I sometimes see people preach, and by using their references to scripture and actually reading the scripture in context, you will see, the truth. And 99.9 % of the time, they are wrong. Not just wrong in their statements but also wrong in the misuse of Scripture. That is what bothers me. I can stand it and tolerate the misuse of a mind that is full of hate or bitterness. But when you start messing with the Scripture, to twist it to fit your narrow and deceitful ends; that is where I draw the line.
I have been keeping up with this “pastor-gate” crap on the news. I am sure that Sen. Obama really is a good person (I think, I don’t know him personally), but his judgment is lacking. We don’t need another president that has a lack in judgment.
I know people swoon over him… or treat him like a rock-star that is on top of the rock world. What about the people that were “feinting” at the site of him, in some kind of a sycophantic infatuation? This is similar to the idiotic people that screamed themselves to death at the site of Elvis or the Beetles. Does that not bother anyone else? I am all for being excited about someone you like or hold in high esteem. But…Some control or self-control is needed. It is not healthy for anyone much less the Country.
Now back to the story that I read this morning. The issue of “soundbytes” versus the “sermon excerpt”. When you break down the excerpt it is worse than what they run in the “soundbyte”.
What I will comment on is what I know. This is what I know……
It is sad for someone who is supposed to be a “reverend” and is ordained as such to speak the way the “reverend” Wright does. Out of the lengthy “excerpt” there are only 2 obscure scripture passages quoted, and what is worse they are not even used in context. I know that lots of preachers like to take a small bit of text and twist it to fit their doctrine. This is not new… they have been doing the same since the beginning of time. In fact the first words spoken to man (other than Gods words) were a lie. And this is the constant until today and will continue till the end of time. The first is Psalm 137, which is one of the most wrongly interpreted scripture passages. He insinuates that this is a call for them to act in violence. Against those that have done violence to them. When in fact the truth of the text is not in any way what he makes of it. It says “O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed, blessed shall he be who repays you with what you have done to us! Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” (verses 8&9) Now if you look quickly at it you can believe what Mr. Wright is saying. But if you look at it for what is really there you cannot come to the same conclusion. What Wright claims is that is a call to violence i.e. revenge against those who have done you wrong. I don’t believe that is taught anywhere including here in scripture. In fact I remember it better as “Vengeance is mine, I will repay. Says the Lord.” (Duet. 32:35)
Not getting too deeply into the actual Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic of the text (which Mr. Wright should be aware of), we can see from the actual context of the English. That this has been un-rightly interpreted.
Just a good idea, there is a rule to go by. It is called the 20/20 rule. Just like getting “perfect” vision. The same can be put to the scripture. Don’t just believe a “one verse wonder” person. 20 verses before and 20 verses after to get the proper context. Some times that is possible, like this one there is only 9 verses in the chapter. This would be good to know the text itself, and a little other knowledge of the scripture.
The proper interpretation of this scripture is true. Blessed be the one that repays the people that has done wrong to the chosen people of God. This would be the same as saying Blessed be God because he will repay you for the evil you have done to us.
On to the next…one…………..
The next slight “mis-statement” comes from Malachi 3, Mr. Wright quotes the 6th verse. He states the part that says… God does not change. Which is true. But the application that he uses is not in context of the Scripture. The context of the scripture is that this is talking about the judgment of Israel. It states “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” This is a testament to the faithfulness of God toward his chosen people.
Then he assumes to make statements for God that the scripture does not support. Not to mention a chain of irrational links that seem to be guided by racism.
Now what really bothered me about the statements Mr. Wright has chosen to spout is that at every turn he points out the race of everyone. Out of the 3 “excerpts” there were 28 references to race and or class. Who tells you “you can’t” and is effective, and I don’t care what race you are? Yourself. If you don’t ever strive to make anything out of yourself, who is to blame? Yourself.
It is much easier to hold on to bitterness and blame someone else for your failures. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are YOUR failures. There is always a way. It may not be easy or the most comfortable but you CAN do what you set YOUR mind to.
This is a sure thing. The only one responsible for you, is YOU. You know being a mixed race myself, (white and American Indian) I could get on the role and get free stuff for the government, but I don’t. This is not to be “holier than thou”. But you know what … I have been fired, and you know what he was white. You also know what … it had nothing to do with my race, it was what it was. Something that was not good. But you can get down and whine or you can shut up pick yourself up and MOVE ON.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-wright-transcripts-webmar29,0,4778852.story?page=1
The worn out excuse of “my great, great, great great grandparents were slaves”. That does not affect you. I don’t care what you say. Anyone under 30 can’t even blame the “civil rights” movement for their being “scared for life”. I am sorry you were treated unfairly. Here is a news flash LIFE IS NOT FAIR. Life sucks, wear a helmet. My great, great, great, great grandparents were Union soldiers and fought and some lost their lives, to free the slaves. I can’t tell you if they owned any slaves. Quite frankly I don’t care. It is not a problem that can or should affect my life.
The same hate for the “white man” is a trait that is taught, the same way the hate of the “black man” taught by the KKK. These two areas of HATE are just that, HATE. They will never go away, they will always be with us, but we don’t have to be sucked in by them and perpetuate the cycle of hate. If everyone’s race, was gone tomorrow, do you think the hate would be gone? OR, would there be something else or some other reason, they would hate. They would hate the short or the tall or the ugly or the deformed or handicapped.
I also wish that Martin Luther King was still around. That way some of the less scrupulous “race baiters” that are out their making money on the backs of the poor in their race, just because they are one race or another. They should be ashamed. And they should pull their heads out of their who-ha’s and walk up tall for a change.
Nevermind, if they did do that or did what they say they wanted to do. They would be out of a job shortly, because we could do this IF we worked together. But maybe money is more important to them than the other people in their race.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Have the Canadians Lost Their Everloving Minds???
Just when I think Liberals can not get any dumber.....
I am proven wrong ... again.
How have these people lived past the age of 6? Anyone tell me the answer? I don't get it. How can you go through life, being afraid of anything that "might" be dangerous? I am surprised they don't have every phobia in recorded Medical Journals.
This one I found this morning...
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Pursaga_Joyanne/2008/03/23/5078366.html
It is in the Winnipeg Sun 23March08 by Joyanne Pursaga. And I get it that Canadians are decendants from the French but this is too much. The title of the article... "Common-sense restriction needed for PELLET guns" .
At first I didn't believe it and I thought I either read the title wrong or it was a typo.... But it wasn't ...
I don't have the time or the energy to disect this complete and totally ignorant and almost blatantly stupid article. So I will just say a little.
The article would have you believe there is a "need" to restrict the buying and selling of a child's toy. Even if it is dangerous.
1. Fire crackers have caused more deaths than pellet guns. But everyone likes to shoot off fire crackers...with no restriction on those.
2. The article would have you believe that there are roving gangs of youngsters, roaming Canada shooting people, robbing them, etc.
3. The author has obviously never watched the movie "demolition man". Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean we need laws and restrictions on it.
4. These people are stupid. And are more than likely Hoplophobic.
5. I am glad they don't do stuff like this here in the US. because if they did they would have to arrest every other 8 yr old in the country. Or at least every 8 yr old this side of the Mississippi. And they are complaining about jail overcrowding now...
6. People need to seek Psycological help with their irrational fear of firearms. When someone commits a crime with a firearm... the Libtards go straight for the guns... completly ignoring the person who actually commited the crime. They want to illiminate the tool. Because of their fear.
7. I have a few very simple rules that deal with firearms of any kind. (and these are simple enough that even the libtards can understand)
a. Every fire arm (real or pellet gun) has a nifty little thing on it called the barrel. (that is the long cylindrycal thing the projectile comes out of and kills every thing and everyone in its path) That is where the bullet or pellet comes out.
b. The end of the barrel is where the projectile comes out. If you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot, don't point it at your foot. If you don't want to shoot someone else, don't point it at someone else. If you don't want to shoot the neighbor in the eye don't point it at the neighbors eye.
So stop trying to push your fear off on everyone else. If you are Hoplophobic, fine but don't make everyone believe that they are in danger just because you are too stupid to handle a firearm.
I am proven wrong ... again.
How have these people lived past the age of 6? Anyone tell me the answer? I don't get it. How can you go through life, being afraid of anything that "might" be dangerous? I am surprised they don't have every phobia in recorded Medical Journals.
This one I found this morning...
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Pursaga_Joyanne/2008/03/23/5078366.html
It is in the Winnipeg Sun 23March08 by Joyanne Pursaga. And I get it that Canadians are decendants from the French but this is too much. The title of the article... "Common-sense restriction needed for PELLET guns" .
At first I didn't believe it and I thought I either read the title wrong or it was a typo.... But it wasn't ...
