About Us

Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Law-breakers Concerned Law-abiders May Now Shoot Back

On Thursday June 26, 2008, in a truly landmark decision, the first like it in over seventy years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Washington D.C.’s effective ban on firearms was in fact unconstitutional. Hallelujah.
I wrote about the pending decision
way back when, but wasn’t expecting such a great ruling:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.

You can read the rest here if you are still awake. By the way, “prefatory” is my new favorite word.

With an open and clear-cut example of how liberals want to take away your rights, and In predictable liberal fashion, the Chicago Tribune called for a repeal of the Second Amendment.
No, the Chicago Tribune was not the only bunch of liberals irate with the Supreme court. Add to that list the Washington Post who said
“IT IS deeply disappointing, though not surprising, that the Supreme Court [Thursday] struck down the District's gun laws after finding that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.” Damn those Constitutionalists… damn them.
Not to be outdone, The New York Times chimed in:
“The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.“ Subtle, and unemotional, but I picked up on where they were headed. By the way, someone may want to inform the Times about what happened to the D.C. homicide rate after the “gun control law“ was passed (psst… it didn’t go down).
I also remember reading (from some liberal, useless blog) that The Constitution does not explicitly allow the individual a right to bear arms.  You may ask; “Where exactly is the explicit right to abortion in the Constitution (an old and tired “pro-choice” argument)?” You took the words right out of my mouth. I think I may be rubbing off on you. J
I don’t usually quote comedians but Larry the Cable Guy, of all people, said it eloquently; "Blamin’ a gun for killin’ people is like blamin’ a pencil for misspellin’ a word.”
I will give the Chicago Tribune a pea-sized amount of credit for doing something right: If you hate the Second Amendment, overturn it. Although, by doing so, at least in this context, you are admitting to its guarantee of the individual right to bear arms. Unless you don’t believe in the rights of militias either. Hmmm…you anti-constitutionalists are in a pickle indeed…like it or not.
 
Update: A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance banning firearms was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association. Interestingly, the people who have been killing others, via gun violence, in Chicago said it really wouldn’t affect their lifestyle, as the law really didn‘t concern murderous lawbreakers in the first place. Go figure.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion Part 3/7

BEGIN MAY 8, 2008

H: Being against abortion is not like being against an economic policy or drug policy. It is completely illogical to be against abortion, or to think it is wrong in any way, but not want it outlawed. What makes it wrong [in your eyes]? If you believe it is the ending of life, there is a moral obligation to outlaw it.

J: I believe it is like being for/against and economic policy or drug policy. My issue, personally, is I don’t know if “life” beings at conception. For one, a fertilized egg does not always equal a live birth. [HvySlpr], we are just on opposing sides on this one.

H: An abortion never ends in a live birth.

J: That’s not what I mean. A woman can have a fertilized egg in the uterus, but in some cases the egg is releases thru menstruation and sometimes miscarriage occurs.   In those instances, would the same response [from you] occur?

H: If the woman did that on purpose (i.e. drank alcohol to abort) I would investigate just like any other homicide; motive, murder weapon, intent, etc. Obviously that would be hard to prove, but it would be proven sometimes. Abortion is an intended act. An accident, by definition, could not be abortion. I do think that both cases are tragic, yes.

J: [T]his is why I question the numbers too, because for sometime a miscarriage was reported as abortion, I can’t remember the exact time frame. I know what you are going to say, “the number is still large despite some discrepancies.” Also, think of this scenario in regards to life: a person is on hospitalized and connected to a respirator; they only can “live” on this machine… is that “life.”

END MAY 8, 2008 - BEGIN MAY 9, 2008

H: I don’t know why anyone, especially a professional, would characterize a miscarriage as an abortion. Again, abortion is the purposeful and premeditated act of ending a pregnancy and a miscarriage is an accidental death due to extenuating circumstances beyond her control. Don’t get me started on euthanasia; a purely selfish task done to rid people of guilt and burden. Even so, dying on a respirator (euthanasia) and being killed (abortion) are two totally different things. I would venture to say that 100 years ago, many people were buried alive because of poor technology, and many babies born to term died as well.   I have a horrible feeling that we think technology has past our morality; that when a machine says “your dead,” that’s all we need. To define when life ends and to witness it are two different things, the same goes for the beginning of life. We are relying on what are eyes can “see” instead of what may be there. If it was my call, err on the side of life…always.

J: The question is not about the difference between euthanasia and abortion. But my question is what “life” in beginning and ending stages is. I believe it is arbitrary. If a machine is keeping someone alive, is that truly “life?” I can’t say it is. Just because an egg is fertilized, is that “life?” I can’t say that is either.

