Mr. Heston once said, " You can have my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead hands".
I am a firm advocate for the second amendment right of gun ownership. In fact, I have owned a gun since I was just a child of 10. I gained ownership of a 12 gauge single shot shot-gun. I can't remember where my brother in law got it from, but I do remember the way it felt when he took me to shoot it.
I put the shell in the chamber, lock it, and aimed. Bang! What a rush. That bottle was disintegrated into dust!
Well, many years have passed since I shot that gun. I have a total of about 7 guns to date. Some are rifles, others are shotguns, and I own a few pistols.
I own the guns for one simple reason : BECAUSE I CAN.
I don't hunt anymore. I used to be into duck hunting in TX.
I don't work with a secret govt. agency.
I don't live in a bad neighborhood.
So, why do I need a gun? Again, because I can.
It is my right! Quick history lesson : This country was founded by pissed off men who lived in a brutal and savage environment. They wrote the Constitution to include gun ownership for multiple reasons. Hunting, food gathering, sport, and most importantly - PROTECTION.
Protection from what? Wild animals, Savages ( American Indians were pissed off too ), other wild and drunk settlers, and the biggest threat - The US government.
Most people don't realize the main reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government. WE keep them in check. Simply put, we are there to insure that no wacko's take over our government and try to remove our rights. And if they do, we have the right to protect ourselves against enemies. Foreign and domestic. Period.
If big brother shows up at my front door and says, "you can't have a gun anymore - that is when I will go out WACO - style."
Waco, TX is a perfect example of why we have the 2nd amend.
Govt. doesn't like how many guns David Koresh bought. Govt. sends goons to house to raid house and take guns away. Why? There is no limit.
Clinton and Janet Reno were just making up the rules as they went. You can't do that.
So with all that said........... Hooray for the Supreme Courts decision last week to allow handguns in Washington, DC. They overturned a 30+ yr old rule and now law abiding people of DC can protect themselves from the slime.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Another ringing endorsement!
Well, well, well. It appears that Obamamamarambalambadingdong has another ringing endorsement.
From who??? Why none other than N. Korean dictator - Kim Jung Il.
So now the tally reads...........
Endorsing Obama: Hammas, Hezbollah, Ahmandenijad, Jung-Il.
I can only wonder when Mugabee will be sounding off on his enthusiasm.
I find this incredibly frightening. There used to be a time when a canidate would be kicked off his party's ticket for having an endorsement from a unsavory dictator.
Not any more. People, the media is in the tank for this guy. An empty suit.
The Mainstream media will not say one negative thing about Obama.
I have one question for the glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, brownshirts that are mezmerized by this fraud.
" What do you not like about Obama"?
Creak, creak, creak. - That is the sound of crickets.
From who??? Why none other than N. Korean dictator - Kim Jung Il.
So now the tally reads...........
Endorsing Obama: Hammas, Hezbollah, Ahmandenijad, Jung-Il.
I can only wonder when Mugabee will be sounding off on his enthusiasm.
I find this incredibly frightening. There used to be a time when a canidate would be kicked off his party's ticket for having an endorsement from a unsavory dictator.
Not any more. People, the media is in the tank for this guy. An empty suit.
The Mainstream media will not say one negative thing about Obama.
I have one question for the glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, brownshirts that are mezmerized by this fraud.
" What do you not like about Obama"?
Creak, creak, creak. - That is the sound of crickets.
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Supreme Disaster!
Unelected judges at it again.......
Where is the voice of the people?
After reading Justice Anthony Kennedy's recent majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, I feel like I need to install a "1984"-style Big Brother camera in my home so Justice Kennedy can keep an eye on everything I do.
Until last week, the law had been that there were some places in the world where American courts had no jurisdiction. For example, U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over non-citizens who have never set foot in the United States. But now, even aliens get special constitutional privileges merely for being caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans.
I think I prefer Canada's system of giving preference to non-citizens who have skills and assets.
If Justice Kennedy can review the procedures for detaining enemy combatants trying to kill Americans in the middle of a war, no place is safe. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court steps in to overrule Randy, Paula and Simon.
In the court's earlier attempts to stick its nose into such military operations as the detainment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo, the court dangled the possibility that it would eventually let go. In its 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court disallowed the Bush administration's combatant status review tribunals, but wrote: "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority (for trial by military commission) he believes necessary." So Bush returned to Congress and sought authority for the military commissions he deemed necessary -- just as the court had suggested -- and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. But as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in the Boumediene case last week: It turns out the justices "were just kidding." This was the legal equivalent of the Supreme Court playing "got your nose!" with the commander in chief.