I don't have the time or the energy to disect this complete and totally ignorant and almost blatantly stupid article. So I will just say a little.
The article would have you believe there is a "need" to restrict the buying and selling of a child's toy. Even if it is dangerous.
1. Fire crackers have caused more deaths than pellet guns. But everyone likes to shoot off fire crackers...with no restriction on those.
2. The article would have you believe that there are roving gangs of youngsters, roaming Canada shooting people, robbing them, etc.
3. The author has obviously never watched the movie "demolition man". Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean we need laws and restrictions on it.
4. These people are stupid. And are more than likely Hoplophobic.
5. I am glad they don't do stuff like this here in the US. because if they did they would have to arrest every other 8 yr old in the country. Or at least every 8 yr old this side of the Mississippi. And they are complaining about jail overcrowding now...
6. People need to seek Psycological help with their irrational fear of firearms. When someone commits a crime with a firearm... the Libtards go straight for the guns... completly ignoring the person who actually commited the crime. They want to illiminate the tool. Because of their fear.
7. I have a few very simple rules that deal with firearms of any kind. (and these are simple enough that even the libtards can understand)
a. Every fire arm (real or pellet gun) has a nifty little thing on it called the barrel. (that is the long cylindrycal thing the projectile comes out of and kills every thing and everyone in its path) That is where the bullet or pellet comes out.
b. The end of the barrel is where the projectile comes out. If you don't want to shoot yourself in the foot, don't point it at your foot. If you don't want to shoot someone else, don't point it at someone else. If you don't want to shoot the neighbor in the eye don't point it at the neighbors eye.
So stop trying to push your fear off on everyone else. If you are Hoplophobic, fine but don't make everyone believe that they are in danger just because you are too stupid to handle a firearm.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Stupid Liberals...
Here are a few quotes by the founding fathers. (For the libs...I say "fathers" because they happened to be male. If they were female I would have said "mothers". I am in no way trying to promote the male agenda. Or not give "cred" to the females that helped in the founding of this great Christian nation. I don't know of any "mother" quotes.)
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." (BOY THE LIBS WOULD BE PISSED TODAY HUH?)
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams “ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]
Samuel Adams:“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
More to follow...
Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." (BOY THE LIBS WOULD BE PISSED TODAY HUH?)
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams “ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]
Samuel Adams:“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
More to follow...
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Brady Campain Wants You Dead...
I was just out looking at the various "news" stories on the net looking for any on the uproar in DC as of late. (That would be the issue of the US supreme court hearing the ban on guns in DC and the 2nd amendment)
I was saddened by the amount of stupidity on the part of the "guns are bad" crowd. I mean I normaly expect some amount of stupidity from them but today was an extra special helping.
I see the president of the Brady Campain (Paul Helmke) saying "The lower-court decision in the DC gun case was an example of judicial activism at its worst."
(I guess judicial activism is only ok when it is in his favor) What I find side spliting is that, everyone in the media has known, but didn't want the American people to know, that courts are overstepping their bounderies and need to be put back in check. Now, what I am not saying is, that the "lower court" has done anything wrong. I don't believe the DC area has the right to tell people when, where, or how they can defend themselves. Period. Then he goes on to say...
"The lower court court ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent, discounted the express language of the Second Amendment, and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives."
This is what I have a problem with... he is more concerned about precident than the Constitution itself... You know some precidents are bad... lets pick an example... Slavery...that one sucked, So by the same logic, we should still have slaves because it was a precident, Mr. Helmke?
Next is the part of the "express language of the second amendment". I will give him the argument OOPPS they screwed up the language (grammer) of the 2nd amendment. IT WOULD BE THE ONLY GRAMATICAL ERROR IN THE ENTIRE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS. If I remember my english properly, people means.....well people. I may be wrong on this. I mean I am sure not as smart as Mr. Helmke.
Then he says they "substitued its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives". Uhhh... Well when the "elected" idiots pass laws that are in direct violation to the constitution... Yep, that is the job for ....DUH da da duh.....Super Court............
Now the Brady campain is not a stranger to lies, and half-truths. I visited their site...(don't bother, it sucked) I saw things like the NRA lies etc...But what caught my eye is the part about "gun facts" and especially the "fact sheet" of "women and guns". You can view it yourself at the link below...
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/women.pdf
They say things in a sly manner to make you relate the real issue with one they are pointing out to you. When they try to pull the wool over your eyes.
Examples? I'm glad you asked...
They start off with this statement...
"For years, the gun industry and gun lobby have perpetrated the myth that owning guns will protect women from violent crime." Then they say the industries goal is to sell more guns to women. WOW ... You don't say. A business, wanting to sell its own product... You don't say... Say it isn't so....
It continues by stating another "fact".
"Separating out facts from myth makes clear that women are endangered rather protected by the proliferation of handguns."
What they are saying is that illeagal guns sales are bad. Wait, I can't argue that. But what they want you to think is that Guns sold by a licensed dealers are a danger to women. Which is a bold faced lie. Legal guns owned by law abiding citizens, are not the issue; Illegal ones are, and therefore the illegal ones are unable to be controled by "gun control laws" therefore gun control doesn't work. It only hurts the law abiding citizen.
But wait there is more...(I feel like I am in an infomercial)
"Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence." Of course that is a myth. What they want you to think about the myth... they are saying in the start they say violent crime, and now they say gun violence. Wait they are not the same thing.
They say the "truth" is...
"Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent." they give a study for a reference... (Matthew Miller et. al., "Firearm Availability and Suicide, Homicide, and Unintentional Firearm Deaths Among Women." Journal of Urban Health 79: 26-38 (2002).)
"Fact: In the US, regions with higher levels of handgun ownership have higher suicide rates. Although women have higher rates of depression than men, it is the handgun-suicide connection, rather than depression, that accounts for higher suicide rates." they give the reference....(David Hemenway and Matthew Miller, "Association of Rates of Household Handgun Ownership, Lifetime Major Depression, and Serious Suicidal Thoughts with Rates of Suicide across US Census Regions." Injury Prevention 8: 313-316 (2002).)
Two problems...
1. They forget that guns are a tool, and that people who have mental health issues kill themselves...
2. They don't mention the studies in Canada (their praised bastion of gun control) that show when guns are removed from the equasion... they kill themselves in other manners. Huh... go figure ... I am sure that it is the guns right?
The next part...
"Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.
Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense.[5](Violence Policy Center, “A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense,” 2001http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm)
Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.[6](Ibid.)"
Now let me address something here ... this "fact" says nothing about the gun and everything about the woman. You NEVER pull a firearm unless you REALLY mean to use it. You have to train to shoot. And the plain truth... even Police officers HESITATE. Training the mind is harder than training the body. Combat is 80% mental and 20% physical. Again don't go after a tool.
They then say...
"Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns,while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.[7]"
The reference...(FBI Uniform Crime Reports, The Structure of Family Violence: An Analysis of Selected Incidents. Washington, D.C., 1998.) and should be after the parenthetical... the last sentence is an oppinion and is not supported by the reference. But again they want you to just belive it... not to look up the info.
The last one is ...
"Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.
Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.[8] reference... (Glick, “Female Persuasion: How the Firearms Industry Markets to Women and the Reality of Women and Guns.”) and from what I can gather are venomous "anti-gun" folks.
So what do we have... some numbers and "facts" cherry picked to be twisted to form a narrow, closed minded view of the world. Not real facts.
These people are snakes in the grass. They Are not honest. They have an agenda to push... and will do anything to do so.
Now on the other side (Robert A. Levy, Cato Institute) Says the following...
"On March 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Heller v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment challenge to D.C.'s ban on all functional firearms in the home. The issue is straightforward: Does the Second Amendment mean anything at all? The city and its allies contend that the Framers ratified a provision in the Bill of Rights that should be interpreted to have no content whatsoever. In effect, the city argues that the right to keep and bear arms can be exercised only in the context of militia service -- that is, exercised by persons chosen by government, at a time and place chosen by government, and in a manner chosen by government. At the same time, the city concedes that one of the original purposes of the Second Amendment was to deter government tyranny. Astonishingly, the city pretends that its inherently contradictory positions can somehow be reconciled.
Here is the relevant question in a nutshell: In a city with a deplorable record of violent crime -- after 32 years of a supposed ban on functional firearms -- can citizens be prevented from defending themselves in their homes with suitable, commonly-used weapons. Even if Mr. Heller should vindicate his constitutional right to self-defense, Washington, DC will be able to enact sensible gun regulations. No one is suggesting that the city cannot keep guns away from children, mentally incompetent persons, and violent felons. Nor does the city have to allow massively destructive weapons to be possessed and used. Reasonable registration requirements, proficiency testing, and a variety of other regulations will no doubt survive judicial review. But the nation's capital may not treat the Bill of Rights like so much tissue paper. It may not deprive residents of an opportunity to protect themselves and their families in an environment where the city itself has been singularly ineffective. We have a written Constitution and its Bill of Rights cannot be eradicated by declaration of the D.C. city counsel."
