I am following in the footsteps of greats like Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, and Breitbart.com and joining in for blog about Brett Kimberlain day. Brett Kimberlain is a seriously disturbed man. Below I am going to post some links to stories about this guy from sources who did much more research then I am able to do. The point of this post is to show that though conservatives are portrayed as the violent ones because of our love of the Second Amendment and our portrayal as violent people on hollywood. History shows liberalsm has been much more violent throughout history then us evil conservatives.
Shortly after the Civil War, a group of Democrats who did not agree with the outcome of the war created a "fraternity" type club called the Klu Klux Klan or KKK. While it started out as a peaceful club, the KKK eventually turned into the terrorist organization we know it as today. Throughout the 20th century, the KKK worked to get Democrats elected to the House and Senate of both the federal government, state government, and local governments.
In 1966, a group of young black revolutionaries from Oakland created the black power movement called The Black Panther party. This terrorist organization is the only one to rival the KKK in it's violent rhetoric in the 20th century. The Black Panthers gained most of their notoriety in opposition to the Vietnam War in the 60's and 70's. These terrorists have been involved in police murders around the nation. In the 80's, the Black Panther Party was outlawed. Currently, They have been replaced by The New Black Panther Party. Most recently The New Black Panther party was involved in the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia. They were also involved in offering $10,000 for information leading to the whereabouts of George Zimmerman before he was charged with any crime.
In 1969, Weather Underground was created. Two of the major people involved its creation were Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. Weather Underground was revolutionary organization of young leftists who really enjoyed building bombs. In 1970, while building a bomb to use at a Non-Commisioned Officer dance at Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey, the bomb exploded and killed two people. They are also responsible for blowing up a statue tht honored fallen police officers, then after it was rebuilt, they bombed it again. Ayers and Dorhn were also responsible for a bomb that rocked an FBI building, the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and the New York City Police Department.
I am not saying that there aren't deranged people on the right. I absolutly deplore anyone who blows up an abortion clinic in the name of Christianity. I am absolutly against Fred Phelps and his organization and the verbal violence they provide in the name of Christianity. But in far more volume the left has commited more organized crime than the right throughout our history in the name of leftist causes. My last example that is going on today is the depiction of the Tea Party on the right, and the Occupy Movement on the left. The Tea Party has not had one violent crime commited at a rally yet they are portrayed as violent and racist. The Occupy Movement got so bad they had to have rape free zones, yet they are portayed as the peaceful grassroots protestors.
Below are the links I promised, enjoy.
Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/23/free-speech-show-solidarity-for-targeted-conservative-bloggers/
The Blaze
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/readymeet-soros-funded-domestic-terrorist-brett-kimberlin-whose-job-is-terrorizing-bloggers-into-silence/
Breitbart
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2010/10/11/Progressives-Embrace-Convicted-Terrorist
Read and enjoy.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
It's a Wonderful Day in the Neighborhood
Tuesday, 9 May 2012, a day which will live in conservative lore for a long time. Let me break it down for everyone since it was such an outstanding day for conservatives all across the fruited plains.
Indiana
We'll start with Indiana because Indiana means a lot to the conservative movement. In Indiana, moderate Richard Lugar lost in a landslide to conservative Richard Mourdock in the republican primary. The reason why this is a good story is this, Richard Lugar served in the senate for 36 years. He was the third longest sitting senator in the senate. The problem with Lugar is that he was all about compromising with the liberals. I'm not adverse to compromise, but it seems recently, the only people compromising are the republicans. When republicans go across the aisle, it's bad for the country. Conservatism is the proven way to get an economy going and get jobs back to Americans again. No, don't give me that Bush didn't get the economy going, and Bush didn't get jobs back to American's again crap. There is a reason for that, Bush wasn't a conservative. You can't bail out auto companies, sped billions on a stimulus package, and basically have an open border policy and be a conservative. The simple truth is conservatism works, when liberalism takes hold whether through Democrat or Republican legislator, it is bad for America. So, having a conservative battling for the senate seat instead of a moderate is a good thing. But we're not done yet.
Wisconsin
Wow, Wisconsin was a fun race to watch. In case you don't know, Governor Scott Walker is up for a recall election because the public sector union bosses didn't like the fact that he balanced the Wisconsin budget and put the public sector unions in check at the same time. So, they had a primary Tuesday, Governor Walker ran unopposed in the primary. Running unopposed means he had absolutely nothing to worry about in this primary election. There was no one running against him. In the Republican primary, Walker got a total of 600,000 votes. That total is just about equal to the TOTAL votes in the Democrat primary. That's just part of the fun. The reason he was recalled, the supposed outrage because of Gov. Walker's stance against public section union's having certain rights that private employee's don't have. The union's candidate, Kathleen Falk, lost to her Democrat opposition by 18 points. Oh we're not done yet, the Democrat she lost to, Tom Barrett has been staying as far away from unions as he possibly can. The fun to this one is that it is yet more proof that the media can't be trusted. Watch this one, Walker is going to win this one big. Moving on...
