Are you freaking kidding me? Is this some kind of semantical April fool’s joke? To hear the news babe say that Arizona passed a “law that criminalizes illegal aliens” made my head spin. Have we, as Americans, reached the point where we need to make laws that make breaking laws against the law? So, by that logic, maybe we should start on a new law that illegalizes the breaking of the law that makes it illegal to break the law!
I do understand that the lack of legality, in a free nation, does not, by default, make an action illegal. Stay with me, this gets pretty confusing. What I’m saying is that: There is no law written which makes it legal to walk slowly in a crowd. By definition, illegal means that something is either prohibited or not authorized by law. So the slow walker could be construed as an “illegal walker” but not a criminal offender.
When applied to our immigration laws, there are laws that state that one must go through specific channels in order to enter our great nation. Anyone who chooses to circumvent these laws has chosen to become, by definition, a criminal. Now back to my original question; are you freaking kidding me?
Not only are there morons who are opposed to this new law (for reasons other than its redundancy), but these heathens are rioting over it. They have taken it upon themselves to destroy property and attack policemen over a political disagreement. I will say it now, without reservation; if you disagree with my politics and choose to destroy my property or attack innocent Americans, prepare to find out what peace really is! I will send a piece of lead through you at around 3500 feet per second and you will rest in peace for eternity.
To support illegal immigrants means that you would be ok with me, and 10 of my friends, entering your home with the permission of someone whom you’ve never met. We would eat your food, wear your clothes, and even fix a few things around your house. Of course, one or two of us would rape your daughter, steel your money and leave your kids with some highly contagious disease and you will never know who it was because we have no identity.
This is what happens, the illegals are generally decent people who mean well but they refuse to separate themselves from the hard core criminals. If you work hard to make ends meet, is it any less legal to have your life destroyed by a mugger who wants to feed his family than one who simply wants to buy drugs? If you are so consumed with “compassion” that you think it is, feel free to walk around the ghetto with all of your money clenched in your fist, otherwise, get off of your high horse and face reality.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Minds Full Of Mush
Sitting around with a group of twenty-somethings, some college graduates and some still students, the topic of politics came up. Imagine that, me talking politics at a party. I was as impartial as I could stand to be, for as long as I could hold my tongue, and even when I objected, I was nice about it.
I asked these kids what they thought about Obama, hoping for some insightful response. One "kid" stood out as the talker and said "we rocked hard when he was elected but now he ain't so great". As insightful as that was, I had him elaborate. He went on to tell me that Bush was an idiot so he was glad to see an intellectual get elected. To this the others agreed and he continued, "we thought he was going to get us out of Bush's war but I guess nothing changes".
I asked them all what Bush did that was so stupid but the only evidence they had was something said by the Saturday Night Live rendition of him. I asked them why they called it Bush's war and they had no concrete answer except to repeat some idiot on the Comedy channel. I asked them some civics questions about how congress works and what the duties of the president were and only one young lady could answer any of them at all. I asked about the Constitution and heard short phrases like "separation of church and state", "freedom of speech", "some gun thing" and other disturbing sentences.
I asked them, as I always do, if I could use their words in my blog and, in embarrassment, they asked that I leave out their names. This was not the first time this has happened, in fact, it happened a couple of weeks ago as well. I only hope that my little quiz, and the resulting insecurities, led these future leaders to learn about the very system that allows them to be so ignorant. I only pray that you go out and challenge the minds of the young, MTV activists to actually understand the nonsense they spew.
I asked these kids what they thought about Obama, hoping for some insightful response. One "kid" stood out as the talker and said "we rocked hard when he was elected but now he ain't so great". As insightful as that was, I had him elaborate. He went on to tell me that Bush was an idiot so he was glad to see an intellectual get elected. To this the others agreed and he continued, "we thought he was going to get us out of Bush's war but I guess nothing changes".
I asked them all what Bush did that was so stupid but the only evidence they had was something said by the Saturday Night Live rendition of him. I asked them why they called it Bush's war and they had no concrete answer except to repeat some idiot on the Comedy channel. I asked them some civics questions about how congress works and what the duties of the president were and only one young lady could answer any of them at all. I asked about the Constitution and heard short phrases like "separation of church and state", "freedom of speech", "some gun thing" and other disturbing sentences.