H: Err on the side of good judgment and life. [Name] is a paraplegic who can’t chew his own food or go to the bathroom unassisted. Is that “life?” We wouldn’t kill him, would we? When life, or the definition of, becomes arbitrary and meaningless, anything is possible. When life is given a rating on usefulness, we are in trouble. That type of thinking is what started eugenics projects in Hitler’s concentration camps and Stalin’s gulags. The most logical definition says life begins at conception. There is no moral or scientific reason to believe it begins anywhere else. The only arguments for life beginning after conception are purely political, reeking of moral relativity and linguistic semantics. Life ends with zero brain, heart, and lung activity, without the possibility of resuscitation. This is obviously more difficult and arguably changes with technology. Again, when there is a question, err on the side of life. Can you honestly say, using logical arguments not based on political leanings or pressures, that those statements are faulty?

J: Honestly, I can’t say. You’re asking me to give you an answer to questions that I’m not sure I have and absolute answer for. I see your point, but don’t know if I agree. The issue here is; we are having different understandings of what “life” is. I am not arguing about value of life, any and all life is valuable. But what constitutes “life” in the beginning and ending phases? I think in this discussion/context that you and I have subjective views of “life.” Is it wrong that we think differently about these issues? I say no. And I can’t say if there is an objective view of what constitutes “life.” In this instance, it is life. He can’t function in a “Normal” sense, but his vital organs function without outside assistance, so it is life. I’m getting the impression that if a woman does not produce life from a fertilized egg without an abortion or intentional harm it is death or murder. It is also murder when a machine can assist with vital organs and it is not used? Am I correct in assessing that?

H: You don’t have an absolute answer to the afterlife, but you believe in Christ, God, heaven, the crucifixion, etc. You have faith. A man who believes in god, and turns out to be wrong, is a fool. A man who believes in nothing, and turns out to be wrong, is a fool’s fool. Such is the question of where life begins and ends. Better to err of the side of good judgment, is it not? Even if you don’t have as strong an anti-abortion view as I, you can argue that it may be the taking of an innocent life, and therefore should be avoided where possible. [Name] cannot sustain life without his breathing machine or feeding tube. The muscles he needs to breathe, chew, and swallow are largely paralyzed. The machine is keeping him alive. We can see [Name], talk to him, and hear him speak. That is why we haven’t “pulled the plug.” A person who chooses freely not to be hooked up to a machine (DNR) is probably hypocritical at best, stupid at worst, however, they are taking their own life into their own hands. Negligence on the part of others (doctors, nurses, loved ones, etc.) can and does constitute murder or manslaughter in some cases. Death and murder and not synonymous, as kill and murder are not synonymous.

J: You keep using “to err on the side of good judgment.” This is different for each of us. What you believe is good judgment; I may not view as good judgment. For the sake of this on-going debate, I will say “it may be the taking of and innocent life,” but ultimately this decision (abortion) is a personal choice. And the Good Lord did give us free will. Do you propose any woman that has had an abortion be punished? The scary truth is, many women have decided this, some you probably wouldn’t think, but it happens. The fact is, I believe it is the woman’s/couple’s decision to decide and I will not judge them for that decision.

END OF PART 3

Tags: Part 3/7  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion Part 2/7

J. If eugenics is its agenda, who are the model people? It is blacks, whites, Hispanics? To my understanding, PP provides service to whoever walks into their facilities. By what you are suggesting, it seems that if a wealthy, white woman/couple wanted an abortion, she/the couple would be turned away. I know this is not true, [HvySlpr]. In my experience in college, I know a few young white females form a particular background that went through this process. If you think eugenics is the case, wouldn’t PP want these girls and these types of girls to reproduce for a “better society?”

H: Fourteen to eighteen percent of the U.S. population is black. Fifty percent of abortions are given to blacks. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood’s facilities are in minority neighborhoods. Blacks rightly get upset to see a disproportionate amount of liquor stores and gun shops in their neighborhoods. Why should this be any different? http://www.laadvocate.com/Advocate3.pdf . Their “services” are not specifically marketed towards blacks, that is true, but a disproportionate amount is given to blacks, and one of the founders was an open racist who wanted to diminish the “negro” population, and said so openly. There are reports that blacks are steered toward abortion, rather than adoption, at a disproportionate rate. Also, undercover investigations have revealed cover-ups for child abuse and statutory rape cases, along with the racist cases I mention in my blog. Eugenics is a scientifically faulty theory and completely unachievable. Even the people who subscribe/ed to it (progressives in the early part of the twentieth century, Hitler, Stalin) couldn’t come up with a “perfect” being by their own definitions.

H: By the way, you keep saying “couple.” A man has NO rights when it comes to abortion. Another example of how abortion is about power and control.

J: Because couples do make these decisions together sometimes. The man does have a say, sometimes.

H: You can’t be pro-choice and think that the man should, or even does, have a say. Look it up.

J: I’ve been looking up info. and, according to the CDC, abortion rates are declining across the board. It did show blacks were “3x likely to have abortions compared to whites and Hispanics 2-2.5x likely compared to whites.” But whites make up 54-60% of all abortions in the U.S. Also interesting; until 1989, blacks and “others” were grouped together, so total estimates may be off for total abortions for blacks since seventeen years of data is summed into the “black” category.