North Carolina
This one is for all my Republican friends who say "social conservatism is a non-winner". North Carolina voted for a Constitutional Amendment to their state Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. This is the 30th time a vote has been put before the people of a state and the 30th time same sex marriage has lost. But once again, you would never know this if you listen to the media. If you listen to them, you would think the social conservatives are in the minority. By the way, the only places where gay marriage is legal are those places where it was imposed on the people by the legislature or by the judges. Remember, even the liberal capital of the world California voted to define marriage in their Constitution to between one man and one woman. Oh, we still have one state left to go.
West Virginia
This one is just fun. The President during a re-election year still has to run a primary in the states. You don't hear about it because he always runs unopposed and always wins. That being said, it is feasible that someone could very easily get themselves on the ballot in some states, and run against the incumbent president. That very thing happened in West Virginia. Don't ask me how, but an inmate in a federal prison in Texas got on the Democrat primary ballot in West Virginia, The inmate got 41% of the vote against the sitting President. After hearing this, I laughed for a while. How does that happen? It's very simple; the President has put himself at odds with the coal industry. Well, the coal industry is kind of a big deal in West Virginia. It is so bad there that after he voted in the primary Democratic Senator Joe Manchin was asked who he voted for, Barack Obama or the inmate, and Senator Joe Manchin refused to say who he voted for.
Ultimately, I recognize it is only May; we still have a long way to go until November. But this is a sign of the election to come. My point in all of this is don’t listen to the media, don’t listen to Hollywood, and ignore the polls. Just watch, because if you're anything like me, November is going to be fun.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
History Has a Tendency to Repeat Itself
If you don’t know your
history, you are doomed to repeat it. However, that may be a good thing this
time around. In 1980, America has a high unemployment rate, high inflation, the
U.S. dollar had been devalued, problems with Iran, and two oil shortages helped
to prove the liberal ideas of Jimmy Carter and the Democrats don’t work. In
November of 1980, the American people woke up and elected Ronald Reagan
President of the United States. As everyone should know, “The Reagan
Revolution” ushered in a new era of prosperity and American exceptionalism.
Really, about the only good things that happened from 1976 – 1980 was the
release of the original Star Wars and Rocky movies. In 1980, America woke up
and elected a great leader to show our strength around the world, raise our
economy to its rightful place as number one in the world.
So, not knowing our history hurt us in 2008, we elected Jimmy Carter all over again. But we have a chance here to elect the next Ronald Reagan, someone to lead us into another era of prosperity and American exceptionalism. Here is my question though, is that person an appeasing moderate? I don’t think so. That person is a Conservative, a candidate who will follow the Constitution to the letter, and not “reach across the aisle” to negotiate with the people who have been known to push through unconstitutional laws without even reading them. It’s time for a President and a Congress who doesn’t want to work with the people who want to redistribute wealth, cause higher inflation, spend our grandchildren into oblivion, and bow to foreign dictators. Ultimately, our Reagan isn’t Romney, it’s Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum. One of the staunch Conservatives on that stage debating. Let’s be realistic a second here. A blind turtle could have beaten Carter in 1980. The Republican Party chose Reagan because he was the best man for the job. I believe in 2012, a blind turtle could beat Obama. So let’s take this opportunity and take the best person possible for the job. It’s not about who can beat Obama, cause they all could. It’s about who is the best person to bring back our pride in America and bring back that respect demanded from other countries.
In 2008, I prayed history would not repeat itself, it did. Now, in 2012, I pray history does repeat itself.
So, not knowing our history hurt us in 2008, we elected Jimmy Carter all over again. But we have a chance here to elect the next Ronald Reagan, someone to lead us into another era of prosperity and American exceptionalism. Here is my question though, is that person an appeasing moderate? I don’t think so. That person is a Conservative, a candidate who will follow the Constitution to the letter, and not “reach across the aisle” to negotiate with the people who have been known to push through unconstitutional laws without even reading them. It’s time for a President and a Congress who doesn’t want to work with the people who want to redistribute wealth, cause higher inflation, spend our grandchildren into oblivion, and bow to foreign dictators. Ultimately, our Reagan isn’t Romney, it’s Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum. One of the staunch Conservatives on that stage debating. Let’s be realistic a second here. A blind turtle could have beaten Carter in 1980. The Republican Party chose Reagan because he was the best man for the job. I believe in 2012, a blind turtle could beat Obama. So let’s take this opportunity and take the best person possible for the job. It’s not about who can beat Obama, cause they all could. It’s about who is the best person to bring back our pride in America and bring back that respect demanded from other countries.
In 2008, I prayed history would not repeat itself, it did. Now, in 2012, I pray history does repeat itself.
