Thursday, December 18, 2008
After seeong this incident, I have a major question about the capabilities of the Secret Service. I mean, for crying out loud, the man had time to take off both his shoes and throw them at the most highly secured man in the world, but that is for another day.
Liberals never fail to understand the irony of thier protest. As a child in elementary school I remember being amazed that someone would burn a flag that gives the freedom to burn the flag. It just seems disrespectful and moronic in my view to burn the symbol that stands for your freedom to carry matches.
Enter this journalist.
He throws his shoes at the leader of the people who have paid a high price for his ability to dissent without getting his head removed and placed at the dinner table of some tyrant. This reminds me of an old Alanis Morisette song, I mean--isn't it ironic, dont you think?
If i could have a few minutes with this reporter i would like to explain to him a couple things about his newly acquired freedom. It would go a little something like this.
In a free society--When you dissent--you debate. You get enough people for your cause and you make a change on paper. The one thing you need to understand is---when it time to turn to violence--you better have enough courage to put a foot in that shoe and try kicking a little. I dont care how many examples of left wing loons that you have seen acting like a bunch of idiots on the tv. Their freedom was paid for by someone who didn't stand back and talk while he threw his loafers. I am sure their freedom was purchased by a man staring down a musket, not saying a word, possibly trembling with fear, and yet understanding that he may have to pay a price where idiots like you dont "loose thier head." Make no bones about it, freedom is not acquired by the tossing of shoes, or in words of a journalist, but in the blood of soldiers.
Thank God for the men who have paid that price with thier blood so I can write these words and may God never lay in my path the requirement of this price for my posterity. Also may God have pity on these poor souls who are incapable of realizing that--that which they fight---fought for the ability of them to fight.
Monday, December 8, 2008
2: When a baby takes it first breath.
Here is why
An attempt at saying life begins at the end of the first Trimester would imply that there is a "change" in a child from the last second of the first trimester to the first second of the second trimester. This just doesn't make sense as well as any other attempt to say there is a specific TIME period when a fetus becomes life.
An attempt at saying life begins at the development of a heart (or any organ) would imply that life begins at different times for every person. Development does not happen at the same time for every person so it would be possible for one fetus to be "older" than another but not yet "life." Which agains seems senseless.
So after viewing these ideas then it would seem to me that one could logically take the stance that life begins @ conception or at the first breath of a child, when the fetus becomes self-sustaining.
Now here is why the self sustaining argument (although maybe logical) is wrong.
First- The majority of all Americans (even many abortion supporters) believe that Partial birth abortion is wrong, however these take place before the child has taken it's first breath. If its not yet life then there should be no problem.
Second- There is no difference between a fetus at it's last moments inside the womb vs the first few outside. The only changes is the environment which it is in, not it's capabilities.
and here is why the conception argument is correct.
First- Every person that is alive can be traced back to conception.
Second- Since there is no third state of "existence" that I am aware of--you would have to say a fetus after conception is dead if its not alive. I would then ask--Does it grow, because it would be the first growing dead thing ever.
Many liberals would say that I am a bigot or sexist for not being Pro-Choice. ("Pro-choice" welcome to the biggest curve ball coming out of the left these days.) See if you or I are not pro-choice we must be anti-choice right? THIS IS ABSURD!!! I am for everyone's right to choose, just not when it comes to effecting the rights of another LIFE. I am for the choice that says if anyone does not want to create life then they must make the neccessary CHOICES not to do so. So I am for choices; however, I am not for denying Life to anyone. Life being an inalienable right that is self evident to everyone except those who are pro-choice.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
I would believe this depiction of government holds true and would be considered the birth of conservatism. Here is how,
Life- People are entitled to it. Anything that unjustly takes life should be banned. Hmm..where does this place abortion?
Liberty- People are allowed to be free. Anything can be done that does not harm another individual. A lot of wiggle room here but err on the side of freedom.
Pursuit of Happiness- people need a system in which they CAN succeed- not must--or have to--or just in case they don't we will hand it to them.
Over my next couple of entries I will attempt to dissect these three areas and how they tie in to my beliefs. Let me know what you think.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
In this argument lies the reason why I love those who considered themselves Anti-Federalist. Mainly because they took a look at the Constitution and said this document does not explain what we CAN do. Ultimately paving the way for the bill of rights.
