MERRY FREAKIN' CHRISTMAS
It's already here. The holiday season has run up to meet us and it's lugging all of its normal baggage. It seems like as a child I was eagerly anticipating Christmas from the very moment that I began washing the Halloween makeup off of my face. Now I dread it. It's not the day that I hate but the days around it. All of the stress wrapped up in colorful boxes and strapped in by bright ribbons topped off with fluffy little bows. The immense weight of these neatly packed presents finds no relief until December twenty fifth as the paper is shredded off and the recipients proudly display the pleasure that you have brought them.
Of coarse there are other sources of holiday stress as well. The planning, the decorating, the planning, the cleaning and, oh yeah, the planning. It has become tradition for everyone to argue over which house to go to and what time to be there. I have a large family that I am very close to and my wife has the same. We're talking about far too many people to have in one place. So we have to go to both places and both groups want to have dinner at the same time. you can see where the stress comes in. Every year we become the Hatfields and McCoys and it takes months to recover.
While I'm on the subject of politics, I mean Christmas, I need to get something off of my chest. " Happy Holidays" is not a bad thing to say. I'm not suggesting we replace "merry Christmas" with it, but lets not throw it out completely. It feels like the battle between Darwinism and theology ( which I also believe coincide, but that's another entry). I think that it's perfectly fine to say happy holidays throughout the holiday season as long as you aren't saying it to be politically correct. In other words, if I run into you on Christmas day and you say anything other than "merry Christmas" then I'm probably going to lose some respect for you But then I'll return a loud and thunderous "MERRY CHRISTMAS" !
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
"The Jimmy Strawn Plan"
Education: I believe that the best way to improve our education system is to take a page out of the private school book. That is to make it competitive and marketable. Rather than letting an elected government use it as a campaign platform with promises to equally distribute funding we should force it to earn its keep with a small oversight committee that sets very basic regulation.
1. The countless giant school busses that clog up streets every day during traffic hour could be very profitable as "rolling billboards". Each bus would be sponsored and that money could cover the cost of the bus, the cost of maintenance and still leave enough money to provide a real salary to a more skilled driver.
2. Taxing the general public for education seems necessary for now. So lets put it in a pot and reward schools based on merit and enrollment. If we let schools run themselves (within a basic structure system set by government) and allow them to independently reach out to private industry for funding it will force them to become "marketable". As a school attempts to "sell itself" to companies it will need to provide proof that it is accomplishing goals. One form of proof is its enrollment. If parents feel that one school is pushing out smarter and more prepared students then said parents would be willing to travel greater distances to enroll in that school. If that school can show a perspective company that enrollment outweighs regional population then it will help convince them to support it financially. Once other schools see a decline in enrollment they will be forced to either adopt the necessary changes or fold completely. If that happens then the success full school will expand to fill that void. The advantage for the supporting companies is that they would be able to attach their name (figuratively) to specific schools and brag about their success. I realize that this system will create countless types of schools from "Wal-mart" styles (acceptable quality and high quantity) to "boutique" styles (focused advanced learning) but I think this would be better. Teachers would be paid much better but would be required to perform better as well. Students would find a home in the system that works best for them and bad kids who are a distraction will, no doubt, create a market for a system that some enterprising behavioral scientist will learn to exploit as well.
Healthcare: The healthcare system in this country is far and above the best in the world. More importantly, it is the foundation for virtually every medical advancement since the early eighteen hundreds. I have heard the arguements from those who wish it were nationalized here and from those who have experienced it in other countries but those are shallow arguements from people who aren't prepaired to think it through. In other words, bleeding heart liberals.
First of all, I have been in a nationalized healthcare system for almost a year now (the army/V.A.) and it sucks. I admit that it's nice to not have to deal with co-pays and medical bills but the other costs are much greater. After tearing virtually everything in my right shoulder I was given muscle rub and Ibuprophen and told to work it out. On the second visit they gave me more muscle rub and a steroid patch along with physical therapy. To make a long story short, it took over a month of serious pain and multiple visits to get around to actually looking for the problem and getting an MRI. This scan revealed that the therapy made things worse and I would now need surgery. This is your free healthcare, at best.