A Personal Lesson on America's Healthcare
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/13/baby-joseph-gets-second-chance-life/
The above link is to the story, I'm sure you've heard about, of baby Joseph. He is the Canadian child with a neurological disorder who the Canadian government is trying to pull the plug on. This story has hit a personal nerve with me, because as some of you may know I lost a child, Glenn III, to a genetic disorder. If you don't know, Glennie (as we called him) was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy at 6 months old. His doctors, said he would not make it past his first birthday. Glennie made it to 22 months. My son fought hard, he was a tough kid. But all along the way, the doctors and nurses stood by while my wife and I made every decision for our son. At no time, even though the death of our son was guaranteed, did anyone step in to tell us what we had to do. What the Canadian government is doing in this case is appalling. The fact that anyone thinks it is appropriate to tell someone when it is time to pull the plug on their own child is beyond anything I can comprehend. However, that is what we are headed to in this country. When Sarah Palin mentioned "Death Panels", she wasn't kidding. Some of the decisions my wife and I had to make were horrible, something I would not wish on my worst enemy. But they were ours. There is not much in my life that I remember as clearly as I do the decisions that I made in the short life on my son. Not even events like September 11 ring as clearly as those decisions. But I was the best man for that job.
Now, they want to take the ability of parents to make decisions about their child’s wellbeing? I don't think so. While I'm still alive on this earth I will tell as many people as possible about my personal experiences in the GREATEST health care services on the planet. And due to the fact that I know what it's like to lose a child, a pain no one can know unless they have lost the same thing, I will fight Obamacare with every fiber of my being so that no family ever has to lose a child, and have nothing to do with the decisions being made.
Sorry for the rant, but as you can see if you read the whole thing, I'm pretty passionate about our healthcare system, and though the liberals think it's the shining country on a hill, I DO NOT want to be like Canada.
The above link is to the story, I'm sure you've heard about, of baby Joseph. He is the Canadian child with a neurological disorder who the Canadian government is trying to pull the plug on. This story has hit a personal nerve with me, because as some of you may know I lost a child, Glenn III, to a genetic disorder. If you don't know, Glennie (as we called him) was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy at 6 months old. His doctors, said he would not make it past his first birthday. Glennie made it to 22 months. My son fought hard, he was a tough kid. But all along the way, the doctors and nurses stood by while my wife and I made every decision for our son. At no time, even though the death of our son was guaranteed, did anyone step in to tell us what we had to do. What the Canadian government is doing in this case is appalling. The fact that anyone thinks it is appropriate to tell someone when it is time to pull the plug on their own child is beyond anything I can comprehend. However, that is what we are headed to in this country. When Sarah Palin mentioned "Death Panels", she wasn't kidding. Some of the decisions my wife and I had to make were horrible, something I would not wish on my worst enemy. But they were ours. There is not much in my life that I remember as clearly as I do the decisions that I made in the short life on my son. Not even events like September 11 ring as clearly as those decisions. But I was the best man for that job.
Now, they want to take the ability of parents to make decisions about their child’s wellbeing? I don't think so. While I'm still alive on this earth I will tell as many people as possible about my personal experiences in the GREATEST health care services on the planet. And due to the fact that I know what it's like to lose a child, a pain no one can know unless they have lost the same thing, I will fight Obamacare with every fiber of my being so that no family ever has to lose a child, and have nothing to do with the decisions being made.
Sorry for the rant, but as you can see if you read the whole thing, I'm pretty passionate about our healthcare system, and though the liberals think it's the shining country on a hill, I DO NOT want to be like Canada.
Oldie but Goodie
I
posted this a long time ago, but in the hopes of becoming published at some
point, I deleted it. I am bringing it back, because it is one of my favorites,
and I think best written, and we'll see what happens in the publishing
department at another time.
When gun control laws are enforced, why do gun crime rates go up? It has been brought up by multiple people throughout the world that proper gun control laws would do away with gun-related violence; however, they do not. According to an article written by John Lott in American Enterprise, "In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent" (1). This quote has been found to be true in many countries throughout the world. The United States Congress, in 1968 after the murders of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., passed "The Gun Control Act"; which brought more restrictions on the sale and use of firearms. In an article written by M. Stanton Evans, he states "the Gun Control Act has done little to impede the growth of crime in our society" (1). These two points make it pretty clear that the way to less gun violence is less gun control.
Take the tax cuts in the early 1980s as an example. President Ronald Reagan, with the country facing the worst recession since the Great Depression, cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Now to look at this, it almost sounds ludicrous, but let us look at what that did. It helped the wealthy keep more of their money. In turn, those wealthy people hired more middle class and lower class workers at their businesses. They also bought more expensive things which helped the economy and brought more people to work in different jobs. Since there were more people working, in turn it affected the poverty level, leaving less and less people in poverty. So, in short, giving the American people more freedom solved the recession very quickly. Now contrast that to the Great Depression. President Roosevelt, when faced with the Depression, quickly came up with multiple social programs, which in turn brought government spending up which raised everyone's taxes across the board. This kept businesses from hiring new employees and laying off existing employees. All of these actions raised unemployment, which meant people were not getting paid. If people do not have money, then they do not spend money; therefore, the economy suffers.