You make up your own mind. I know that facts are on my side. If they were not... I would choose another side.
I was saddened by the amount of stupidity on the part of the "guns are bad" crowd. I mean I normaly expect some amount of stupidity from them but today was an extra special helping.
I see the president of the Brady Campain (Paul Helmke) saying "The lower-court decision in the DC gun case was an example of judicial activism at its worst."
(I guess judicial activism is only ok when it is in his favor) What I find side spliting is that, everyone in the media has known, but didn't want the American people to know, that courts are overstepping their bounderies and need to be put back in check. Now, what I am not saying is, that the "lower court" has done anything wrong. I don't believe the DC area has the right to tell people when, where, or how they can defend themselves. Period. Then he goes on to say...
"The lower court court ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent, discounted the express language of the Second Amendment, and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives."
This is what I have a problem with... he is more concerned about precident than the Constitution itself... You know some precidents are bad... lets pick an example... Slavery...that one sucked, So by the same logic, we should still have slaves because it was a precident, Mr. Helmke?
Next is the part of the "express language of the second amendment". I will give him the argument OOPPS they screwed up the language (grammer) of the 2nd amendment. IT WOULD BE THE ONLY GRAMATICAL ERROR IN THE ENTIRE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS. If I remember my english properly, people means.....well people. I may be wrong on this. I mean I am sure not as smart as Mr. Helmke.
Then he says they "substitued its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives". Uhhh... Well when the "elected" idiots pass laws that are in direct violation to the constitution... Yep, that is the job for ....DUH da da duh.....Super Court............
Now the Brady campain is not a stranger to lies, and half-truths. I visited their site...(don't bother, it sucked) I saw things like the NRA lies etc...But what caught my eye is the part about "gun facts" and especially the "fact sheet" of "women and guns". You can view it yourself at the link below...
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/women.pdf
They say things in a sly manner to make you relate the real issue with one they are pointing out to you. When they try to pull the wool over your eyes.
Examples? I'm glad you asked...
They start off with this statement...
"For years, the gun industry and gun lobby have perpetrated the myth that owning guns will protect women from violent crime." Then they say the industries goal is to sell more guns to women. WOW ... You don't say. A business, wanting to sell its own product... You don't say... Say it isn't so....
It continues by stating another "fact".
"Separating out facts from myth makes clear that women are endangered rather protected by the proliferation of handguns."
What they are saying is that illeagal guns sales are bad. Wait, I can't argue that. But what they want you to think is that Guns sold by a licensed dealers are a danger to women. Which is a bold faced lie. Legal guns owned by law abiding citizens, are not the issue; Illegal ones are, and therefore the illegal ones are unable to be controled by "gun control laws" therefore gun control doesn't work. It only hurts the law abiding citizen.
But wait there is more...(I feel like I am in an infomercial)
"Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence." Of course that is a myth. What they want you to think about the myth... they are saying in the start they say violent crime, and now they say gun violence. Wait they are not the same thing.
They say the "truth" is...
"Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent." they give a study for a reference... (Matthew Miller et. al., "Firearm Availability and Suicide, Homicide, and Unintentional Firearm Deaths Among Women." Journal of Urban Health 79: 26-38 (2002).)
"Fact: In the US, regions with higher levels of handgun ownership have higher suicide rates. Although women have higher rates of depression than men, it is the handgun-suicide connection, rather than depression, that accounts for higher suicide rates." they give the reference....(David Hemenway and Matthew Miller, "Association of Rates of Household Handgun Ownership, Lifetime Major Depression, and Serious Suicidal Thoughts with Rates of Suicide across US Census Regions." Injury Prevention 8: 313-316 (2002).)
Two problems...
1. They forget that guns are a tool, and that people who have mental health issues kill themselves...
2. They don't mention the studies in Canada (their praised bastion of gun control) that show when guns are removed from the equasion... they kill themselves in other manners. Huh... go figure ... I am sure that it is the guns right?
The next part...
"Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.
Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense.[5](Violence Policy Center, “A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense,” 2001http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm)
Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.[6](Ibid.)"
Now let me address something here ... this "fact" says nothing about the gun and everything about the woman. You NEVER pull a firearm unless you REALLY mean to use it. You have to train to shoot. And the plain truth... even Police officers HESITATE. Training the mind is harder than training the body. Combat is 80% mental and 20% physical. Again don't go after a tool.
They then say...
"Myth: Guns protect women from rape.
Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns,while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.[7]"
The reference...(FBI Uniform Crime Reports, The Structure of Family Violence: An Analysis of Selected Incidents. Washington, D.C., 1998.) and should be after the parenthetical... the last sentence is an oppinion and is not supported by the reference. But again they want you to just belive it... not to look up the info.
The last one is ...
"Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.
Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.[8] reference... (Glick, “Female Persuasion: How the Firearms Industry Markets to Women and the Reality of Women and Guns.”) and from what I can gather are venomous "anti-gun" folks.
So what do we have... some numbers and "facts" cherry picked to be twisted to form a narrow, closed minded view of the world. Not real facts.
These people are snakes in the grass. They Are not honest. They have an agenda to push... and will do anything to do so.
Now on the other side (Robert A. Levy, Cato Institute) Says the following...
"On March 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Heller v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment challenge to D.C.'s ban on all functional firearms in the home. The issue is straightforward: Does the Second Amendment mean anything at all? The city and its allies contend that the Framers ratified a provision in the Bill of Rights that should be interpreted to have no content whatsoever. In effect, the city argues that the right to keep and bear arms can be exercised only in the context of militia service -- that is, exercised by persons chosen by government, at a time and place chosen by government, and in a manner chosen by government. At the same time, the city concedes that one of the original purposes of the Second Amendment was to deter government tyranny. Astonishingly, the city pretends that its inherently contradictory positions can somehow be reconciled.
Here is the relevant question in a nutshell: In a city with a deplorable record of violent crime -- after 32 years of a supposed ban on functional firearms -- can citizens be prevented from defending themselves in their homes with suitable, commonly-used weapons. Even if Mr. Heller should vindicate his constitutional right to self-defense, Washington, DC will be able to enact sensible gun regulations. No one is suggesting that the city cannot keep guns away from children, mentally incompetent persons, and violent felons. Nor does the city have to allow massively destructive weapons to be possessed and used. Reasonable registration requirements, proficiency testing, and a variety of other regulations will no doubt survive judicial review. But the nation's capital may not treat the Bill of Rights like so much tissue paper. It may not deprive residents of an opportunity to protect themselves and their families in an environment where the city itself has been singularly ineffective. We have a written Constitution and its Bill of Rights cannot be eradicated by declaration of the D.C. city counsel."
You make up your own mind. I know that facts are on my side. If they were not... I would choose another side.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Silly Idiot Kicks Are For Bigots…
What can you say in today’s society? Well you can’t say anything that might “offend” someone or hurt someone’s “feelings”. If you do you are immediately written off and labeled a Bigot.
Fascinating isn’t it…the ones complaining about their “freedom” or “rights” they are being denied; are most often the ones trying to silence someone else’s freedom or rights to say what they want.
Let’s look back in history shall we? And we only have to look in the last 100 years. Who is the most famous for this type of tactic…? Well I will give you a hint……… he is dead now… he was white… (Any guesses yet? … No? ) … he had a silly mustache… and spoke fluent German. …..Oh yeah he was involved and possibly also caused the 2nd World War……… oh and killed a whole bunch of those “jewish people”… oh yeah and the war itself……killed somewhere in the neighborhood of about 60 million people…
If you haven’t guessed by now….it is Adolf Hitler. If you didn’t guess it… you are as dumb as poop. Stop watching T.V., playing video games, and voting for the “next American idol”, and slow down long enough to read a book. Try something that is not fiction. I know elves and magic swords are cool and everything; but you might trying to live in the real world for a change.
But I digress…………………Hitler, had a great propaganda machine. He also said “ By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.” (Can you say Obama)
Are those in the “agenda driven” media of today buying into a Hitler mentality? Are you able to see where things you knew to be “true” sometime ago are now “not true”? When did truth change? When did black become white, and white became black? Who is the one (or are the ones) that changed it, and who are the people preaching it, and who are the fools that believe it?
The idea political correctness will help is a farce. Those who don’t like what you say, don’t have the right to keep you from saying it. I believe that too many people mix up the right of “freedom of speech” with a idea that has evolved in the recent years, but has no basis other than peoples feelings… freedom to be heard.