Did I mention that I'll have to go to another (private) surgeon to get the procedure done because government surgeons lack the skill. This highlights the biggest flaw in the liberal arguement. It is our freemarket system that rewards medical professionals for taking their skills to a new level. Prior to our capitolist system almost all of the worlds healthcare systems were socialized. Mankind went from the bloodlettings of 10,000 BC to the slightly more humane bloodlettings of the 1700s. Most of historys advancments have come from free men, not free healthcare. So, I'm suggesting that all of those nations who give away good healthcare today can only do so because of us, the US. If we join them then who will provide the reward for great achievements and how will medicine get any better?
The real problem is the cost. When the market is free to work then the natural corrections will take place and nearly everybody will be able to afford some level of coverage. We should get government out of healthcare other than a small oversight committee that will set basic standards. Then we need to stop lawyers from rapeing doctors. If someone was not likely to ever make a million dollars then why award him ten million for a doctors honest mistake. We don't need the lawyers who became judges helping other lawyers get rich on the backs of other americans who are actually earning their money. Perhaps if a doctor accidently cuts off the wrong leg then he should be responsible for medical bills, lost wages (what the victem actuallywould have made with just one leg) and vocational rehabilitation to help the victem get a new career that earns at least equal money. Real solutions like this will lower the cost of healthcare so much that insurance will once again be a benifit, not a necessity.
Economy: First stop the bail outs. By the time this is all said and done we will have borrowed enough money (in the name of saving the economy) to have given every American man, woman and child over $100,000.00 but we've done nothing to cut costs. I propose that we give out that money as suggested, yes, 100 grand to every man, woman and child that is a citizen of the U.S.A.. We do this with the understanding that there will be no more welfare, food stamps, unemployment or any other federal charity. If you blow your $100k then you'd better start warming up to private charitable institutions. We would also need to replace income tax with a low federal sales tax. Obviously there would be a substantial drop in cost of government so we could make it as low as one or two percent. Yes, that would create a lot of unemployment initially due to all of the social workers that are no longer sucking on the government teat, but it would get way better. Under my plan you will not only have the windfall of a hundred grand but you'd be keeping that %20 to %40 that usually comes off the top of your paycheck. With that much disposable cash flooding the market the job openings will be too many to fill. This new bounce in spending will mean a huge increase in tax revenue for all government entities and the loan for the $100k will be paid back in short time. America will once again become the staple for the world economy.
Abortion. First of all Rowe vs Wade is bad law. You can't convince me that you are free to commit murder under the right to privacy. That being said, we need to settle on an actual law and not just refer to a supreme court decision to justify acceptance. My thought is this.. Murder is usually wrong, BUT, I support it when it comes to capital punishment and protection of life and property (see Gun control). I do believe that abortions have a place as well but not as birth control. The way I look at it; if a woman becomes pregnant through rape or if the baby faces horrible health issues then it could be acceptable to take its life. We, however, are not able to truly make a decision based on what someone else is thinking when it comes to the reason for said abortion so perhaps we allow one without needing to know the reason. The stipulation being that the aborting mother be subjected to counselling along with a graphic explanation of what they are about to do. Make sure they are aware of all options before proceeding. If they come back for a second abortion we must subject them to a simple court hearing to determine necessity and then only allow the procedure to take place under the condition that the doctor render the mother incapable of reproducing again until she is ready to undo said surgery at her own expense.
Gun Control. We have the right to bear arms as a means to protect our three basic rights.. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ladder two rights are basically the same and we are bound by patriotic duty to protect them (and the documents that provide them) with our lives. The life thing is a little fuzzy. As you live your life you are made to make certain concessions. Every day when you clock in at your job you are paying for all of your possessions by giving up part of your life. What this means is that your life and your property are one and the same. I mean, when you are stealing my property from me you are also stealing the part of my life that I gave up to obtain that property, that is time that cannot be replaced. At a certain point theft is tantamount to murder and that justifies an equal payment by the perpetrator. I think Florida has it pretty close to right when it comes to gun laws ant the nation should follow suit. After all, an armed society is a friendly society.