If you pass a law taking guns away from the citizens then, yes, the citizens who follow the laws will obey. These are not the citizens we are worried about. The citizens we are worried about are the ones who have no issues with breaking a law or two. Now, all that these laws have done is make law-abiding citizens easier targets for the criminals to harass, whereas if you give the American people their true right to own a firearm, you give them the ability to defend themselves against those who wish to harm them. Just like the tax argument I made earlier; if you want less crime, you give more freedom. By combining the fear of possibly meeting a gun owner on the other side of the door and the fear of very harsh punishments if a violent crime is committed, you will significantly reduce the violent crime rate. In his article written in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Alex Piquero states, "According to the state of Florida, the results under 10-20-Life are impressive. In only five years, from 1998-2003, 10-20-Life has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 28 percent statewide" (1).
Works Cited
Evans, M. Stanton "Crime and Gun Control." National Review 31.45 (1979): 1434.
International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009
Lott Jr., John "GUN BANS DON'T CUT CRIME." American Enterprise 13.7 (2002): 10.
Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.
Piquero, Alex " Do Gun Laws Affect Crime the Way Steroids Affect Homeruns in
Baseball?" American Journal of Criminal Justice. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.
When gun control laws are enforced, why do gun crime rates go up? It has been brought up by multiple people throughout the world that proper gun control laws would do away with gun-related violence; however, they do not. According to an article written by John Lott in American Enterprise, "In the four years after the United Kingdom banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40 percent" (1). This quote has been found to be true in many countries throughout the world. The United States Congress, in 1968 after the murders of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., passed "The Gun Control Act"; which brought more restrictions on the sale and use of firearms. In an article written by M. Stanton Evans, he states "the Gun Control Act has done little to impede the growth of crime in our society" (1). These two points make it pretty clear that the way to less gun violence is less gun control.
Take the tax cuts in the early 1980s as an example. President Ronald Reagan, with the country facing the worst recession since the Great Depression, cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Now to look at this, it almost sounds ludicrous, but let us look at what that did. It helped the wealthy keep more of their money. In turn, those wealthy people hired more middle class and lower class workers at their businesses. They also bought more expensive things which helped the economy and brought more people to work in different jobs. Since there were more people working, in turn it affected the poverty level, leaving less and less people in poverty. So, in short, giving the American people more freedom solved the recession very quickly. Now contrast that to the Great Depression. President Roosevelt, when faced with the Depression, quickly came up with multiple social programs, which in turn brought government spending up which raised everyone's taxes across the board. This kept businesses from hiring new employees and laying off existing employees. All of these actions raised unemployment, which meant people were not getting paid. If people do not have money, then they do not spend money; therefore, the economy suffers.
If you pass a law taking guns away from the citizens then, yes, the citizens who follow the laws will obey. These are not the citizens we are worried about. The citizens we are worried about are the ones who have no issues with breaking a law or two. Now, all that these laws have done is make law-abiding citizens easier targets for the criminals to harass, whereas if you give the American people their true right to own a firearm, you give them the ability to defend themselves against those who wish to harm them. Just like the tax argument I made earlier; if you want less crime, you give more freedom. By combining the fear of possibly meeting a gun owner on the other side of the door and the fear of very harsh punishments if a violent crime is committed, you will significantly reduce the violent crime rate. In his article written in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Alex Piquero states, "According to the state of Florida, the results under 10-20-Life are impressive. In only five years, from 1998-2003, 10-20-Life has helped drive down violent gun crime rates 28 percent statewide" (1).
Works Cited
Evans, M. Stanton "Crime and Gun Control." National Review 31.45 (1979): 1434.
International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009
Lott Jr., John "GUN BANS DON'T CUT CRIME." American Enterprise 13.7 (2002): 10.
Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.
Piquero, Alex " Do Gun Laws Affect Crime the Way Steroids Affect Homeruns in
Baseball?" American Journal of Criminal Justice. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2009.
What is a "Blood Libel"?
As
early as Saturday afternoon, we started hearing it. Media members and even
members of Congress pointing fingers at people. Listen, if there is blame to be
assigned in any tragedy, I will be happy to point it out. I don't see however,
how the actions of a 22 year old man with no political ties at all can be
blamed on Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, or even Sharon Angle as I read today. The
answer is, it can't. The liberals, with no proof, are simply trying to use this
tragedy to silence the opposition. They are scared of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and the entire Tea Party movement. Why?
Because they are making an impact. They are informing the country of exactly
what the liberals are doing, and what their obvious intent is. So, they need
legislation like 'The Fairness Doctrine' in order to silence the conservative
crowd. It is absolutly horrible to use this tragedy to push a piece of crap
legislation, but you watch, that's what they're going to try and do. Probably
in the Senate first. So, let's get this straight, a moderate democrat
Congresswoman was the target of an attack, by a domestic terrorist, just
calling a spade a spade here. He may have been mentally deranged, but still
tried to accomplish his agenda through violence. Then, somehow, that terrorist
attack becomes the fault of conservative public figures? How does that work?
Here is how that works. The liberals don't have to play by "the rules". They believe they can bend the rules to fit their needs. They have no respect for any authority. This is why they hate the fact that the Constitution was read on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Constitution and the Bible have something in common when it comes to liberals. They are antique documents written by people who were not as smart as they are. The Constitution also is symbolic that there are rules that they must abide by. So would they thing twice about passing 'the Fairness Doctrine' which is a clear violation of our 1st ammendment rights? No. Would they think twice about passing a healthcare bill with a mandate attached to it clearly violating the Article 1 limits to federal power? No. So, when something like this happens, it is no big deal for them to go ahead and pass judgement with zero proof. Make accusations with zero proof because the ends justify the means.