Sadly I looked at wikipedia… and found a lot of bigotry I didn’t even knew existed. Mainly because I don’t care. But also because I don’t care what you think about me either. You can say what you want…but that doesn’t make it true. You can hate me because of what or who I am. You can hate me because I’m white, or you can hate me because I’m black, or you can hate me because I’m Native American. All of which matters not to me. Because I know who I am and I am secure in who I am. And the fact that your opinion doesn’t matter to me.
Here is a list of the things that you can be bigoted against…
Ableism – you hate handicaps
Adultism – you hate kids
Ageism – you hate people who are a different age than you
Anti-Americanism – you hate America
Anti-Catholicism – you hate Catholics
Anti-Mormonism - you hate Mormons
Anti-Polish sentiment - you hate Pollocks
Anti-Protestantism – you hate Christians
Anti-Semitism - you hate Jews
Biphobia - you hate bisexuals
Chauvinism – you hate women
Chronocentrism – you hate your ancesters
Classism – you hate people from another class (do we still live in a class system? I’m confused?)
Discrimination – Uhhhhhhh….…
Hate group – again uhhhh…….
Heterophobia – you hate straight people
Homophobia – you hate homos
Islamophobia – you hate muslims
Misandry –you hate boys (men)
Misogyny – you hate girls (women)
Narcissism –you hate everyone but yourself
Nazism – you hate everyone who is weak, or not white
Racism – you hate other peoples skin color
Religious persecution – self-explanitory
Religious intolerance - again self-explainitory
Reverse Discrimination – switcheroo discrimination
Sectarianism – you hate groups of people that are different
Sexism – you hate sex (just seeing if you are paying attention) You hate others sex.
Stereotype - is a simplified and/or standardized conception or image with specific meaning, often held in common by one group of people about another group. (I’m not sure what that means)
Supremacism – you think that your race is supreme…kinda like hitler
Transphobia - you hate “transgendered” guys/girls-ish people
Xenophobia – you hate strangers…or strange people
My head hurts … if you don’t like one of these groups, or you think that a certain one is not right, you are a bigot…
In fact they had more things that you can be bigoted against than I even know were there to begin with.
Why do people not want the truth? Oh yes, the truth hurts. Nothing like pouring salt on an open wound, right? (lemon juice hurts too, just in case you ever wanted to try that one)
I hate no-one person, or lifestyle, or religion. Some people don’t get that because they have hate, and can’t understand why others don’t also have hate. I believe in wrong and right.
What it boils down to is -- moral relativism, or situational ethics. The idea of nothing is iron clad – wrong or right. Whatever is right for you may not be right for me. BS.
Which way is north? It is not relative. Does gravity remain a constant? It is not relative. Which way is up? It is not relative. What is 2 + 2 ? It is not relative.
Why then, when there are absolutes, do we continue to say there are no absolutes. Which is really funny, because the statement; “There are no absolutes” IS an absolute.
Silly idiots.
Here is a little bit of info that you may or may not know……
Any civilization that wholly embraces homosexuality, NEVER survives. There is no grey area on this one. Let me clarify… it does NOT have anything to do with homosexuality. It has to do with the moral relativism and sin in general. If you can’t say something is wrong or right, or whether something is a sin or not. Not only will the idea or sin itself to fester unchecked, but resentment about it (on both sides) will also go unchecked. And those two items are like baking soda and vinegar.
In our culture, moral relativism has taken hold of us, and not in a gentle way… it has a death grip on us. We must be able to speak freely. Without fear of retribution on either side of the isle…
Now I am not saying that what you say will not have consequences. Not at all. But you should not be destroyed, or thrown under the bus, because of your point of view. Some people will point out someone like the dixi chix as “retribution” when it is not. They are recording artists that sell a product. If people don’t want to buy their items because they don’t like them. That is not retribution. Retribution would be the record label canceling their contract, because of what they said. Retribution is the firing of Imus, because someone didn’t like what he said, If he has offended his audience they will fire him, and they will stop listening, and then when his ratings drop, he will no longer have a desirable product to sell.
Think for yourself. Be open to the statements of others. Don’t sell your self out. Don’t sell out for someone else’s opinion of you.
Fascinating isn’t it…the ones complaining about their “freedom” or “rights” they are being denied; are most often the ones trying to silence someone else’s freedom or rights to say what they want.
Let’s look back in history shall we? And we only have to look in the last 100 years. Who is the most famous for this type of tactic…? Well I will give you a hint……… he is dead now… he was white… (Any guesses yet? … No? ) … he had a silly mustache… and spoke fluent German. …..Oh yeah he was involved and possibly also caused the 2nd World War……… oh and killed a whole bunch of those “jewish people”… oh yeah and the war itself……killed somewhere in the neighborhood of about 60 million people…
If you haven’t guessed by now….it is Adolf Hitler. If you didn’t guess it… you are as dumb as poop. Stop watching T.V., playing video games, and voting for the “next American idol”, and slow down long enough to read a book. Try something that is not fiction. I know elves and magic swords are cool and everything; but you might trying to live in the real world for a change.
But I digress…………………Hitler, had a great propaganda machine. He also said “ By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.” (Can you say Obama)
Are those in the “agenda driven” media of today buying into a Hitler mentality? Are you able to see where things you knew to be “true” sometime ago are now “not true”? When did truth change? When did black become white, and white became black? Who is the one (or are the ones) that changed it, and who are the people preaching it, and who are the fools that believe it?
The idea political correctness will help is a farce. Those who don’t like what you say, don’t have the right to keep you from saying it. I believe that too many people mix up the right of “freedom of speech” with a idea that has evolved in the recent years, but has no basis other than peoples feelings… freedom to be heard.
Sadly I looked at wikipedia… and found a lot of bigotry I didn’t even knew existed. Mainly because I don’t care. But also because I don’t care what you think about me either. You can say what you want…but that doesn’t make it true. You can hate me because of what or who I am. You can hate me because I’m white, or you can hate me because I’m black, or you can hate me because I’m Native American. All of which matters not to me. Because I know who I am and I am secure in who I am. And the fact that your opinion doesn’t matter to me.
Here is a list of the things that you can be bigoted against…
Ableism – you hate handicaps
Adultism – you hate kids
Ageism – you hate people who are a different age than you
Anti-Americanism – you hate America
Anti-Catholicism – you hate Catholics
Anti-Mormonism - you hate Mormons
Anti-Polish sentiment - you hate Pollocks
Anti-Protestantism – you hate Christians
Anti-Semitism - you hate Jews
Biphobia - you hate bisexuals
Chauvinism – you hate women
Chronocentrism – you hate your ancesters
Classism – you hate people from another class (do we still live in a class system? I’m confused?)
Discrimination – Uhhhhhhh….…
Hate group – again uhhhh…….
Heterophobia – you hate straight people
Homophobia – you hate homos
Islamophobia – you hate muslims
Misandry –you hate boys (men)
Misogyny – you hate girls (women)
Narcissism –you hate everyone but yourself
Nazism – you hate everyone who is weak, or not white
Racism – you hate other peoples skin color
Religious persecution – self-explanitory
Religious intolerance - again self-explainitory
Reverse Discrimination – switcheroo discrimination
Sectarianism – you hate groups of people that are different
Sexism – you hate sex (just seeing if you are paying attention) You hate others sex.
Stereotype - is a simplified and/or standardized conception or image with specific meaning, often held in common by one group of people about another group. (I’m not sure what that means)
Supremacism – you think that your race is supreme…kinda like hitler
Transphobia - you hate “transgendered” guys/girls-ish people
Xenophobia – you hate strangers…or strange people
My head hurts … if you don’t like one of these groups, or you think that a certain one is not right, you are a bigot…
In fact they had more things that you can be bigoted against than I even know were there to begin with.
Why do people not want the truth? Oh yes, the truth hurts. Nothing like pouring salt on an open wound, right? (lemon juice hurts too, just in case you ever wanted to try that one)
I hate no-one person, or lifestyle, or religion. Some people don’t get that because they have hate, and can’t understand why others don’t also have hate. I believe in wrong and right.
What it boils down to is -- moral relativism, or situational ethics. The idea of nothing is iron clad – wrong or right. Whatever is right for you may not be right for me. BS.
Which way is north? It is not relative. Does gravity remain a constant? It is not relative. Which way is up? It is not relative. What is 2 + 2 ? It is not relative.
Why then, when there are absolutes, do we continue to say there are no absolutes. Which is really funny, because the statement; “There are no absolutes” IS an absolute.
Silly idiots.