Minimum Wage. Minimum wage is just the minimum cost of productivity. Productivity sets the cost of goods and services and the market value controls the profit. Profit is the engine that drives the expansion of business and thus the creation of jobs. I have no education in the field of economics but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. Anyway, this is an example of a cyclical market driven economy that, once you push it, will roll forever. That is, until someone offsets the balance. This is where the "do gooders step" in and bump up the minimum wage. I know it feels good to think you're helping the underachievers ( and our politicians bank on that for votes) but STOP!
When you raise the wage of our least productive you are merely raising the cost of what they produce. That, in turn, forces a decrease in profit which stunts the creation of jobs. That shortcoming makes it necessary to increase price without market support. This subtle and unwarranted change tears a rift through our economy that finally ends up lowering the international value of a dollar. You see, once the price is raised to accommodate the lowest earner his financial windfall is offset by higher prices therefore he really got no raise at all. Unfortunately no one else got a raise so they now have to pay higher prices while working for the same wage as before. What this translates to is a decrease in the value of the labor hour on a national level and the labor hour is what defines the value of money all around the world.
I suggest we drop the minimum wage to match that of the lowest wage earned internationally and add 10% for being an American citizen. This will keep us globally competitive and unemployment will be replaced by employee deficit. That will create a competitive job market for those who are willing to apply themselves. The rest will have the $100,000.00 to live on.
Drinking Age. It's really more about the "age of adulthood" in general. If we are all to agree that an 18 year old is capable of deciding whether to go to war or not then it seems that he should be mature enough to drink alcohol. Don't get me wrong, you could easily convince me that most 18 year olds are not mature enough to drink, vote or join the military. But I think there needs to be some consistency. That general age limit seems like something that could be put up for a vote from state to state. The point is, we should establish a legal age of responsibility and stick to it ( remember that society will have to babysit these kids until they reach that age so lower is better). The real conundrum is what to do about the driving age. Lives are at stake when kids are behind the wheel just as much as when they are behind a trigger. So would it be reasonable to lump the driving age in with this "age of adulthood"? I would say yes. After all you can't punish a non adult for running over your dog because they are too young to have made a mature decision anyway.
Personally, I think 16 is a reasonable age of responsibility. I think that kids now are less mature at that age than our grandparents were because so much less is expected of them. If today's kids were held accountable for their actions then, after a generation or two, there would be a noticeable change in behavior.
War on drugs. I'm not sure we should be fighting a war on drugs. It doesn't make sense to me that people should be protected from themselves by the government. Drugs (assuming they were legal) only hurt the users. Obviously there are the impaired drivers and such but that is its own crime. If some moron wants to destroy his life with drugs then let him. It's his family's problem, not ours.
On the other side, if society is dead set on stopping drug use then make it freakin illegal to use them. Right now There is no crime in usage but heavy penalties for trafficking. That tells me that the government just hates the competition. If you really want to devalue it and save lives then make the sale and possession totally legal. The risk in trafficking it is what makes it so lethally valuable. At the same time we would need to make it a serious offence to fail a drug test. Life is all about risk/reward and if you put all of the weight on the risk it will no longer have mass appeal.
Judicial System. Can we say "conflict of interest"? You have lawyers raping insurance companies and businesses in ways that our founders could never have dreamed and there is no way to stop it. Seriously, ten million dollars for biting into a candy bar that had worms in it? How do these scum bags get away with it? (side bar: most Democrats started out as scum bag trial lawyers). How about that guy who was driving his RV and after setting the cruise control, got up to get a cup of coffee. He sued because there were no instructions that said that cruise control would not operate the RV without a driver and that led to his serious crash.
The problem is that trial lawyers bring these crazy suits in front of judges and the judges aren't laughing them out of the building. Why is that? well, maybe because judges, like democratic polititicians, were once lawyers as well. They were responsible for bringing radical suits at one time and are now more prone to accepting them.
Solution, Create a law that prevents lawyers from becoming judges. I will accept a law enforcement officer, businessman or educated individual or something along those lines but not lawyers. After all, they swear to act on the behalf of their clients at all cost. That includes purposely discarding evidence that could sway the case and simply telling only the side of the truth that benifits thrir client. They are bias by profession and that does not transfer well into the judges bench.