Conservatives don't play that way. I wouldn't want to start now either. Could 9/11 have been caused by the fact that Clinton weakened the ability for government law enforcement agency's to communicate with each other. It could have. How about the USS Cole, that could have been because of the liberals weakening of our military and the increasingly stringent rules of engagement. But we don't pass blame unless we have proof. That comes from a respect of our rules and our laws. A respect of our law enforcement to do the investigative job and find out what the "cause" was.
So, to answer the question in the title, a "Blood Libel" is when blame is assigned for a mass murder, or some other tragedy. I have no problem with that, find the cause, and fix it, or leave it alone. However, to pass blame before any proof is collected, Sheriff (and I use that term loosely) Dupnik, is just plain wrong and unprofessional.
Here is how that works. The liberals don't have to play by "the rules". They believe they can bend the rules to fit their needs. They have no respect for any authority. This is why they hate the fact that the Constitution was read on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Constitution and the Bible have something in common when it comes to liberals. They are antique documents written by people who were not as smart as they are. The Constitution also is symbolic that there are rules that they must abide by. So would they thing twice about passing 'the Fairness Doctrine' which is a clear violation of our 1st ammendment rights? No. Would they think twice about passing a healthcare bill with a mandate attached to it clearly violating the Article 1 limits to federal power? No. So, when something like this happens, it is no big deal for them to go ahead and pass judgement with zero proof. Make accusations with zero proof because the ends justify the means.
Conservatives don't play that way. I wouldn't want to start now either. Could 9/11 have been caused by the fact that Clinton weakened the ability for government law enforcement agency's to communicate with each other. It could have. How about the USS Cole, that could have been because of the liberals weakening of our military and the increasingly stringent rules of engagement. But we don't pass blame unless we have proof. That comes from a respect of our rules and our laws. A respect of our law enforcement to do the investigative job and find out what the "cause" was.
So, to answer the question in the title, a "Blood Libel" is when blame is assigned for a mass murder, or some other tragedy. I have no problem with that, find the cause, and fix it, or leave it alone. However, to pass blame before any proof is collected, Sheriff (and I use that term loosely) Dupnik, is just plain wrong and unprofessional.
Lunch 12/14/2010
Ok, I'm
sitting in a sandwich shop on base. Some civilians are sitting in the booth
next to me talking rather loudly. One was a liberal talking about how President
Obama got "hosed" by the Republicans on this "tax cut"
deal. He goes on and on about how it adds 4 trillion to the defecit, and other
liberal talking points. I just sit there and chuckle to myself. Then his buddy
chimes in and tells him how the only thing adding to the deficit is the
unemployment extension, and the tax cut isn't even a tax cut at all, it just
leaves the rates as they currently are. To this, the liberal then begins to
call his friend stupid and talk about how he can't believe he is sitting there
with someone so "uneducated". As I was getting up to clean my table,
I hear him say, "It's too bad that the intelligent ones (the liberals) are
in the minority". I can't do it anymore, I don't normally chime in on
other peoples conversations, but I had to. I walked past the table and said
"I could help but overhear your conversation" I said to the liberal,
"I just to need inform you sir, you really don't sound as intelligent as
you make yourself out to be. Also, your friend here sounds a lot smarter then
you." His jaw dropped, his friend laughed loudly, and he shook his head
and said "let me guess, you're a Republican?" "No" I said,
"I'm a Conservative". I left, and the two men carried on their
conversation. But then I realized, that is what the liberals think of us. We
are uneducated buffoons, and they are the only ones with the intellect to "save"
us from ourselves. Well, my liberal friends, thanks but no thanks.
Happy Earth Day
The other day, I was
watching Nickelodeon with my kids. I think we were watching Spongebob or ICarly
but it doesn't matter. A commercial came on for an Earth Day special episode of
Spongebob. In the new episode, Plankton, the evil villain in the show wants to
build a highway through Jellyfish Fields. Spongebob decides to take action and
protest. Obviously they don't tell you the ending in the advertisement, but my
guess would be that Spongebob succeeds and stops the highway from being built.
I know what you're thinking, "Glenn it's just a kids show, who
cares?". Well, it's more then that. I believe it's part of an orchastrated
effort to indoctrinate our children. For many years, I have been watching
Nickelodeon with my kids, and every year it get's worse and worse. Until it has
gotten to the point where Earth Day has become a bigger holiday then Christmas.
Unfortunately, that is not a joke. For many on the left, the environment is
their god, so it would make sense that a day celebrating how wonderful the planet
is would take priority over a holiday that celebrates the birth of Jesus
Christ. The Son of the real God.