The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy in Boumediene held that it would be very troubling from the standpoint of "separation of powers" for there to be someplace in the world in which the political branches could operate without oversight from Justice Kennedy, one of the four powers of our government (the other three being the executive, legislative and judicial branches).
So now even procedures written by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch have failed Kennedy's test.
He says the law violates "separation of powers," which is true only if "separation of powers" means Justice Kennedy always gets final say.
Of course, before there is a "separation of powers" issue, there must be "power" to separate.
As Justice Scalia points out, there is no general principle of separation of powers. There are a number of particular constitutional provisions that when added up are referred to, for short, as "separation of powers." But the general comes from the particular, not the other way around. And the judiciary simply has no power over enemy combatants in wartime. Such power is committed to the executive as part of the commander in chief's power, and thus implicitly denied to the judiciary, just as is the power to declare war is unilaterally committed to Congress. As one law professor said to me, this is what happens when the swing justice is the dumb justice. Kennedy's ruling thus effectively overturned the congressional declaration of war -- the use of force resolution voted for by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, 75 other senators as well as 296 congressmen.
If there's no war, then there are no enemy combatants. This is the diabolical arrogance of Kennedy's opinion. We've been through this before:
Should the military run the war or should the courts run the war?
I think the evidence is in.
The patriotic party ( Republicans ) says we are at war, and the Guantanamo detainees are enemy combatants. Approximately 10,000 prisoners were taken on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Of those, only about 800 ended up in Guantanamo, where their cases have been reviewed by military tribunals and hundreds have been released. The detainees are not held because they are guilty; they're held to prevent them from returning to the battlefield against the U.S. Since being released, at least 30 Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield, despite their promise to try not to kill any more Americans.
I guess you can't trust anybody these days.
The treason party says the detainees are mostly charity workers who happened to be distributing cheese to the poor in Afghanistan when the war broke out, and it was their bad luck to be caught near the fighting. They consider it self-evident that enemy combatants should have access to the same U.S. courts that recently acquitted R. Kelly of statutory rape despite the existence of a videotape.
Good plan, liberals.
The New York Times article on the decision in Boumediene notes that some people "have asserted that those held at Guantanamo have fewer rights than people accused of crimes under American civilian and military law."
In the universal language of children: Duh.
The logical result of Boumediene is for the U.S. military to exert itself a little less trying to take enemy combatants alive. The military also might consider not sending the little darlings to the Guantanamo Spa and Resort. Instead of playing soccer, volleyball, cards and checkers in Guantanamo, before returning to their cells with arrows pointed toward Mecca for their daily prayers, which are announced five times a day over a camp loudspeaker, the enemy combatants can rot in Egyptian prisons.
That may be the only place left that is safe from Justice Kennedy.
Your thoughts?
Where is the voice of the people?
After reading Justice Anthony Kennedy's recent majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, I feel like I need to install a "1984"-style Big Brother camera in my home so Justice Kennedy can keep an eye on everything I do.
Until last week, the law had been that there were some places in the world where American courts had no jurisdiction. For example, U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over non-citizens who have never set foot in the United States. But now, even aliens get special constitutional privileges merely for being caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans.
I think I prefer Canada's system of giving preference to non-citizens who have skills and assets.
If Justice Kennedy can review the procedures for detaining enemy combatants trying to kill Americans in the middle of a war, no place is safe. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court steps in to overrule Randy, Paula and Simon.
In the court's earlier attempts to stick its nose into such military operations as the detainment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo, the court dangled the possibility that it would eventually let go. In its 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court disallowed the Bush administration's combatant status review tribunals, but wrote: "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority (for trial by military commission) he believes necessary." So Bush returned to Congress and sought authority for the military commissions he deemed necessary -- just as the court had suggested -- and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. But as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in the Boumediene case last week: It turns out the justices "were just kidding." This was the legal equivalent of the Supreme Court playing "got your nose!" with the commander in chief.
The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy in Boumediene held that it would be very troubling from the standpoint of "separation of powers" for there to be someplace in the world in which the political branches could operate without oversight from Justice Kennedy, one of the four powers of our government (the other three being the executive, legislative and judicial branches).
So now even procedures written by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch have failed Kennedy's test.