GAY MARRIAGE: As a conservative I do not believe that the federal government should be in the business of controlling behavior through taxes. They give breaks to those who behave as they wish and they create fees for those who don't. This is why married couples get tax breaks and smokers pay more.
That being said, I don't understand why the government has any interest in marriage at all.. It is a religious union and should have no interest to our government. It is unConstitutional for our government to decide who can and cannot be married, I don't care how uncomfortable it makes you!
There is much more coming so check back often and put me in your favorites.
1. The countless giant school busses that clog up streets every day during traffic hour could be very profitable as "rolling billboards". Each bus would be sponsored and that money could cover the cost of the bus, the cost of maintenance and still leave enough money to provide a real salary to a more skilled driver.
2. Taxing the general public for education seems necessary for now. So lets put it in a pot and reward schools based on merit and enrollment. If we let schools run themselves (within a basic structure system set by government) and allow them to independently reach out to private industry for funding it will force them to become "marketable". As a school attempts to "sell itself" to companies it will need to provide proof that it is accomplishing goals. One form of proof is its enrollment. If parents feel that one school is pushing out smarter and more prepared students then said parents would be willing to travel greater distances to enroll in that school. If that school can show a perspective company that enrollment outweighs regional population then it will help convince them to support it financially. Once other schools see a decline in enrollment they will be forced to either adopt the necessary changes or fold completely. If that happens then the success full school will expand to fill that void. The advantage for the supporting companies is that they would be able to attach their name (figuratively) to specific schools and brag about their success. I realize that this system will create countless types of schools from "Wal-mart" styles (acceptable quality and high quantity) to "boutique" styles (focused advanced learning) but I think this would be better. Teachers would be paid much better but would be required to perform better as well. Students would find a home in the system that works best for them and bad kids who are a distraction will, no doubt, create a market for a system that some enterprising behavioral scientist will learn to exploit as well.
Healthcare: The healthcare system in this country is far and above the best in the world. More importantly, it is the foundation for virtually every medical advancement since the early eighteen hundreds. I have heard the arguements from those who wish it were nationalized here and from those who have experienced it in other countries but those are shallow arguements from people who aren't prepaired to think it through. In other words, bleeding heart liberals.
First of all, I have been in a nationalized healthcare system for almost a year now (the army/V.A.) and it sucks. I admit that it's nice to not have to deal with co-pays and medical bills but the other costs are much greater. After tearing virtually everything in my right shoulder I was given muscle rub and Ibuprophen and told to work it out. On the second visit they gave me more muscle rub and a steroid patch along with physical therapy. To make a long story short, it took over a month of serious pain and multiple visits to get around to actually looking for the problem and getting an MRI. This scan revealed that the therapy made things worse and I would now need surgery. This is your free healthcare, at best.
Did I mention that I'll have to go to another (private) surgeon to get the procedure done because government surgeons lack the skill. This highlights the biggest flaw in the liberal arguement. It is our freemarket system that rewards medical professionals for taking their skills to a new level. Prior to our capitolist system almost all of the worlds healthcare systems were socialized. Mankind went from the bloodlettings of 10,000 BC to the slightly more humane bloodlettings of the 1700s. Most of historys advancments have come from free men, not free healthcare. So, I'm suggesting that all of those nations who give away good healthcare today can only do so because of us, the US. If we join them then who will provide the reward for great achievements and how will medicine get any better?
The real problem is the cost. When the market is free to work then the natural corrections will take place and nearly everybody will be able to afford some level of coverage. We should get government out of healthcare other than a small oversight committee that will set basic standards. Then we need to stop lawyers from rapeing doctors. If someone was not likely to ever make a million dollars then why award him ten million for a doctors honest mistake. We don't need the lawyers who became judges helping other lawyers get rich on the backs of other americans who are actually earning their money. Perhaps if a doctor accidently cuts off the wrong leg then he should be responsible for medical bills, lost wages (what the victem actuallywould have made with just one leg) and vocational rehabilitation to help the victem get a new career that earns at least equal money. Real solutions like this will lower the cost of healthcare so much that insurance will once again be a benifit, not a necessity.
