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!!!!
These concerns may have some of us leaning toward the thought of seperating from the party. Here is why that is not a good idea. If history in elections have taught us anything it is that we need 2 canidates running. I had to pullout an old book I read fron time to time on the War between the States to get my numbers correct, but Abraham Lincoln (Republican) recieved 1,866,352 votes and 2,810,501 votes were cast for the Democratic party. The reason the Democrats lost was a split in the party between two canidates. We must learn from this circumstance and understand that a fracture in the Republican Party would lead to the same defeat as for the Democrats in 1860.
What do we do then? I thought you would never ask. As I have said before, conservatives have to WATER THIER ROOTS!! We have to make take back this party. Let your representatives now that we want smaller government, less taxes, a focus on morality in government, and (the best for last) we must control government spending. We must get this party back to what it was when it was winning.
We get back to the roots, and it will all come together. Feel free to let me know where I am right wrong or just plain stupid.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Criminal acts should be punished. My question--where are the groups like the ACLU rushing to defend the this violation of liberty. Our country was founded on religious freedom. It is time that the church stood up and claimed that right as so many secular progressives.
The funny thing about this movement is these people (Bash Back) storm into a church and begin to scream and interrupt a service under the name of acceptance and tolerance. Also a strange irony here is if anyone from the crowd would have fought to defend their right to worship, I would "bet the bank" the ACLU would have shown up in flying colors and everyone would have been talking about hate crimes. This incident reminds me of the terrorist William Ayers and his anti-war stance--so what does he do?--he goes and blows up buildings. Seems a little "oxymoronish" if you will.
The ridiculousness of this secular progressive agenda is really starting to be seen. So let me spell it out for you. Hmmmmmm........Everyone has the right to live there life however they please..... unless of course you disagree with this stance......Then you have no rights. Yep that's it....your cool to have your on opinion as long as it is the same as ours, if it differs then you no longer cool.
Well here it is very simply--I bash back too!!!Leave a comment if you do as well!!!
Monday, November 17, 2008
I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!!
When asked about the economy President elect Obama says... I mean the way we need to look at it is it could have been worse(paraphrase). Was i the only one listening when he was saying this economy now is the greatest financial crisis since the great depression. Seems like now that he has got the job the tides are turning. Then i get to spend the rest of my night listening to the future First Lady interrupt the future President talking about how the kids reacted when they went back to school, and holes in cars when they were dating.
I got a headline for the New York Times---NO ONE CARES--MY 401k HAS A HOLE IN IT!!!
I definitely do not want to sit and "judge" presidency before it starts but "how bout" throwing me a softball here and talk about what we are going to do to unfreeze the credit market, increase stability in the market, and helping the average American with their fear of spending, not what type of dog you are going to get from the pound.
This whole bailout discussion that is up on the hill has got me scratching my head. Are these people considering bailing out an industry that has bankrupted itself? Am I crazy or does that make about as much sense as putting the fat kid in charge of rationing out the snacks before the kids head out to recess. Now i don't mean to be blunt but, chances are Chubbs is going to line his pocket with little debbie's meanwhile the rest of the kids in the class are only getting one swiss cake roll. Have these people not given us proof that they cant handle the money simply by the fact that they have lost all theirs. Maybe I am missing the boat but i don't think the answer is throwing money at the problem.
So whats the answer? I thought you would never ask. Very simple............LET THEM FAIL.
Now i do understand the consequences of this action. My question to you would be does anybody understand the unintended consequences of the bailout. Are we willing to deal with the further expansion of government. The slippery slope of when and where we stop handing out this money applies here. Who is going to be next needing a bailout. How long before we start bailing out individuals?
The more we allow the government to make these decisions the further we get away for Capitalism. Ill leave you with this quote:
My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.
Think about it.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Recently I have heard and seen fear drive many peoples thoughts. I have also seen my thoughts head down this path. This leads me to the question--What is there to fear? This country has seen 43 Presidents come and go and survived them all. Also if you will follow my "Law of idiots" which is to say--4 out of every 10 people that you meet is inherently stupid--then this means that 17.2 of the Presidents fall into the stupid category. So afraid we should not be--concerned, maybe--but stop with the fear already. Most of us Americans come from a background who refuses to back down--we just lock and load. Our country has stood on these principles since its conception and this makes me PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN.
To know that this country was built on Americans like previously mentioned who don't say "your welcome" they say "my pleasure" means something to me that I cant quite put my finger on.
In trying to figure out why I was intrigued at this Gentleman's response I came to this conclusion:
He didn't serve to be recognized on Veterans Day...He didn't serve for me...I am quite certain that he didn't serve even for freedom...He served because there are days that tough questions have to be answered by tough people. And to serve the greater good is honorable, and having honor is where he finds "HIS PLEASURE"
A big thanks to all Veterans on this Veteran's Days
Friday, November 7, 2008
Lets approach this through answering a couple of key questions.
1-What were the key issues in the eyes of the voter?
According to Fox News-60% of voters deemed the economy as the most important issue. If you are surprised about this you should consider moving off the planet because you are stealing someones good oxygen.
2- Where was the focus of the Republicans?
The Republicans seemed to have there mind wrapped around the old adage- the best defense is a good offense because stay on the offensive they did. Sometimes I felt like the reason I should vote for McCain was "HE IS NOT OBAMA"
Maybe you can see where I am headed with this one, If you can't--let me lay it out for you. Six out of Ten Americans are focusing on the economy, and the best answer they can get from the McCain campaign is "I am not the other guy."
How is this for an eye-opener.....Obama ran as a tax-cutter-Does that message sound familiar to anyone. Can it be possible that the Democrats stole the playbook and decided to use the good plays?
Well if I was responsible for heading up the GOP my message would sound something like this....Guys and Gals its time we watered our roots. We must focus our ideas to relate to those who are voting. If we continue to use the "liar liar pants on fire" or "me cause im not him" defense--our message may not catch on. Lets get back to the basics here. Lets focus on morality in the government, lets explain that you CANT cut taxes with cutting spending, lets lay out a plan to cut spending, AND FOR GOODNESS SAKE---LETS KNOW WHAT NEWSPAPERS WE READ.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Moving on, the Obama camp never made that critical mistake, and they never blinked at the mistakes that were made. The biggest mistake the entire campaign was Obama saying to Joe the plumber "when you spread the wealth around." Obama at a later campaign laughed and said "I dont know any plumbers making 250k." Never blinked at the term socialism--just discredited the source and marched forward.
And Finally (bear with me cause this idea is pretty original) the downfall of the public education system helped Obama claim the presidency. Exit polls show that most American sided with the Obama campaign due to the economy. Clays insanity believes in areas that people are not educated they seem to lean toward emotion. Follow me through this- If you understand how any budget works and its application the you would tend to ask--How is it possible to cut taxes without cutting spending? Even the people who asked this question believed the rhetoric of "i am going to go through the budget line by line with a scapel" Boy that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, doesnt answer the question-- but does make you feel good. If Obama supporters could have understood the unintended consequences on the economy when you spend more than you take in then the outcome would have been different. But instead, all they needed was this idea of change.
Godspeed to the new President elect- he is gonna need it
I hope that the African American community gets on board with President elect Obama and not Jesse Jackson (who said he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off).
See the brilliance behind Obama's stance on this issue is the STOP MAKING EXCUSES line. This is where he and Jesse disagree. Jesse Jackson holds these excuses as valid, Obama does not. A big thank you to President Obama for ending Racism as we KNEW it.