Here is a little bit of info that you may or may not know……
Any civilization that wholly embraces homosexuality, NEVER survives. There is no grey area on this one. Let me clarify… it does NOT have anything to do with homosexuality. It has to do with the moral relativism and sin in general. If you can’t say something is wrong or right, or whether something is a sin or not. Not only will the idea or sin itself to fester unchecked, but resentment about it (on both sides) will also go unchecked. And those two items are like baking soda and vinegar.
In our culture, moral relativism has taken hold of us, and not in a gentle way… it has a death grip on us. We must be able to speak freely. Without fear of retribution on either side of the isle…
Now I am not saying that what you say will not have consequences. Not at all. But you should not be destroyed, or thrown under the bus, because of your point of view. Some people will point out someone like the dixi chix as “retribution” when it is not. They are recording artists that sell a product. If people don’t want to buy their items because they don’t like them. That is not retribution. Retribution would be the record label canceling their contract, because of what they said. Retribution is the firing of Imus, because someone didn’t like what he said, If he has offended his audience they will fire him, and they will stop listening, and then when his ratings drop, he will no longer have a desirable product to sell.
Think for yourself. Be open to the statements of others. Don’t sell your self out. Don’t sell out for someone else’s opinion of you.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Run Scared And Be Afraid Everyone, Run Scared…
Politicians are a problem. They are selling out to some thing or some cause that the regular folks do not know about. They are selling us out to the UN, the secret societies, and the globalists.
H.L. Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Today’s politicians and possibly both political parties are doing that exact same thing. They are helped by an accomplice … the media outlets on today’s T.V. They are ALL guilty of pushing the propaganda on us in an un-ending cycle that is the 24 hour news cycle.
If it isn’t war, it’s terrorism.
If it isn’t terrorism, it’s religious crazy folks.
If it isn’t religious crazy folks. it’s guns.
If it isn’t guns, it’s dog attacks.
If it isn’t dog attacks, it’s big buisness.
If it isn’t big buisness, it’s famine.
If it isn’t famine, it’s AIDS.
If it isn’t AIDS, it’s Cancer.
If it isn’t Cancer, it’s water contamination.
If it isn’t water contamination, it’s rain forest clear cutting.
If it isn’t rain forest clear cutting, it’s the Democrats.
If it isn’t the Democrats, it’s the Republicans.
If it isn’t the Republicans, it’s illegal Drugs.
If it isn’t illegal Drugs, it’s prescription drugs.
(Oh and you should sue someone too)
If it isn’t prescription drugs, it’s global warming.
If it isn’t global warming, it’s global cooling.
If it isn’t global cooling, it’s the polar bear extinction.
If it isn’t polar bear extinction, it’s tainted vaccines.
If it isn’t tainted vaccines, it’s zombies
(just seeing if you were paying attention).
If it isn’t zombies, it’s earth quakes – tornados – hurricanes - etc.
If it isn’t earth quakes – tornados – hurricanes - etc, it’s the Christians.
If it isn’t the Christians, it’s war.
I know it seems a little over exaggerated but it isn’t. You can see for yourself. Just watch the news for a while. And sadly enough… the propagandists of today are in short lock step behind Hitler himself. Hitler said that if you say a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe it. Well I think he was right about that. All you here from today’s media is that you should be afraid and give the government more power to protect you by giving up your individual rights. By definition the government is against things like … individual liberties, business and the free market, and as a general rule … peace itself. (That means peace as pertaining to war, and peace socially.) The government says that they are the only ones that can protect you from the evils in the world.
I want you to be aware of something...
South V. Maryland 59 US (how) 396, 15L.ED.433 (1856) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the law.
Does this sound like someone that is able or willing to defend us? I think we could do and should do better. And that is simple ... ARM YOURSELF. That is the best and only true way.
It sure is a good thing the founding fathers didn’t have CNN, or MSMBC, or Fox News. I mean if they did, we would still be Britain.
The reason we hear about “guns” and the fact that it is always in a negative light, is because the government knows that the “evil gun” is the only thing that keeps them from making us all slaves. And they are afraid of us with our guns, because we are a proud people and we are a fighting people.
Don’t believe yet? What is the number one cause of death in the U.S.? (heart disease) But you don’t hear numerous stories on that.
Still not a believer? How about this. What was happening in California on Sept. 11th 2001? Or how about in Texas on the same day? Or how about Florida, or Chicago or Kansas City?
Can’t remember? I wonder why. Not really, because I know why. You only know and hear what they want you to. The brain washing started along time ago. And we have to resist it. It started with the sterilization of the College’s and Universities. Yes, you can go and learn stuff there, but the problem is that you don’t learn HOW to think, you learn WHAT to think. With no tolerance of any kind in the variation of belief.
I watched movies when I was a kid about there being a police state, and total government control… and thought “that could never happen”. And I was wrong. It is happening, only it is occurring so slowly that we don’t even notice it. Just like the old saying, if you drop a frog in a pan of boiling water he will jump out, but if you put him in while it is cool and slowly turn on the heat to boil, the frog will boil to death before he can realize it.
The society that we know today is being destroyed. And it is being destroyed, methodically, deliberately and completely.
Are you afraid … You will be. I just hope you took the warning and made the necessary precautions to not be taken off guard and by surprise…
H.L. Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Today’s politicians and possibly both political parties are doing that exact same thing. They are helped by an accomplice … the media outlets on today’s T.V. They are ALL guilty of pushing the propaganda on us in an un-ending cycle that is the 24 hour news cycle.
If it isn’t war, it’s terrorism.
If it isn’t terrorism, it’s religious crazy folks.
If it isn’t religious crazy folks. it’s guns.
If it isn’t guns, it’s dog attacks.
If it isn’t dog attacks, it’s big buisness.
If it isn’t big buisness, it’s famine.
If it isn’t famine, it’s AIDS.
If it isn’t AIDS, it’s Cancer.
If it isn’t Cancer, it’s water contamination.
If it isn’t water contamination, it’s rain forest clear cutting.
If it isn’t rain forest clear cutting, it’s the Democrats.
If it isn’t the Democrats, it’s the Republicans.
If it isn’t the Republicans, it’s illegal Drugs.
If it isn’t illegal Drugs, it’s prescription drugs.
(Oh and you should sue someone too)
If it isn’t prescription drugs, it’s global warming.
If it isn’t global warming, it’s global cooling.
If it isn’t global cooling, it’s the polar bear extinction.
If it isn’t polar bear extinction, it’s tainted vaccines.
If it isn’t tainted vaccines, it’s zombies
(just seeing if you were paying attention).
If it isn’t zombies, it’s earth quakes – tornados – hurricanes - etc.
If it isn’t earth quakes – tornados – hurricanes - etc, it’s the Christians.
If it isn’t the Christians, it’s war.
I know it seems a little over exaggerated but it isn’t. You can see for yourself. Just watch the news for a while. And sadly enough… the propagandists of today are in short lock step behind Hitler himself. Hitler said that if you say a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe it. Well I think he was right about that. All you here from today’s media is that you should be afraid and give the government more power to protect you by giving up your individual rights. By definition the government is against things like … individual liberties, business and the free market, and as a general rule … peace itself. (That means peace as pertaining to war, and peace socially.) The government says that they are the only ones that can protect you from the evils in the world.
I want you to be aware of something...
South V. Maryland 59 US (how) 396, 15L.ED.433 (1856) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the law.
Does this sound like someone that is able or willing to defend us? I think we could do and should do better. And that is simple ... ARM YOURSELF. That is the best and only true way.
It sure is a good thing the founding fathers didn’t have CNN, or MSMBC, or Fox News. I mean if they did, we would still be Britain.
The reason we hear about “guns” and the fact that it is always in a negative light, is because the government knows that the “evil gun” is the only thing that keeps them from making us all slaves. And they are afraid of us with our guns, because we are a proud people and we are a fighting people.
Don’t believe yet? What is the number one cause of death in the U.S.? (heart disease) But you don’t hear numerous stories on that.
Still not a believer? How about this. What was happening in California on Sept. 11th 2001? Or how about in Texas on the same day? Or how about Florida, or Chicago or Kansas City?
Can’t remember? I wonder why. Not really, because I know why. You only know and hear what they want you to. The brain washing started along time ago. And we have to resist it. It started with the sterilization of the College’s and Universities. Yes, you can go and learn stuff there, but the problem is that you don’t learn HOW to think, you learn WHAT to think. With no tolerance of any kind in the variation of belief.
I watched movies when I was a kid about there being a police state, and total government control… and thought “that could never happen”. And I was wrong. It is happening, only it is occurring so slowly that we don’t even notice it. Just like the old saying, if you drop a frog in a pan of boiling water he will jump out, but if you put him in while it is cool and slowly turn on the heat to boil, the frog will boil to death before he can realize it.