Let's look at a couple of issues that are facing us today real fast. How many people blame the governement for higher gas prices? Well, you may be surprised to hear that a conservative agrees with you. However, for different reason then most. Do I think we need to drill for more oil? Yes, I do, but it wont do a thing to change our gas prices. Our gas prices are high because we haven't built a refinery in this country since 1976. Wow, that's crazy, no refineries in 34 years? Why? Well the answer is simple, three letters, EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency has blocked all attempts to build a new refinery. Does that sound like government trying to help the people? Sounds to me like the government trying to limit the people. You know those evil oil companies the left likes to blame for the high gas prices because "they're just greedy". According to the Tax Foundation, the government makes more money off a tank of gas then the oil company does http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html . So don't listen to the left on that one.
Here is another fun fact, the EPA was started in 1970, and in it's time, it has grown into the biggest, most powerful government agency out there. Did you know that the President can make an executive order, to drill for oil, and the EPA can say "No Mr. President, you're not going to do that." Does that sound right to you? A governemtn agency made up of people appointed not elected can override the ELECTED officials the American people put in office to be their voice? Yeah I know, the Supreme Court does the same thing. Here is the difference. The Supreme Court is called for in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that sets up a government agency to stop the progress of the country, and answer to no one.
I know I have run on in this post, but the main point I want to get accross is they are trying to get to our kids. Environmentalism is more then just hippy tree huggers. Read about them, learn about them. It is an organized effort to bring down this success of our great country. Just keep an eye on what your kids are watching. Let them watch it but make sure you talk to them about it.
Let's look at a couple of issues that are facing us today real fast. How many people blame the governement for higher gas prices? Well, you may be surprised to hear that a conservative agrees with you. However, for different reason then most. Do I think we need to drill for more oil? Yes, I do, but it wont do a thing to change our gas prices. Our gas prices are high because we haven't built a refinery in this country since 1976. Wow, that's crazy, no refineries in 34 years? Why? Well the answer is simple, three letters, EPA. The Environmental Protection Agency has blocked all attempts to build a new refinery. Does that sound like government trying to help the people? Sounds to me like the government trying to limit the people. You know those evil oil companies the left likes to blame for the high gas prices because "they're just greedy". According to the Tax Foundation, the government makes more money off a tank of gas then the oil company does http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html . So don't listen to the left on that one.
Here is another fun fact, the EPA was started in 1970, and in it's time, it has grown into the biggest, most powerful government agency out there. Did you know that the President can make an executive order, to drill for oil, and the EPA can say "No Mr. President, you're not going to do that." Does that sound right to you? A governemtn agency made up of people appointed not elected can override the ELECTED officials the American people put in office to be their voice? Yeah I know, the Supreme Court does the same thing. Here is the difference. The Supreme Court is called for in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that sets up a government agency to stop the progress of the country, and answer to no one.
I know I have run on in this post, but the main point I want to get accross is they are trying to get to our kids. Environmentalism is more then just hippy tree huggers. Read about them, learn about them. It is an organized effort to bring down this success of our great country. Just keep an eye on what your kids are watching. Let them watch it but make sure you talk to them about it.
The Health Care "Right"
There is a lot of talk
going on about health care right now. In fact, on Sunday, March 21, 2010, what
has been dubbed as Obamacare passed the House of Representatives by a vote of
219-212. There are a couple things I am going to touch on about this.
1. Is health care a "right"?
2. Is Obamacare constitutional?
3. What can everyday Americans do to repeal it?
The answer to number 1 is undoubtably NO. No where in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to health care. So, the next question you may ask is "Glenn, 38 million people in America don't have health insurance. 10 thousand people die every day because they don't have health insurance. How can you say it's not a right? People are dying" (the last sentance is said with a bleeding heart tear in their eye). Here are a couple stats for you. The number is not 38 Million as stated by the Obama administration. Once you take out illegal immigrants and people under the age of 26 who are still invincible and just don't want health insurance the actual number is 12 million. Now, i agree with the bleeding hearts that 12 million is still too high. So, how do we cover those additional 12 million you might ask? Very simple, There are two main things that make your premiums go up, and make health insurance unaffordable for some. The first thing is frivelous lawsuits against doctors. The trial lawyers have gotten so good at milking doctors for all they're worth that malpractice insurance has gone through the roof. It is higher then hurricane insurance in Florida. If you install simple tort reform, and cap the money recieved on a malpractice lawsuit at something a little more manageable, it would go a long way to bringing down insurance costs. the second thing is insurance companies can only compete for business within one state. They are not allowed (regulated by he federal government) to compete with companies nation wide. What do you think would happen if you opened it up so that all insurance companies could compete nationwide? Right, insurance premiums would go down.My personal beleif (I have no proof to back this up cause it's never been tried) is that the price reduction from these two things alone would make health insurance affordable enough that all 12 million would be able to get insured.
The answer to number 2 is undoubtably NO. Obamacare is highly unconstitutional for a miriad of reasons. I'll touch on a couple real fast. Obamacare contains a mandate that everyone will have health insurance or pay a fine. This marks the first piece of legislation in the history of the country that tells the people they HAVE TO buy something. Sound like something the founding fathers would have liked?I don't think so, in fact, I know so. It violates the interstate commerce clause. Also, the Tenth Ammendment of the Constitution tells all about states rights. in my oppinion, this is the ammendment mainly being violated here, here is a link for you to check it out for yourself http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment10/ .