He says the law violates "separation of powers," which is true only if "separation of powers" means Justice Kennedy always gets final say.
Of course, before there is a "separation of powers" issue, there must be "power" to separate.
As Justice Scalia points out, there is no general principle of separation of powers. There are a number of particular constitutional provisions that when added up are referred to, for short, as "separation of powers." But the general comes from the particular, not the other way around. And the judiciary simply has no power over enemy combatants in wartime. Such power is committed to the executive as part of the commander in chief's power, and thus implicitly denied to the judiciary, just as is the power to declare war is unilaterally committed to Congress. As one law professor said to me, this is what happens when the swing justice is the dumb justice. Kennedy's ruling thus effectively overturned the congressional declaration of war -- the use of force resolution voted for by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, 75 other senators as well as 296 congressmen.
If there's no war, then there are no enemy combatants. This is the diabolical arrogance of Kennedy's opinion. We've been through this before:
Should the military run the war or should the courts run the war?
I think the evidence is in.
The patriotic party ( Republicans ) says we are at war, and the Guantanamo detainees are enemy combatants. Approximately 10,000 prisoners were taken on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Of those, only about 800 ended up in Guantanamo, where their cases have been reviewed by military tribunals and hundreds have been released. The detainees are not held because they are guilty; they're held to prevent them from returning to the battlefield against the U.S. Since being released, at least 30 Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield, despite their promise to try not to kill any more Americans.
I guess you can't trust anybody these days.
The treason party says the detainees are mostly charity workers who happened to be distributing cheese to the poor in Afghanistan when the war broke out, and it was their bad luck to be caught near the fighting. They consider it self-evident that enemy combatants should have access to the same U.S. courts that recently acquitted R. Kelly of statutory rape despite the existence of a videotape.
Good plan, liberals.
The New York Times article on the decision in Boumediene notes that some people "have asserted that those held at Guantanamo have fewer rights than people accused of crimes under American civilian and military law."
In the universal language of children: Duh.
The logical result of Boumediene is for the U.S. military to exert itself a little less trying to take enemy combatants alive. The military also might consider not sending the little darlings to the Guantanamo Spa and Resort. Instead of playing soccer, volleyball, cards and checkers in Guantanamo, before returning to their cells with arrows pointed toward Mecca for their daily prayers, which are announced five times a day over a camp loudspeaker, the enemy combatants can rot in Egyptian prisons.
That may be the only place left that is safe from Justice Kennedy.
Your thoughts?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
George W. Bush. - History's greatest President.
The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance - Ann Coulter
I couldn't agree more. It amazes me that an entire country is mezmerized by a empty suit named B. Huessein Obama.
My question to you today is........ " what would Obama do if we were attacked by terrorists during his first 6 months in office"?
A. Attack the nation that was harbouring the criminals?
B. Start a "blue ribbon" panel to determine what to do?
C. Meet with the dictators.
I think he would 1st start a blue ribbon panel that would consist of anti-war idiots and appeasers.
Then, he would meet with the dictators.
Finally, he would NOT attack the nation that was harbouring the criminals. He would probably give them most favored nation status.
Just my thoughts.
I couldn't agree more. It amazes me that an entire country is mezmerized by a empty suit named B. Huessein Obama.
My question to you today is........ " what would Obama do if we were attacked by terrorists during his first 6 months in office"?
A. Attack the nation that was harbouring the criminals?
B. Start a "blue ribbon" panel to determine what to do?
C. Meet with the dictators.
I think he would 1st start a blue ribbon panel that would consist of anti-war idiots and appeasers.
Then, he would meet with the dictators.
Finally, he would NOT attack the nation that was harbouring the criminals. He would probably give them most favored nation status.
Just my thoughts.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Just Blame Big Oil? Hell-No!
Yesterday, the Senate Republicans voted down a bill that would have taxed the Oil companies on a Windfall profit tax. Well, it appears that at least some of the Reds in the Senate still have a pair.
What is the fasination with blaming Big Oil? I constantly hear the liberal left leaning media banging the Bush Administrations association with Big Oil drum. OH NO!
Let me ask you this? Has B. Huessein Obama stated that he will help the Oil companies? How about his stance on the Arabs and OPEC? The answer to these questions is NO and his current stance on OPEC is that he wants to sue them.
Really? I mean really???
What does that to produce more oil? Answer: nothing.