The society that we know today is being destroyed. And it is being destroyed, methodically, deliberately and completely.
Are you afraid … You will be. I just hope you took the warning and made the necessary precautions to not be taken off guard and by surprise…
Friday, March 7, 2008
Eat Whale Steaks
This is an article by VOA published March of 2008.
I am sure it seems like these "anti-whaling activists" are poor innocent people there to save the helpless whales and then BOOM out of nowhere... these evil Japanese Whale killers attack them...
But the truth is somewhere else...
There are two links below to two different VOA stories...
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-03-voa10.cfm
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-07-voa12.cfm
Now IF you read this for what it is... you will find two different parties, with 2 radically different views, clashing.
I am not on either side of this issue. Because frankly I couldn't care less. BUT I am sick of these environmentalist retards picking a fight with some one (regular folks, governments, law enforcement, etc) and then whining cause they got pushed around, maced, or whatever.
This all occurs because people care more about animals than they do people. However don't take that to mean that I think people should or can mistreat animals just because they are animals. But I also don't think people should harm a human to save some tree grub or any other animal.
I think the reason people are so passionately about animals is they either have been hurt by people and use it as an escape or defensive mech. or they have to fill up the emptiness inside them with something. I mean we can pour our love into a furry little creature, and they won't hurt us back right.?.?
But what happened in the arctic does mostly put into perspective on how childish or maybe stupid some can be. My grandfather told me to never pick a fight that I couldn't win.
And then we have the less intelligent "whale savers". I believe they call themselves or the boat the "Sea Shepherd". Because they are arrogant enough to think humans can control everything. Including nature.
So what we have is hippies vs. the Japanese Coast Guard (military). This doesn't seem to be a fair match up but they have made their bed. The hippies throw a mild acid onto the whaling vessel which turns out to be butyric acid. (which is common in rotten butter, parmesan cheese, and vomit) And is what they use to make stink bombs... and not your run of the mill stink bombs but the kind that makes people vomit uncontrollably. Which is so much fun.
So we have a bunch of hippies out to save the world, throwing acid (mild enough to only give people a rash or make them have burning eyes, oh and the vomiting) onto the ship of the evil whalers. Then the CG chucks flash bang grenades onto the other ship and the hippies whine and cry... and bitch and moan.
Now... The captain whines about someone shooting him... in his bulletproof vest. I am not an "expert" on Japanese military munitions. But if they are keeping up with the times... and I do believe they are... Any round fired from a CG rifle would have gone right through the vest and into the captain, and he would not be whining now because he would be dead. Now if they shot him with a side arm (pistol, for the hippies) it is entirely possible that it would have not penetrated the vest and voila, the captain live to whine another day.
But the captain admits to not seeing who (and my oppinion IF) shot him.
Again I don't have all the facts, just what it reads in these two stories.
Now I do want to point out that "Whaling" is a ingrain part of Japanese culture. And I thought that the hippies were all about celebrating diversity and respecting others cultures. No, I guess not. That is only the case when they have something to gain from it.
I will say it goes back to an older set of wisdom standards... Like don't pick a fight with someone who can and will kick the ever living crap out of you. Unless that is what you are aiming for... so you can whine and moan... so you can get publicity...
Hippies don't ever learn. Maybe it is all the dope or acid? Or maybe not? I don't know. But maybe someone should feed them to the whales, and see how long they still love the helpless creature.
Food for thought.......
Who wins in a fight? The shark or the tiger?
Post comments for your answer please. And someday I might write something on that subject.
I am sure it seems like these "anti-whaling activists" are poor innocent people there to save the helpless whales and then BOOM out of nowhere... these evil Japanese Whale killers attack them...
But the truth is somewhere else...
There are two links below to two different VOA stories...
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-03-voa10.cfm
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-03-07-voa12.cfm
Now IF you read this for what it is... you will find two different parties, with 2 radically different views, clashing.
I am not on either side of this issue. Because frankly I couldn't care less. BUT I am sick of these environmentalist retards picking a fight with some one (regular folks, governments, law enforcement, etc) and then whining cause they got pushed around, maced, or whatever.
This all occurs because people care more about animals than they do people. However don't take that to mean that I think people should or can mistreat animals just because they are animals. But I also don't think people should harm a human to save some tree grub or any other animal.
I think the reason people are so passionately about animals is they either have been hurt by people and use it as an escape or defensive mech. or they have to fill up the emptiness inside them with something. I mean we can pour our love into a furry little creature, and they won't hurt us back right.?.?
But what happened in the arctic does mostly put into perspective on how childish or maybe stupid some can be. My grandfather told me to never pick a fight that I couldn't win.
And then we have the less intelligent "whale savers". I believe they call themselves or the boat the "Sea Shepherd". Because they are arrogant enough to think humans can control everything. Including nature.
So what we have is hippies vs. the Japanese Coast Guard (military). This doesn't seem to be a fair match up but they have made their bed. The hippies throw a mild acid onto the whaling vessel which turns out to be butyric acid. (which is common in rotten butter, parmesan cheese, and vomit) And is what they use to make stink bombs... and not your run of the mill stink bombs but the kind that makes people vomit uncontrollably. Which is so much fun.
So we have a bunch of hippies out to save the world, throwing acid (mild enough to only give people a rash or make them have burning eyes, oh and the vomiting) onto the ship of the evil whalers. Then the CG chucks flash bang grenades onto the other ship and the hippies whine and cry... and bitch and moan.
Now... The captain whines about someone shooting him... in his bulletproof vest. I am not an "expert" on Japanese military munitions. But if they are keeping up with the times... and I do believe they are... Any round fired from a CG rifle would have gone right through the vest and into the captain, and he would not be whining now because he would be dead. Now if they shot him with a side arm (pistol, for the hippies) it is entirely possible that it would have not penetrated the vest and voila, the captain live to whine another day.
But the captain admits to not seeing who (and my oppinion IF) shot him.
Again I don't have all the facts, just what it reads in these two stories.
Now I do want to point out that "Whaling" is a ingrain part of Japanese culture. And I thought that the hippies were all about celebrating diversity and respecting others cultures. No, I guess not. That is only the case when they have something to gain from it.
I will say it goes back to an older set of wisdom standards... Like don't pick a fight with someone who can and will kick the ever living crap out of you. Unless that is what you are aiming for... so you can whine and moan... so you can get publicity...
Hippies don't ever learn. Maybe it is all the dope or acid? Or maybe not? I don't know. But maybe someone should feed them to the whales, and see how long they still love the helpless creature.
Food for thought.......
Who wins in a fight? The shark or the tiger?
Post comments for your answer please. And someday I might write something on that subject.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Libs are Insane...
Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
So by this definition, the "gun control works" crowd are insane.
I love reading the insights from a man named Robert A. Levy. He is a brilliant man with a square head on his shoulders (and by that I don't mean his head is ACTUALLY square). I will list some of his "creds" so you can see he is not just some bumpkin hillbilly like me.
He...
Is senior fellow in constitutional studies and a member of the board of directors at the Cato Institute.
He also sits on boards of the Institute for Justice, the Federalist Society, and the George Mason University School of Law.
He founded CDA Investment Technologies, a major provider of financial information and software, and was its CEO until 1991.
He clerked for Judge Royce C. Lamberth on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., and for Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
From 1997 until 2004, he was an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University.
He has written numerous articles on investments, law, and public policy. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, National Review, and many other publications.
He received his Ph.D. in business from the American University and his J.D. degree from the George Mason University School of Law.
ALL that just to say... This guy is an intelligent man.
I have no degrees. I have no awards or honors... But I think for myself. I read, and learn all I can on many subjects. But He & I share some beliefs and ideas on the 2nd amendment.
Here is an article by him that appeared in the American Spectator on April 25, 2007. It is about Virginia Tech, the Awful Massacre that occurred there, and the idea of "gun free zones". If this topic is SENSITIVE to you, I ADVISE THAT YOU DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING.
______________________________________
"What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." So said the New York Times in its predictable but wrongheaded editorial the day after the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Anti-gun advocates, however noble their motives, help create the environment in which horrors like Virginia Tech occur.
Possession and use of guns on the Tech campus violated state-imposed restrictions. But crazed fanatics, undeterred by laws against murder, will not be dissuaded by laws against guns. More such laws will accomplish nothing. Indeed, liberalized laws might have enabled responsible, armed citizens on campus to defend the hapless victims. It took two hours for the killer methodically to massacre 32 people and injure another 15. Why did nobody intervene sooner to stop the killer?