Ok, let's move on to number 3. What can you as everyday Americans do to repeal this terror of a law? There are two main things. Number one is what number one always is, VOTE!!!! Be like ACORN and vote often. Just kidding, you only get one vote, so use it wisely. find the most conservative candidate you can find and vote for them. This will not immediately repeal the law, but it will go a long way into showing that we mean business. The second thing, if you have the money, is to sue the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebellius under a violation of the tenth amendament. The more cases before the Supreme Court, the better our chances of getting fast tracked.
Well, I hope all of this helped to explain everything to my small group of readers. I'm sure there are still some libs out there who think I am a racist, bigot, homophobe conservative nimrod, and to them I say think whatever you need to think about me or conservatives like me. While you are thinking these things, I am thinking about nothing but love for my country and my fellow countrymen, yes lib, that means you.
1. Is health care a "right"?
2. Is Obamacare constitutional?
3. What can everyday Americans do to repeal it?
The answer to number 1 is undoubtably NO. No where in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere in the Constitution does it say anything about the right to health care. So, the next question you may ask is "Glenn, 38 million people in America don't have health insurance. 10 thousand people die every day because they don't have health insurance. How can you say it's not a right? People are dying" (the last sentance is said with a bleeding heart tear in their eye). Here are a couple stats for you. The number is not 38 Million as stated by the Obama administration. Once you take out illegal immigrants and people under the age of 26 who are still invincible and just don't want health insurance the actual number is 12 million. Now, i agree with the bleeding hearts that 12 million is still too high. So, how do we cover those additional 12 million you might ask? Very simple, There are two main things that make your premiums go up, and make health insurance unaffordable for some. The first thing is frivelous lawsuits against doctors. The trial lawyers have gotten so good at milking doctors for all they're worth that malpractice insurance has gone through the roof. It is higher then hurricane insurance in Florida. If you install simple tort reform, and cap the money recieved on a malpractice lawsuit at something a little more manageable, it would go a long way to bringing down insurance costs. the second thing is insurance companies can only compete for business within one state. They are not allowed (regulated by he federal government) to compete with companies nation wide. What do you think would happen if you opened it up so that all insurance companies could compete nationwide? Right, insurance premiums would go down.My personal beleif (I have no proof to back this up cause it's never been tried) is that the price reduction from these two things alone would make health insurance affordable enough that all 12 million would be able to get insured.
The answer to number 2 is undoubtably NO. Obamacare is highly unconstitutional for a miriad of reasons. I'll touch on a couple real fast. Obamacare contains a mandate that everyone will have health insurance or pay a fine. This marks the first piece of legislation in the history of the country that tells the people they HAVE TO buy something. Sound like something the founding fathers would have liked?I don't think so, in fact, I know so. It violates the interstate commerce clause. Also, the Tenth Ammendment of the Constitution tells all about states rights. in my oppinion, this is the ammendment mainly being violated here, here is a link for you to check it out for yourself http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment10/ .
Ok, let's move on to number 3. What can you as everyday Americans do to repeal this terror of a law? There are two main things. Number one is what number one always is, VOTE!!!! Be like ACORN and vote often. Just kidding, you only get one vote, so use it wisely. find the most conservative candidate you can find and vote for them. This will not immediately repeal the law, but it will go a long way into showing that we mean business. The second thing, if you have the money, is to sue the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebellius under a violation of the tenth amendament. The more cases before the Supreme Court, the better our chances of getting fast tracked.
Well, I hope all of this helped to explain everything to my small group of readers. I'm sure there are still some libs out there who think I am a racist, bigot, homophobe conservative nimrod, and to them I say think whatever you need to think about me or conservatives like me. While you are thinking these things, I am thinking about nothing but love for my country and my fellow countrymen, yes lib, that means you.
Is Abortion Unconstitutional?
It seems lately that the
abortion fight has stopped. It seems that anyone who is pro-life and tries to
voice their oppinion on it is marginalized by the libs and made to look like a
moron. I wrote the following research paper to illustrate how abortion is not
only wrong, but unconstitutional. Yes, by my own admission I am an evangelical
christian by nature. This paper however was written from a strictly political
and scientific standpoint. Just to keep from being marginalized as an evangelical.
I hope you enjoy it.
January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided on the case of Roe V. Wade. The decision stated that Texas state laws for abortion were unconstitutional. The case could be made however, that the decision of the Supreme Court was unconstitutional. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". According to that statement in our Constitution, since abortion was never covered in the Constitution, it must be given to the respective states to decide. In other words, Texas has the right, given to it by the Constitution, to have the people of Texas decide what abortion laws they will have. Just as the people of California have the right to have the people decide what abortion laws the people of that state will have.