Economy: First stop the bail outs. By the time this is all said and done we will have borrowed enough money (in the name of saving the economy) to have given every American man, woman and child over $100,000.00 but we've done nothing to cut costs. I propose that we give out that money as suggested, yes, 100 grand to every man, woman and child that is a citizen of the U.S.A.. We do this with the understanding that there will be no more welfare, food stamps, unemployment or any other federal charity. If you blow your $100k then you'd better start warming up to private charitable institutions. We would also need to replace income tax with a low federal sales tax. Obviously there would be a substantial drop in cost of government so we could make it as low as one or two percent. Yes, that would create a lot of unemployment initially due to all of the social workers that are no longer sucking on the government teat, but it would get way better. Under my plan you will not only have the windfall of a hundred grand but you'd be keeping that %20 to %40 that usually comes off the top of your paycheck. With that much disposable cash flooding the market the job openings will be too many to fill. This new bounce in spending will mean a huge increase in tax revenue for all government entities and the loan for the $100k will be paid back in short time. America will once again become the staple for the world economy.
Abortion. First of all Rowe vs Wade is bad law. You can't convince me that you are free to commit murder under the right to privacy. That being said, we need to settle on an actual law and not just refer to a supreme court decision to justify acceptance. My thought is this.. Murder is usually wrong, BUT, I support it when it comes to capital punishment and protection of life and property (see Gun control). I do believe that abortions have a place as well but not as birth control. The way I look at it; if a woman becomes pregnant through rape or if the baby faces horrible health issues then it could be acceptable to take its life. We, however, are not able to truly make a decision based on what someone else is thinking when it comes to the reason for said abortion so perhaps we allow one without needing to know the reason. The stipulation being that the aborting mother be subjected to counselling along with a graphic explanation of what they are about to do. Make sure they are aware of all options before proceeding. If they come back for a second abortion we must subject them to a simple court hearing to determine necessity and then only allow the procedure to take place under the condition that the doctor render the mother incapable of reproducing again until she is ready to undo said surgery at her own expense.
Gun Control. We have the right to bear arms as a means to protect our three basic rights.. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ladder two rights are basically the same and we are bound by patriotic duty to protect them (and the documents that provide them) with our lives. The life thing is a little fuzzy. As you live your life you are made to make certain concessions. Every day when you clock in at your job you are paying for all of your possessions by giving up part of your life. What this means is that your life and your property are one and the same. I mean, when you are stealing my property from me you are also stealing the part of my life that I gave up to obtain that property, that is time that cannot be replaced. At a certain point theft is tantamount to murder and that justifies an equal payment by the perpetrator. I think Florida has it pretty close to right when it comes to gun laws ant the nation should follow suit. After all, an armed society is a friendly society.
Minimum Wage. Minimum wage is just the minimum cost of productivity. Productivity sets the cost of goods and services and the market value controls the profit. Profit is the engine that drives the expansion of business and thus the creation of jobs. I have no education in the field of economics but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. Anyway, this is an example of a cyclical market driven economy that, once you push it, will roll forever. That is, until someone offsets the balance. This is where the "do gooders step" in and bump up the minimum wage. I know it feels good to think you're helping the underachievers ( and our politicians bank on that for votes) but STOP!
When you raise the wage of our least productive you are merely raising the cost of what they produce. That, in turn, forces a decrease in profit which stunts the creation of jobs. That shortcoming makes it necessary to increase price without market support. This subtle and unwarranted change tears a rift through our economy that finally ends up lowering the international value of a dollar. You see, once the price is raised to accommodate the lowest earner his financial windfall is offset by higher prices therefore he really got no raise at all. Unfortunately no one else got a raise so they now have to pay higher prices while working for the same wage as before. What this translates to is a decrease in the value of the labor hour on a national level and the labor hour is what defines the value of money all around the world.
I suggest we drop the minimum wage to match that of the lowest wage earned internationally and add 10% for being an American citizen. This will keep us globally competitive and unemployment will be replaced by employee deficit. That will create a competitive job market for those who are willing to apply themselves. The rest will have the $100,000.00 to live on.