For one possible explanation, consider this report from a Roanoke Times article: A bill, introduced on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, would have given properly licensed public college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus. The bill died on January 30, 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was pleased with the outcome. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Tell that to the ill-fated victims of April 16 and their families.
The article goes on to relate that most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security on entering campus. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that requirement for anyone who possessed a valid concealed handgun permit. Ironically, Tech's governing board had approved in June 2005 a violence prevention policy reiterating the school's ban on students, employees, or visitors -- even those properly licensed -- from bringing handguns onto campus.
At the Virginia Tech press conference after the slaughter of 32 defenseless people, the university's president cautioned that it wouldn't be possible to have police guard every classroom and dorm. What he omitted was this cold, hard fact: By making the university a "gun free zone," his administration and the state legislature had fostered a climate in which ubiquitous police would be necessary. Without a means to protect themselves, Virginia Tech students, faculty, and other employees were more likely to be victimized by the only people on campus who had readily available guns: killers and lunatics.
Meanwhile, the New York Times, the Brady Center, and the rest of the usual suspects continue their clamor for more gun regulations -- apparently oblivious to the destructive effects of their own proposals. The evidence is clear: more guns in the hands of responsible owners yield lower rates of violent crime. Gun control does not work. It just prevents weaker people from defending themselves against stronger predators.
Here are the numbers, as summarized by legal scholar Don B. Kates: Over the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, guns in circulation doubled, but murder rates declined by a third. On a state-by-state basis, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent lower rate of violent crime. Each year, approximately 460,000 gun crimes are committed in the United States. But guns are also used to ward off gun criminals. Estimates of defensive gun use range from 1.3 million to 2.5 million times per year -- and usually the weapons are merely brandished, not fired. That means defensive uses occur about 3-to-5 times as often as violent gun crimes. Just as important, armed victims who resist gun criminals get injured less frequently than unarmed victims who submit. In more than 8 out of 10 cases where the victim pulls a gun, the criminal turns and flees, even if he's armed. "So much for the quasi-religious faith that more guns mean more murder."
Finally, two federal government agencies recently examined gun control laws and found no statistically significant evidence to support their effectiveness. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.
When will the gun controllers learn?
______________________________________________
There is a reason that gun violence continues in spite of every gun control law that is out there. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW !!! Maybe that is why they are CRIMINALS ? What do you think about that, Brady bunch of idiots? (for the "educated"; I am not talking about the lovely family friendly show from the 70's)
There is a law against murder.
There is a law against shooting people.
There is a law against assaulting people.
There is a law against driving drunk.
There is a law against wife beating.
There is a law against speeding.
There is a law against coming to this country illegally.
There is a law against hunting or fishing without a license.
There is a law against cheating on your taxes.
And I could go on, and on, and on. But the point is... that people follow laws or they don't. And those that do ... are law abiding citizens. Those that don't ... are criminals. It doesn't matter if you get caught or not. If what you are doing is illegal ... it is illegal, period - end of sentence. You only get punished if you get caught.
Now here is another tidbit of info for you ... And I would bet that not too many of you know this ... in fact I just happened to stumble across it while trying to learn something the other day.
South V. Maryland 59 US (how) 396, 15L.ED.433 (1856) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the law.
Wow ... and what does the Left tell you to do when someone breaks into your house? Run and call the cops...
But if the Supreme Court says that " local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals " why would you call the cops anyway?
Once you learn that you have a responsibility to protect yourself ... You will become a much more free individual. Once you stop being a victim ... you will be able to live without the fear that so tightly grips the Left. Once you see that you don't HAVE to be a victim ... the happier you will be.
We are not cattle. We are not sheep. We are men. We are Americans. We are free by God's design. If you are not willing to fight for that ... you will be enslaved.
So by this definition, the "gun control works" crowd are insane.
I love reading the insights from a man named Robert A. Levy. He is a brilliant man with a square head on his shoulders (and by that I don't mean his head is ACTUALLY square). I will list some of his "creds" so you can see he is not just some bumpkin hillbilly like me.
He...
Is senior fellow in constitutional studies and a member of the board of directors at the Cato Institute.
He also sits on boards of the Institute for Justice, the Federalist Society, and the George Mason University School of Law.
He founded CDA Investment Technologies, a major provider of financial information and software, and was its CEO until 1991.
He clerked for Judge Royce C. Lamberth on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., and for Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
From 1997 until 2004, he was an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University.
He has written numerous articles on investments, law, and public policy. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, National Review, and many other publications.
He received his Ph.D. in business from the American University and his J.D. degree from the George Mason University School of Law.
ALL that just to say... This guy is an intelligent man.
I have no degrees. I have no awards or honors... But I think for myself. I read, and learn all I can on many subjects. But He & I share some beliefs and ideas on the 2nd amendment.
Here is an article by him that appeared in the American Spectator on April 25, 2007. It is about Virginia Tech, the Awful Massacre that occurred there, and the idea of "gun free zones". If this topic is SENSITIVE to you, I ADVISE THAT YOU DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING.
______________________________________
"What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." So said the New York Times in its predictable but wrongheaded editorial the day after the horrific events at Virginia Tech. Anti-gun advocates, however noble their motives, help create the environment in which horrors like Virginia Tech occur.
Possession and use of guns on the Tech campus violated state-imposed restrictions. But crazed fanatics, undeterred by laws against murder, will not be dissuaded by laws against guns. More such laws will accomplish nothing. Indeed, liberalized laws might have enabled responsible, armed citizens on campus to defend the hapless victims. It took two hours for the killer methodically to massacre 32 people and injure another 15. Why did nobody intervene sooner to stop the killer?
For one possible explanation, consider this report from a Roanoke Times article: A bill, introduced on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, would have given properly licensed public college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus. The bill died on January 30, 2006 in the Virginia General Assembly. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was pleased with the outcome. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Tell that to the ill-fated victims of April 16 and their families.
The article goes on to relate that most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security on entering campus. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that requirement for anyone who possessed a valid concealed handgun permit. Ironically, Tech's governing board had approved in June 2005 a violence prevention policy reiterating the school's ban on students, employees, or visitors -- even those properly licensed -- from bringing handguns onto campus.
At the Virginia Tech press conference after the slaughter of 32 defenseless people, the university's president cautioned that it wouldn't be possible to have police guard every classroom and dorm. What he omitted was this cold, hard fact: By making the university a "gun free zone," his administration and the state legislature had fostered a climate in which ubiquitous police would be necessary. Without a means to protect themselves, Virginia Tech students, faculty, and other employees were more likely to be victimized by the only people on campus who had readily available guns: killers and lunatics.
Meanwhile, the New York Times, the Brady Center, and the rest of the usual suspects continue their clamor for more gun regulations -- apparently oblivious to the destructive effects of their own proposals. The evidence is clear: more guns in the hands of responsible owners yield lower rates of violent crime. Gun control does not work. It just prevents weaker people from defending themselves against stronger predators.
Here are the numbers, as summarized by legal scholar Don B. Kates: Over the 30-year period from 1974 to 2003, guns in circulation doubled, but murder rates declined by a third. On a state-by-state basis, a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlates with a 4.1 percent lower rate of violent crime. Each year, approximately 460,000 gun crimes are committed in the United States. But guns are also used to ward off gun criminals. Estimates of defensive gun use range from 1.3 million to 2.5 million times per year -- and usually the weapons are merely brandished, not fired. That means defensive uses occur about 3-to-5 times as often as violent gun crimes. Just as important, armed victims who resist gun criminals get injured less frequently than unarmed victims who submit. In more than 8 out of 10 cases where the victim pulls a gun, the criminal turns and flees, even if he's armed. "So much for the quasi-religious faith that more guns mean more murder."
Finally, two federal government agencies recently examined gun control laws and found no statistically significant evidence to support their effectiveness. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. The researchers could not identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on an independent evaluation of firearms and ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention laws, and zero tolerance laws. Conclusion: none of the laws had a meaningful impact on gun violence.
When will the gun controllers learn?
______________________________________________
There is a reason that gun violence continues in spite of every gun control law that is out there. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW !!! Maybe that is why they are CRIMINALS ? What do you think about that, Brady bunch of idiots? (for the "educated"; I am not talking about the lovely family friendly show from the 70's)
There is a law against murder.
There is a law against shooting people.
There is a law against assaulting people.
There is a law against driving drunk.
There is a law against wife beating.
There is a law against speeding.
There is a law against coming to this country illegally.
There is a law against hunting or fishing without a license.
There is a law against cheating on your taxes.
And I could go on, and on, and on. But the point is... that people follow laws or they don't. And those that do ... are law abiding citizens. Those that don't ... are criminals. It doesn't matter if you get caught or not. If what you are doing is illegal ... it is illegal, period - end of sentence. You only get punished if you get caught.