People this is a supply and demand thing. More people are using more oil everyday. Countries like China and India are no longer going to settle for rickshaws and magic carpets to get around. Their economies have grown exponentially. Therefore, in countries whose combined populations amount to over 2 billion people, you could expect demand to increase. Right?
Has production increased? Answer: NO.
In fact, it has remained stable at the same amount for the last couple of years. Why?
Answer: In different areas of the world, the governments are regulating or entirely taking over the oil production. In the last few years this has happened in Russia, Iran, and most recently Venezuela. With that said, let me propose this query, " If these govt.'s took over oil production, then who did all the work before they took it over"? Answer: the good ole' US of A.
Will those countries produce more now that we have been kicked out of the country? No. It is in their benefit not to produce as much. Right?
So. Let's get focused and put our energy into the right thing. Production.
Lets drill for more. It is my belief that when we are paying over $5 a gallon, ( probably next week ) then even the greenest of the greenies will have to change their tune.
Because as of right now. The environmentalist are the only happy ones right now.
What is the fasination with blaming Big Oil? I constantly hear the liberal left leaning media banging the Bush Administrations association with Big Oil drum. OH NO!
Let me ask you this? Has B. Huessein Obama stated that he will help the Oil companies? How about his stance on the Arabs and OPEC? The answer to these questions is NO and his current stance on OPEC is that he wants to sue them.
Really? I mean really???
What does that to produce more oil? Answer: nothing.
People this is a supply and demand thing. More people are using more oil everyday. Countries like China and India are no longer going to settle for rickshaws and magic carpets to get around. Their economies have grown exponentially. Therefore, in countries whose combined populations amount to over 2 billion people, you could expect demand to increase. Right?
Has production increased? Answer: NO.
In fact, it has remained stable at the same amount for the last couple of years. Why?
Answer: In different areas of the world, the governments are regulating or entirely taking over the oil production. In the last few years this has happened in Russia, Iran, and most recently Venezuela. With that said, let me propose this query, " If these govt.'s took over oil production, then who did all the work before they took it over"? Answer: the good ole' US of A.
Will those countries produce more now that we have been kicked out of the country? No. It is in their benefit not to produce as much. Right?
So. Let's get focused and put our energy into the right thing. Production.
Lets drill for more. It is my belief that when we are paying over $5 a gallon, ( probably next week ) then even the greenest of the greenies will have to change their tune.
Because as of right now. The environmentalist are the only happy ones right now.
Friday, June 6, 2008
WE NEED A HERO!
WELCOME TO THE FIRST POST OF REBUILD THE GOP.
IT IS MY HOPE THAT EAGER CONSERVATIVE MINDS WILL POOL THEIR IDEAS AND HOPES ON THIS BLOG.
IT HAS BECOME QUITE OBVIOUS THAT OUR REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDS A DRASTIC OVERHAUL. WE NEED NEW FACES AND LEADERS THAT WILL PROMOTE AN EFFECTIVE AND CONSERVATIVE AGENDA.
LETS START THIS OFF BY LISTING SOME OF YOUR IDEAS FOR TAKING BACK OUR GOVERNMENT.
I'LL GO FIRST.
WE NEED TO START AT THE LOCAL LEVELS. LOCAL POLITICAL OFFICES MUST FIRST BE HELD BY CONSERVATIVE THINKING INDIVIDUALS. THIS WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LIBERAL JUDGES THAT TEND TO GOVERN FROM THE BENCH, USUALLY AGAINST THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.
YOUR THOUGHTS?
IT IS MY HOPE THAT EAGER CONSERVATIVE MINDS WILL POOL THEIR IDEAS AND HOPES ON THIS BLOG.
IT HAS BECOME QUITE OBVIOUS THAT OUR REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDS A DRASTIC OVERHAUL. WE NEED NEW FACES AND LEADERS THAT WILL PROMOTE AN EFFECTIVE AND CONSERVATIVE AGENDA.
LETS START THIS OFF BY LISTING SOME OF YOUR IDEAS FOR TAKING BACK OUR GOVERNMENT.
I'LL GO FIRST.
WE NEED TO START AT THE LOCAL LEVELS. LOCAL POLITICAL OFFICES MUST FIRST BE HELD BY CONSERVATIVE THINKING INDIVIDUALS. THIS WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LIBERAL JUDGES THAT TEND TO GOVERN FROM THE BENCH, USUALLY AGAINST THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.
YOUR THOUGHTS?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