Drinking Age. It's really more about the "age of adulthood" in general. If we are all to agree that an 18 year old is capable of deciding whether to go to war or not then it seems that he should be mature enough to drink alcohol. Don't get me wrong, you could easily convince me that most 18 year olds are not mature enough to drink, vote or join the military. But I think there needs to be some consistency. That general age limit seems like something that could be put up for a vote from state to state. The point is, we should establish a legal age of responsibility and stick to it ( remember that society will have to babysit these kids until they reach that age so lower is better). The real conundrum is what to do about the driving age. Lives are at stake when kids are behind the wheel just as much as when they are behind a trigger. So would it be reasonable to lump the driving age in with this "age of adulthood"? I would say yes. After all you can't punish a non adult for running over your dog because they are too young to have made a mature decision anyway.
Personally, I think 16 is a reasonable age of responsibility. I think that kids now are less mature at that age than our grandparents were because so much less is expected of them. If today's kids were held accountable for their actions then, after a generation or two, there would be a noticeable change in behavior.
War on drugs. I'm not sure we should be fighting a war on drugs. It doesn't make sense to me that people should be protected from themselves by the government. Drugs (assuming they were legal) only hurt the users. Obviously there are the impaired drivers and such but that is its own crime. If some moron wants to destroy his life with drugs then let him. It's his family's problem, not ours.
On the other side, if society is dead set on stopping drug use then make it freakin illegal to use them. Right now There is no crime in usage but heavy penalties for trafficking. That tells me that the government just hates the competition. If you really want to devalue it and save lives then make the sale and possession totally legal. The risk in trafficking it is what makes it so lethally valuable. At the same time we would need to make it a serious offence to fail a drug test. Life is all about risk/reward and if you put all of the weight on the risk it will no longer have mass appeal.
Judicial System. Can we say "conflict of interest"? You have lawyers raping insurance companies and businesses in ways that our founders could never have dreamed and there is no way to stop it. Seriously, ten million dollars for biting into a candy bar that had worms in it? How do these scum bags get away with it? (side bar: most Democrats started out as scum bag trial lawyers). How about that guy who was driving his RV and after setting the cruise control, got up to get a cup of coffee. He sued because there were no instructions that said that cruise control would not operate the RV without a driver and that led to his serious crash.
The problem is that trial lawyers bring these crazy suits in front of judges and the judges aren't laughing them out of the building. Why is that? well, maybe because judges, like democratic polititicians, were once lawyers as well. They were responsible for bringing radical suits at one time and are now more prone to accepting them.
Solution, Create a law that prevents lawyers from becoming judges. I will accept a law enforcement officer, businessman or educated individual or something along those lines but not lawyers. After all, they swear to act on the behalf of their clients at all cost. That includes purposely discarding evidence that could sway the case and simply telling only the side of the truth that benifits thrir client. They are bias by profession and that does not transfer well into the judges bench.
GAY MARRIAGE: As a conservative I do not believe that the federal government should be in the business of controlling behavior through taxes. They give breaks to those who behave as they wish and they create fees for those who don't. This is why married couples get tax breaks and smokers pay more.
That being said, I don't understand why the government has any interest in marriage at all.. It is a religious union and should have no interest to our government. It is unConstitutional for our government to decide who can and cannot be married, I don't care how uncomfortable it makes you!
There is much more coming so check back often and put me in your favorites.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Be afraid, be very afraid.
With the economy spiraling out of control and the angst of the holiday season looming it looks likely that violent crime will be on the rise. That is a natural, however undesired, response to what is going on around us. That is a problem for sure, BUT.. What worries me is the explosive potential that is lurking behind this unfortunate problem.
I have noticed a slight increase in media coverage on gun crimes since the election of the Messiah. Not that there has been an increase in events but we are just hearing more about them. My spider senses are tingling, no, they are pounding. This could be the perfect opportunity for the radical left to take away our guns. If you consider that we are likely to experience some sort of attack in the near future and couple that with the illusion of a veritable crime wave that the media will no doubt force into our subconscious, it's not far fetched to think that someone with Bobamas ideology would jump at the chance to protect us by taking away our guns.