Now here is another tidbit of info for you ... And I would bet that not too many of you know this ... in fact I just happened to stumble across it while trying to learn something the other day.
South V. Maryland 59 US (how) 396, 15L.ED.433 (1856) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, that local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the law.
Wow ... and what does the Left tell you to do when someone breaks into your house? Run and call the cops...
But if the Supreme Court says that " local law enforcement had no duty to protect individuals " why would you call the cops anyway?
Once you learn that you have a responsibility to protect yourself ... You will become a much more free individual. Once you stop being a victim ... you will be able to live without the fear that so tightly grips the Left. Once you see that you don't HAVE to be a victim ... the happier you will be.
We are not cattle. We are not sheep. We are men. We are Americans. We are free by God's design. If you are not willing to fight for that ... you will be enslaved.
Monday, March 3, 2008
A new breed of STUPID
I am have never ceased to be amazed with what people come up with. I know that these idiots that are the "educated" people in the highest circles of "academia" are smarter than us un-washed masses... but I still think they are ... well you can read and make up your own mind...........
Some news headlines I have read in the past week...
(AP) Study : Spanking can bring later problems
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_he_me/spanking_study_2
(KYW Newsradio) Study: Spanking Children Could Lead to Sexual Dysfunctions
http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1754554.php?contentType=4&contentId=1657012
(a medicinenet.com article) Spanking Raises Chances of Risky, Deviant Sexual Behavior http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=87491
(WGAL 8) Spanking Messes Up Sex Lives, Author Says (with subtitle: Corporal Punishment Linked To Masochistic Sex)
http://www.wgal.com/family/15471442/detail.html?rss=lan&psp=nationalnews
(intelihealth.com) Study: Spanking Affects Adult Sex Lives
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/7228/723321.html
And I could go on but my head already hurts from the tree hugging, acid dropping, love - sex - & rock&roll, peace now... bull crap.
I will take some excerpts from these and we can discuss them...or I can say my peace and you can just read it...or not... either way. (I will not give ref. for each little piece I put in here... You are not a child, and I don't need to hold your hand so look it up for yourself.)
You know if you go into a study with a specific point of view... and only ask the right questions... you can get the answers you want. Most if not all of these people go at these "studies" as if they really want an objective outcome. Are we really to believe they are looking for a "whatever the outcome is" end to their study.
However this should not surprise most people. I can find many people who teach many things but all of them claim to have the same source. EVEN when the ideas and outcomes are completely contradictory. How can this be...? That is simple, it is called BIAS. Now, the mainstream press would have you believe that "bias" in, and of itself is evil. But the fact is you cannot make a decision, at all, if you don't have bias. (That is why you choose one thing over the other...because you like it better, or it is more familiar to you, etc. For all you "educated" among us). To take one side or another in anything you HAVE to have a bias. There is no other way you can make a decision.
Now... When these people talk on this subject... I know for a fact that they are "experts" ...because they say they are. In quite a few articles (the above not being inclusive) I always read about, so-and-so "an expert in the field of XXXX". You can fill in the blank with what ever field you want...
When I started to read these ignorant pieces of ... well what I really mean is when I read these brilliant pieces of intellectual intellect...or what ever they want to call these "studies" by "experts". I can't help but notice a list of things that are caused by spanking your children.
Such as......
Mental health problems
Relationship violence
Coerced sex
Risky sex
Alienation of the Child / Parental relationship
Masochistic sex
Sexual dysfunction
Feelings of being unsafe
Violence
Now from the list and research above I should be a Mentally deranged or challenged violent wife beater with erectile dysfunction that has to pop viagra to coerce people into risky masochistic sex, so I can feel better about mommy & Daddy's violent corporal punishment and my alienation from them. Wwheeeww.... That is a mouthful to say the least. And yet nothing could be farther from the truth.
I don't know how we as a race of humanoids existed without these "experts". But I am glad we have them ... well at least for comic relief.
I was spanked as a child. I am a better man for it too. I can not think of a single time where either of my parents spanked me. I hold nothing against them either. I deserved every spanking I received, in fact I deserved a lot more than what I got. I now am married and happy, with 1 soon to be 2 children. They will be spanked when they step too far out of line. After all if it is good enough for me, and my parents, and their parents, and their parents, etc. So are we really expected to believe that all of a sudden they started to be deviants in the bedroom? Wait a minute...... I thought we were not supposed to be judgmental toward what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
Or can we find something else that could just maybe be a factor? You know like the moral disintegration of the society as a whole. Or maybe the moral relativity that the "educated" folks keep trying to force feed us on a daily basis.
I am sure all the evils in the world can be attributed to spankings...
But those who continue to try and defy all reality, by pushing this idiotic crap down our throughts.... Lighten up, and pull that stick out of your who-ha and join us regular folks in the real world.
(I mean we all know your mom's probably smoked, drank, and droped acid while they were pregnant with you... but we love you anyway...)
Some news headlines I have read in the past week...
(AP) Study : Spanking can bring later problems
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_he_me/spanking_study_2
(KYW Newsradio) Study: Spanking Children Could Lead to Sexual Dysfunctions
http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1754554.php?contentType=4&contentId=1657012
(a medicinenet.com article) Spanking Raises Chances of Risky, Deviant Sexual Behavior http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=87491
(WGAL 8) Spanking Messes Up Sex Lives, Author Says (with subtitle: Corporal Punishment Linked To Masochistic Sex)
http://www.wgal.com/family/15471442/detail.html?rss=lan&psp=nationalnews
(intelihealth.com) Study: Spanking Affects Adult Sex Lives
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/7228/723321.html
And I could go on but my head already hurts from the tree hugging, acid dropping, love - sex - & rock&roll, peace now... bull crap.
I will take some excerpts from these and we can discuss them...or I can say my peace and you can just read it...or not... either way. (I will not give ref. for each little piece I put in here... You are not a child, and I don't need to hold your hand so look it up for yourself.)
You know if you go into a study with a specific point of view... and only ask the right questions... you can get the answers you want. Most if not all of these people go at these "studies" as if they really want an objective outcome. Are we really to believe they are looking for a "whatever the outcome is" end to their study.
However this should not surprise most people. I can find many people who teach many things but all of them claim to have the same source. EVEN when the ideas and outcomes are completely contradictory. How can this be...? That is simple, it is called BIAS. Now, the mainstream press would have you believe that "bias" in, and of itself is evil. But the fact is you cannot make a decision, at all, if you don't have bias. (That is why you choose one thing over the other...because you like it better, or it is more familiar to you, etc. For all you "educated" among us). To take one side or another in anything you HAVE to have a bias. There is no other way you can make a decision.
Now... When these people talk on this subject... I know for a fact that they are "experts" ...because they say they are. In quite a few articles (the above not being inclusive) I always read about, so-and-so "an expert in the field of XXXX". You can fill in the blank with what ever field you want...
When I started to read these ignorant pieces of ... well what I really mean is when I read these brilliant pieces of intellectual intellect...or what ever they want to call these "studies" by "experts". I can't help but notice a list of things that are caused by spanking your children.
Such as......
Mental health problems
Relationship violence
Coerced sex
Risky sex
Alienation of the Child / Parental relationship
Masochistic sex
Sexual dysfunction
Feelings of being unsafe
Violence
Now from the list and research above I should be a Mentally deranged or challenged violent wife beater with erectile dysfunction that has to pop viagra to coerce people into risky masochistic sex, so I can feel better about mommy & Daddy's violent corporal punishment and my alienation from them. Wwheeeww.... That is a mouthful to say the least. And yet nothing could be farther from the truth.
I don't know how we as a race of humanoids existed without these "experts". But I am glad we have them ... well at least for comic relief.
I was spanked as a child. I am a better man for it too. I can not think of a single time where either of my parents spanked me. I hold nothing against them either. I deserved every spanking I received, in fact I deserved a lot more than what I got. I now am married and happy, with 1 soon to be 2 children. They will be spanked when they step too far out of line. After all if it is good enough for me, and my parents, and their parents, and their parents, etc. So are we really expected to believe that all of a sudden they started to be deviants in the bedroom? Wait a minute...... I thought we were not supposed to be judgmental toward what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
Or can we find something else that could just maybe be a factor? You know like the moral disintegration of the society as a whole. Or maybe the moral relativity that the "educated" folks keep trying to force feed us on a daily basis.
I am sure all the evils in the world can be attributed to spankings...
But those who continue to try and defy all reality, by pushing this idiotic crap down our throughts.... Lighten up, and pull that stick out of your who-ha and join us regular folks in the real world.
(I mean we all know your mom's probably smoked, drank, and droped acid while they were pregnant with you... but we love you anyway...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