One may ask-how can you make this assessment? When the Bill of Rights was written no one was considering this form of terrorism. I would agree and that's why I love it. See--the people who fathered the Bill of Rights understood that Free people need to be able to own weapons to defend themselves. The type of attack was immaterial. That's why I can assure you that when (God please forbid) this attack happens in the USA it will be in a place where people are not allowed to defend themselves i.e. school, hospital, area with strict gun laws such as Washington D.C.
I, being a resident South Carolinian, have little fear considering the state just ran a sales tax free weekend on firearms. Here in lies the beauty--We are ALL ARMED. If terrorist show up in Greer South Carolina tomorrow there will be a bunch of country boys figuring out how to mount their dead trophies on the wall because very simply we shoot back.
I do however fear for those who live in areas where they can not fight back. Those people who support these types of laws do not understand American History.
Did you know......
In the United States, the first organized police service was established in Boston in 1838, New York in 1844, and Philadelphia in 1854.
This time period is over 60 years after Independence, so how did the people defend themselves against the bad guys, or was this the only time in history there were no bad guys. Let me say--I do not believe in vigilante justice, there is no need for vigilantism is today society. But I also understand what was meant by Robert A Heinlein when he stated an armed society is a polite society.
See, I look at it like this.....
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.
And believe it or not--our enemies (the bad guys) understand where they can get away with these atrocities and where they cant. Why do you think--the so called crazy ones never run and start shooting up a police station, or a gun store--it always a school. My answer is simple they're not crazy enough.
And for those of you who believe these attacks are not planned in the paths of least resistance read this exerpt from an AP article about the attacks.
"They are not trained to respond to major attacks," he said.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
First, lets take a look at these proposed bailout packages, and ask a few common sense questions.
1-Have the markets responded? The short answer NO
2- Why have they not responded? Well there just is not a short answer for this question.
Claysinsanity believes the main reason is because markets do not respond well to government intervention. This is because the government has shown time and time again how ineffectively they act. THIS IS BY DESIGN. Most of our founding fathers were scared of a large federal government, which is evident when reading through our Constitution. This fear was offset by a system we all know as checks and balances. Ronald Regan stated that the American revolution was the first of its kind. Every other revolution traded one dictator for another, but our founding fathers understood that to keep a republic intact, it is necessary to restrict the government internally, and restrictions lead to inefficiency. These inefficiencies or restrictions give the governed people freedoms which are not otherwise present.
The market in a Capitalist society is driven by efficiency. To put in extremely layman's terms, people invest in good businesses. Therefore, poorly ran business SCARES investors. What we have on Wall St at this point is several poorly ran businesses which are going to an inefficient source for help. This is the ultimate "double whammy." And has many investors "sitting this one out." With the combination of the above mentioned and the proposed tax increases by the future administration--WHO CAN BLAME THEM?
So what should be the governments role in the economic system? I thought you would never ask. I hope that everyone reading can see the hypocrisy in a government that is 10 trillion dollars in debt looking down their noses at a management team who has ran outstanding companies (such as the automobile industry) in the ground.
Now I could be wrong, but I believe the biblical principal of remove the plank out of thine own eye applies here. The government needs to reign in its spending, operate "their business" at a surplus and begin to pay down this national debt. By reigning in their spending--I mean cut taxes for everyone. This will ultimately give more money to consumers and investors for them to consume and invest, and drive this economy from the bottom up. The problem now in American households is the folks don't have enough money, so give it to them. Not by borrowing from China, but by allowing the public to keep more of its earnings. It just seems simple!!!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 (questions) correct.
Only .5% got all of (the) questions correct.
Please take 10 mins to watch this video!!!!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Then I get home--only to find out that these guys arrived in DC to "beg" for their handout via a private jet. I'll say that again because I want it to hit home. They arrived in DC via their PRIVATE JET. At this point i want to scream profanities at the top of my lungs. How stupid can one group be? I guess my question is simply....How many people are in need of money that travel on a private jet.
Hey jackasses.....SALE THE JET!!!!!
After then doing a little research I found out some very interesting facts. GM doesn't own one jet; They own eight. Now with a typing in "price of a private jet" into my handy dandy google search engine I found out that a private jet will run you between 6 and 50 million. So lets work off the median here. That's 28 million per jet and 224 million total. 1/4 of a billion in private jets and their hats are in their hand. I NEVER ceased to be amazed!!!!