Remember, Liberals aren't evil, they are simply cowards. They are so afraid of failure that they feel the need to keep the safety net directly beneath the tightrope. In other words, if success is a measure of rungs on your ladder then failure is measured by the height from which you fall. By that logic it is clear that the only way to guarantee that one does not get hurt is to remove the ladder and in the interest of "fairness" Ladders should be outlawed so that no one can get hurt at all. And thus, a liberal utopia where the wise and wonderful government can protect us all by preventing us from incurring risks and naming our equality as its own reward. It is this pleasant (but radically skewed) philosophy that would, left to its own devices, bring down our country quicker than Kennedy can swim away from a drowning pregnant girlfriend. (I know, that was low)
Think about it, if the media starts jumping on every gun crime it will look as though there is a huge uprising of legal gun owners that are chomping at the bit to load up and spray lead at every parent and child that just want to help support their motherland. Anyone who believes that gun ownership is a right will be considered evil, much like those who deny global warming. Rather than risking re-election our Representatives will send it through the "American republic bypass system", in other words, state constitutional amendments. Any attempt to fight the federal constitutionality of it will get bogged down while the supreme court is twisted left through appointments by Bobama.
We must stay on top of this! It is our patriotic duty to inform everyone we know of the importance of our right to own guns. It is taught that guns are for home protection and hunting and though that is true, we must understand the reason that right sits so high on the list. Our constitution is the glue that holds all of our rights in place. Our right to bear arms was intended to protect the constitution above all else. When I joined the Army I took an oath before god to protect the constitution from its enemies, foreign and domestic. Nowhere in that oath was there a time limit or a stipulation that I only do so while enlisted as a soldier. I am bound to that oath and I intend to fulfill that promise. I would like to think that all Americans who live under the freedoms granted by this great document would be compelled to protect it with their lives.
The moral of the story is.. Watch out! spread the word and try to get ahead of this potential disaster by spreading your passion to your friends and neighbors because without the first amendment there will be no others.
I have noticed a slight increase in media coverage on gun crimes since the election of the Messiah. Not that there has been an increase in events but we are just hearing more about them. My spider senses are tingling, no, they are pounding. This could be the perfect opportunity for the radical left to take away our guns. If you consider that we are likely to experience some sort of attack in the near future and couple that with the illusion of a veritable crime wave that the media will no doubt force into our subconscious, it's not far fetched to think that someone with Bobamas ideology would jump at the chance to protect us by taking away our guns.
Remember, Liberals aren't evil, they are simply cowards. They are so afraid of failure that they feel the need to keep the safety net directly beneath the tightrope. In other words, if success is a measure of rungs on your ladder then failure is measured by the height from which you fall. By that logic it is clear that the only way to guarantee that one does not get hurt is to remove the ladder and in the interest of "fairness" Ladders should be outlawed so that no one can get hurt at all. And thus, a liberal utopia where the wise and wonderful government can protect us all by preventing us from incurring risks and naming our equality as its own reward. It is this pleasant (but radically skewed) philosophy that would, left to its own devices, bring down our country quicker than Kennedy can swim away from a drowning pregnant girlfriend. (I know, that was low)
Think about it, if the media starts jumping on every gun crime it will look as though there is a huge uprising of legal gun owners that are chomping at the bit to load up and spray lead at every parent and child that just want to help support their motherland. Anyone who believes that gun ownership is a right will be considered evil, much like those who deny global warming. Rather than risking re-election our Representatives will send it through the "American republic bypass system", in other words, state constitutional amendments. Any attempt to fight the federal constitutionality of it will get bogged down while the supreme court is twisted left through appointments by Bobama.
We must stay on top of this! It is our patriotic duty to inform everyone we know of the importance of our right to own guns. It is taught that guns are for home protection and hunting and though that is true, we must understand the reason that right sits so high on the list. Our constitution is the glue that holds all of our rights in place. Our right to bear arms was intended to protect the constitution above all else. When I joined the Army I took an oath before god to protect the constitution from its enemies, foreign and domestic. Nowhere in that oath was there a time limit or a stipulation that I only do so while enlisted as a soldier. I am bound to that oath and I intend to fulfill that promise. I would like to think that all Americans who live under the freedoms granted by this great document would be compelled to protect it with their lives.
The moral of the story is.. Watch out! spread the word and try to get ahead of this potential disaster by spreading your passion to your friends and neighbors because without the first amendment there will be no others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