Many arguments have been made both for and against the Roe V. Wade decision. The Supreme Court in 1973 cited the Fourteenth Amendment for their argument supporting their decision. The Fourteenth Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since the case in question in 1973 the main argument for utilizing this amendment was that a fetus is not a human life and therefore is not guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The mother however is a human life and a citizen of the United States and is guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument should have been taken away however in 2004 When President George W. Bush signed into law the Laci and Conner's law. After the killing of Laci Peterson who was pregnant with her first son, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the Laci and Conner bill which was signed by the president in 2004. The law states "Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." According to the rules of precedent, the 2004 law defines the fetus as a human life and therefore should be guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Another argument used in this debate is the question of when does life begin. The scientific answer to this question is at conception. According to the American Bioethics Advisory Committee, "scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced." This whole statement says one thing. Human life begins at conception. Therefore, from the point of conception the Fourteenth Amendment should apply.
Ethically the findings of the American Bioethics Advisory Committee and the precedent set by the 2004 Laci and Connor law should outlaw abortion in all cases. These two facts at the very least should call for a special hearing of the Supreme Court to hear the case again and possibly give the rights back to the States as it states in the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution.
Works Cited
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
This website describes in detail the decision of the Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/
This website gives the text and description of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html
This website describes in detail both the text and the layman's terms of the Laci and Conner's law.
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
This website is the American Bioethics Advisory Committee article defining the beginning of the human being.
January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided on the case of Roe V. Wade. The decision stated that Texas state laws for abortion were unconstitutional. The case could be made however, that the decision of the Supreme Court was unconstitutional. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". According to that statement in our Constitution, since abortion was never covered in the Constitution, it must be given to the respective states to decide. In other words, Texas has the right, given to it by the Constitution, to have the people of Texas decide what abortion laws they will have. Just as the people of California have the right to have the people decide what abortion laws the people of that state will have.
Many arguments have been made both for and against the Roe V. Wade decision. The Supreme Court in 1973 cited the Fourteenth Amendment for their argument supporting their decision. The Fourteenth Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since the case in question in 1973 the main argument for utilizing this amendment was that a fetus is not a human life and therefore is not guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The mother however is a human life and a citizen of the United States and is guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument should have been taken away however in 2004 When President George W. Bush signed into law the Laci and Conner's law. After the killing of Laci Peterson who was pregnant with her first son, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the Laci and Conner bill which was signed by the president in 2004. The law states "Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." According to the rules of precedent, the 2004 law defines the fetus as a human life and therefore should be guaranteed rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Another argument used in this debate is the question of when does life begin. The scientific answer to this question is at conception. According to the American Bioethics Advisory Committee, "scientifically something very dramatic occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization - the change from two simple PARTS of a human being, i.e., a sperm and an oocyte (usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life" into a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, live human BEING, an embryonic single-cell human zygote. That is, parts of a human being have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During this process, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist, and a new human being is produced." This whole statement says one thing. Human life begins at conception. Therefore, from the point of conception the Fourteenth Amendment should apply.
Ethically the findings of the American Bioethics Advisory Committee and the precedent set by the 2004 Laci and Connor law should outlaw abortion in all cases. These two facts at the very least should call for a special hearing of the Supreme Court to hear the case again and possibly give the rights back to the States as it states in the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution.
Works Cited
http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
This website describes in detail the decision of the Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade case.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/
This website gives the text and description of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html
This website describes in detail both the text and the layman's terms of the Laci and Conner's law.
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
This website is the American Bioethics Advisory Committee article defining the beginning of the human being.
"The Conservative Leadership"
I have
hear a lot said about "who is the conservative leadership" these
days. I have heard some say Rush Limbaugh, the leader on the conservative
airwaves. I have heard some say Micheal Steele, the leader of the Republican
party. I have heard most say Ronald Reagan. The last would most likely be the
closest, but I say none of these. I contest that the leader of the conservative
movement is not one person, but seven people. Their names are Benjamin
Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James
Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. So in short, our movement does not need a live
leader to give us direction, cause these men already did that in our
Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Here is a link to those documents
so that you can read them. If you follow both of these documents (like our
government is supposed to) you have no choice but to be a conservative.
A Little About Me
For my first post, I wanted
to tell everyone a little about me. I am a Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant. I
have served my country for 13 years and can think of nothing else I would
rather do with my life. You see, I was raised in a military friendly family. My
father was a Marine in the Vietnam war. I was raised with such a high sense of
patriotism that really, even though I fought it in my youth, the military is
where I always knew I would end up. When it came time to join the military, my
pride in my fathers service drove me to the Marine Corps. As he always said
"Glenn, if you're gonna put yourself in harms way, you may as well be the
best trained you can be." In short, I love my country. I think this is the
greatest country God gave man. I believe that God graced the founding fathers
with a knowledge of government that we today can never fathom. Lately, I have
seen some changes in my country. No, this is not a blast Obama post. This has
been going on since the Hoover administration. It's only now that everything
has been put in fast forward. Things like class envy, marginalization, race
baiting, and environmentalism among many other things have put the wheels in
motion for the country we leave to our children to be vastly different then we
recieved it. I will touch on these things throughout the course of my blog life
as I see them happening. Hopefully to educate whatever small audience I may
have. As you read my blog, please keep in mind that at no time do I claim to
speak for the Marine Corps or the military. I speak as one person who happens
to be a Marine. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)