campaign. In reality we have here what we have every political season, a viscous game of he said - she said all crammed into a powder keg of raw political emotion being used by both sides as propaganda for the respective home teams. For those of you who haven't heard the Obama campaign has launched a web sight specifically aimed at rumor busting and fighting what the Obama campaign perceives is a GOP based attack on himself and his family. News flash the GOP, just like the DNC is completely dedicated to portraying their nominee in the most positive light possible and subsequently the opposing parties nominee in the most negative light possible. Not new. Not even newsworthy. This is something even a political neophyte with no experience should know and be prepared for. Why then the incendiary comments coming from the Obama campaign that accuse the GOP of mischaracterizing certain quotes. The truth is the GOP has nothing to do with the quotes Obama has mentioned. They have come from Rush Limbaugh, a political pundit, who does not have any official GOP capacity and from various right wing bloggers, most notably Roger Stone, whose credibility or should I say impartiality is suspect. Again, with no affiliation to the GOP. So in the interest of fairness lets look at the "smears" the new website appears to refute:

  • Michelle Obama Says “Whitey” On a Tape - We have covered this above - smear refuted
  • Barack Obama is a Muslim - Does it matter? no he wasn't sworn in on the Quran, it was the family bible and although he may have attended some Islamic schools as a youngster he also attended at least one catholic school. The short story is his mom was a roaming leftist and he moved around a lot as a kid. I'm willing to accept that he is not a Muslim. (not that it matters what his religious affiliation is) - smear refuted
  • Obama's Books Contain Racially Incendiary Remarks - No matter how you look at it, the book does contain racially provocative remarks. Probably not as bad as the extreme right wingers would have you believe but the fact remains that there is enough verbiage in the book that is worthy of being classed as racially incendiary. - True
  • Barack Obama Won't Say The Pledge of Allegiance/Won't Put His Hand Over His Heart - the fact that this is even listed as a "smear" is indicative to how silly the Obama campaign is about their candidates perceived inadequacies. - smear refuted

This is ALL that is on the new website to "Fight the Smears". It is embarrassing. The true intention of the website is not to fight the smear but rather to trick you into to emailing this absurd site to everyone that is in your contacts list. I kid you not. The ultimate goal is for you to donate money and then to sign up and have this nonsense fill up your inbox along with the inbox of all your friends, family and coworkers. That in itself warrants a few "smears" in my opinion. We all know that the Obama campaign has set a new precedent in online fund raising and grassroots involvement, but this smells of resorting to cheap Internet marketing tricks and deserves to be called by its proper name. B.S.

In reality no one needs to put forth any additional effort in order to "smear" Obama. A simple review of his meager record will reveal a candidate that is so far left that the center of this country cant even see him. Maybe the next post should be on this little golden nugget.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Machiavelli a 2nd Amendment supporter?

Machiavelli said of the Swiss that they were "the most free and most armed people" of Europe. Get it? The connection between arms and freedom? The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with sportsmen hunting. It states: "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." James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, wrote that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Patrick Henry proclaimed the "great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." The Second Amendment was then, as it is today, about freedom and the means to protect it. On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." The Founding Fathers distrusted a government that wouldn't trust its people and so should you. To ensure the freedoms mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the authors of the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights made it clear that individual rights were paramount. The Bill of Rights, wrote Madison, was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." Yes. that means the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. Even the Second Amendment! The Second Amendment remains the most important right among equals, because it is the one that we can turn to when the others are threatened.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Atlas Shrugged

Who would have believed that Ayn Rand's 1957 epic saga that pitted "producers" and "looters" against one another would ever become a reality in this country. Today in a procedural vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate it almost did. 51 - 43 was the vote that defeated a measure straight out of James Taggart's bag of tricks. Yes I'm talking about the windfall profits tax that Senate dumbnocrats are proposing, formally known as the Consumer First Energy Act. The Senate Democrats have the audacity to punish publicly traded corporations for doing exactly what publicly traded corporations are supposed to do. Maximize shareholder wealth. The Left wing liberals are fond of spouting that the oil industry as a whole has raked in record profits over the last few years and that it simply isn't fair. Fair? They go on to state in the proposed legislation that they would impose a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable". Reasonable? Reasonable is a relative term. Who decides what is "reasonable"? Mind you this is in addition to the taxes the corporation already pays. Yes the industry as a whole has made record profits and yes they do have some government induced tax incentives, but even taking those incentives into account the big oil corporations pay income tax at approximately the 30% rate. So if we use the so often misrepresented quote of "The five largest U.S. oil companies earned $36 billion during the first three months of the year." then we can easily see that this is a win win situation for the government in the form of 10.8 billion in additional tax revenue, not to mention the boon to investors and employees who also see an increase in ROI. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois was quoted as saying "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Who is government to tell a corporation, a legal entity, how much profit they can make? How absurd is the fact that this was even proposed? Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., without the 60 votes he needed, switched his vote to "nay," so he could bring up the bill later. But the bill is essentially dead for now. Oil executives, testifying before Congress last month, called the proposed taxes "punitive" and warned that they would discourage domestic oil and gas exploration and production, possibly causing prices to rise instead of fall. But those of you old enough to remember this is not the first time this has been proposed or even passed! The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the major oil companies, has been reminding lawmakers that in the Carter administration, when the government imposed windfall profits taxes on oil companies, domestic oil production dropped and imports increased, resulting in a multitude of problems the least of which was higher prices at the pump and increased trade deficits. Dumbnocrats, of course rejected this common sense comparison. Today the government is going after oil companies who they see as being to successful, tomorrow it might be small business owners and after that individuals. It seems that academia's view of an Orwellian utopia is just around the corner. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Setting Things Straight

The old (or not so old) axiom of "Government is not the solution, it is the problem" is so simple, so true, so relevant and so utterly ignored by the masses that it defies logic and causes the loss of faith in the country's general population. A systemic problem of entitlement has permeated our society and with it has come the inability of our fellow citizens to accept any shred of responsibility in any facet of their lives. The problem has become so pronounced that each subsequent generation brought up in this "me" mentality has too, by the very nature of the disease, be infected to a greater degree than the generations previous. When political correctness trumps common sense, when activist judges try to make the law instead of enforce it, when extreme tolerance is espoused as a nobler pursuit than honesty or integrity and when government is used as a tool to save the poor ignorant masses from themselves, Jefferson rolls over in his grave. Now he's pissed. Jefferson's Ghost will no longer stand by and silently watch the bastardization of the "Great Experiment" that he helped birth. He can no longer tolerate the incredulous demands of a few that we as a nation supplant our individual freedoms, our inalienable rights as men to placate a global community that does not share our thirst for self sufficiency, hard work or the ability to succeed or fail based on our own merits guaranteed us by the writings and teachings of our founding fathers. The Ghost of Jefferson is now dedicated to preserving what remnants of our individual freedoms remain, those that have been so costly fought over and that have come with such a price, that to witness them being trampled is an affront to every person who calls himself an American or who aspires to one day be able to do so.