I asked them, as I always do, if I could use their words in my blog and, in embarrassment, they asked that I leave out their names. This was not the first time this has happened, in fact, it happened a couple of weeks ago as well. I only hope that my little quiz, and the resulting insecurities, led these future leaders to learn about the very system that allows them to be so ignorant. I only pray that you go out and challenge the minds of the young, MTV activists to actually understand the nonsense they spew.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Conservatism on Fags Adopting Kids
Lately there has been a lot of local noise about Florida's law banning adoption by "same sex couples". I think it is my responsibility to weigh in on the subject. Before I do I want you to be sitting down and I would like you to think before you fly off the handle.
Websters Dictionary defines "Disease" as: an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning. Most diseases has a negative effect on the reproductive system in some way or another. If you are strictly religious then you may believe that this is God's way of preventing generational spreading of these diseases. If you are an atheist then you may think that this is Mother Nature's way of accomplishing the same goal.
Regardless of your theology, nearly everyone is happy that science has led to new opportunities for those whose disease would have prevented them from raising children of their own. As for those who cannot be helped by science, there is adoption, which provides for those children who might otherwise have been aborted.
Let's be honest, homosexuality is a disease! It is a condition of abnormal function that directly effects reproduction. It is not an act of evil nor is it a social choice (for the most part), it simply exists as part of ones inner desires. Seriously, if you're a straight guy, do you really think you could simply start liking your sphincter getting reamed out. I know that gays don't like to be considered diseased but too bad. We call alcoholism and sex addiction diseases and we all know that's a crock.
So if we are to agree that homosexuality is a disease, and unlike cancer and MS it is not debilitating, and that it is wrong to prevent sick people from the joys of raising children then what's wrong with "queers" raising kids? It's not like they're going to teach their sickness to a child any more than a parent with cancer would wish their illness on their own offspring.
If you are just offended by their "lifestyle" then you have a huge battle ahead of you. A great number of people who are able to create life have no business doing so. There are many "lifestyles" into which many of our children are born that I disagree with but only God has the right to decide that. I think that God would much rather give a diseased couple the opportunity to raise and love children then have orphans rot away in some halfway house or be aborted by a hopeless mother.
If you are a true conservative then you must put away your disdain for the act of homosexuality, you must ignore the loud minority of overtly flamboyant sissies that try to paint a bold picture of what it is to be gay, and you must accept that the vast majority of homosexuals are just like you and me. They are everyday folks with everyday jobs and everyday problems. They only wish to find love and to live life as normal as they can while they struggle with the social misunderstanding of the disease that makes them desire whomever it is that they desire. It is time to take a better look at what it is to be a freedom loving conservative and stop trying to govern morality while ignoring morals.
Websters Dictionary defines "Disease" as: an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning. Most diseases has a negative effect on the reproductive system in some way or another. If you are strictly religious then you may believe that this is God's way of preventing generational spreading of these diseases. If you are an atheist then you may think that this is Mother Nature's way of accomplishing the same goal.
Regardless of your theology, nearly everyone is happy that science has led to new opportunities for those whose disease would have prevented them from raising children of their own. As for those who cannot be helped by science, there is adoption, which provides for those children who might otherwise have been aborted.
Let's be honest, homosexuality is a disease! It is a condition of abnormal function that directly effects reproduction. It is not an act of evil nor is it a social choice (for the most part), it simply exists as part of ones inner desires. Seriously, if you're a straight guy, do you really think you could simply start liking your sphincter getting reamed out. I know that gays don't like to be considered diseased but too bad. We call alcoholism and sex addiction diseases and we all know that's a crock.
So if we are to agree that homosexuality is a disease, and unlike cancer and MS it is not debilitating, and that it is wrong to prevent sick people from the joys of raising children then what's wrong with "queers" raising kids? It's not like they're going to teach their sickness to a child any more than a parent with cancer would wish their illness on their own offspring.
If you are just offended by their "lifestyle" then you have a huge battle ahead of you. A great number of people who are able to create life have no business doing so. There are many "lifestyles" into which many of our children are born that I disagree with but only God has the right to decide that. I think that God would much rather give a diseased couple the opportunity to raise and love children then have orphans rot away in some halfway house or be aborted by a hopeless mother.
If you are a true conservative then you must put away your disdain for the act of homosexuality, you must ignore the loud minority of overtly flamboyant sissies that try to paint a bold picture of what it is to be gay, and you must accept that the vast majority of homosexuals are just like you and me. They are everyday folks with everyday jobs and everyday problems. They only wish to find love and to live life as normal as they can while they struggle with the social misunderstanding of the disease that makes them desire whomever it is that they desire. It is time to take a better look at what it is to be a freedom loving conservative and stop trying to govern morality while ignoring morals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