H: Most of that information was, and is still, voluntary for some states, as far as reporting abortions, and the reasons for. If anything, there are/were more abortions than reported. Abortions on blacks are 34% or so, twice their population percentage.. Abortions have been around for A LOT longer than 17 years. These numbers are estimates, but even if they are cut in half, abortions kill more blacks that anything else. Liberals have been encouraging abortions, sometimes as a form of contraception (listen to 105.9 tonight), and encourage women to exercise their “right” and liberate themselves sexually. There is nothing okay with abortion in by book, and I don’t have children. By brother [Name] was pretty open to abortions until he saw his first ultrasound. He is convinced that if people bothered to look at 3-d ultrasound [imaging] abortions would cease, which is probably why PP refuses to do it. Apparently education and information are not apart of their program.

J: I know abortions have been around for a very long time but since records began in 1972 there is some distortion in figures, since a break-down did not begin until 1989. As I stated before, I totally am 100% against abortion as a method of birth control, especially continual visits to abort. In my book it is a right, I will say I don’t agree with advertising to exercise her right to abort. Getting preggo and having abortion after abortion is wrong. But I still have to say, in the end, it is the woman’s/couple’s choice. These Women are not being marched up to clinics and gun point and forced to have abortions. These are choices they make and I have no say over the choice someone makes for themselves, whether I agree or not.

END MAY 7, 2008   END OF PART 2

Tags: part2/7  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HvySlpr and J Do Battle Over Abortion - Part 1/7

This started as a response to my e-mail and blog about Planned Parenthood’s acceptance of money to abort, exclusively, black babies. You can read it here.
What ensued was an epic seven day debate, via e-mail, amongst me and a friend, denoted as “J.” It turned out to be pretty interesting, ranging from definitions of life, to discussions on moral relativity, euthanasia, and much more. What follows is a fundamental difference between conservative and liberal thought, analysis, and core belief structure.
My plan is to break this debate up into multiple blogs, over a week or so span, as to make it easier to read.  I have not changed any words or punctuation that resulted in a change in meaning or emphasis. Enjoy.

BEGIN MAY 6, 2008 – Blog distributed

J: What is the truth here? I don’t’ know which side to believe.   There’s no doubt racism still exists. I don’t know what to say.

H: What sides are you talking about? Planned Parenthood has acknowledged the people on these recordings work for them.

J: Have they? That was unclear to me. It’s the internet; anyone could post fake/exaggerated material. As for PP, it doesn’t surprise me. They’re a “business.” Funds supporting their “business” is a major priority. That’s the way the game is played these days. Few have morals or ethics; it comes down to the bottom line. PP claims that only (approximately) 3% of its services are for abortions. This does not negate the recordings, but it raises a lot of questions.

H: Most states require a record to be kept. The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a liberal sex-ed and research org. (actually Naral links the website on their home page), but it keeps pretty decent stats (like the fact that incest, rape, and health of the mother make up only ~4% of all abortions). To Planned Parenthood, there is nothing wrong with abortion. They will only take action in this case because of the negative press and racist association, not because what they are doing is reprehensible. Margaret Sanger is not someone they run away from. Google her name and you will find websites made just to fawn over her “accomplishments.” P.S. If only 3% of the population was killed, nine million lives would be lost. That is more than the entire U.S. Jewish population.

J: You are correct. PP is in the business of giving abortions, this is their “purpose,” so why would they think something is wrong with it? By its nature, PP is pro-choice. And yes the negative and racist exposure will probably cause them to do something because again this may affect its image and funds, which it all boils down to. You know I can’t really get mad. This is the reality of the world we live in. People will say and do as they please. All I can do is what is best for me and my family. Personally, I am pro-choice. It is the woman’s/couple’s decision. The woman/couple have to still deal with their decision(s) for a lifetime.

END MAY 6, 2008
 
BEGIN MAY 7, 2008

H: Less “funds”, more “image.” If they were a pure business, and not a political movement, they wouldn’t need millions of dollars in donations every month, and they wouldn’t be giving away so many free services. They are in this business to advance a political agenda – that agenda just got exposed – eugenics.


H: One, life cannot logically begin anywhere but at conception. Two, the taking of a life for personal gain is unacceptable. How can you be pro-abortion or “pro-choice” as the P.C. crowd has dubbed it, and accept these two premises? It is illogical to say that taking life is bad (murder, genocide, manslaughter) and then say “it’s up to [the woman]” when it comes to abortion. Abortion is the ending of life; a yet unborn life, but a life. People often ask “How could Hitler have killed all those Jews?” The citizens of the world probably said; “this is the reality of the world we live in. People will say and do as they please. All I can do is what is best for me and my family.” I am very libertarian when it comes to private business, but when your private business breaks thousands of years of accepted moral and legal code, it must be stopped by force. Freedom is NOT anarchy.

J: I have to say; I believe there is a difference between Hitler’s genocide or any genocide vs. a woman’s/couple’s right to abortion. Abortion is a personal choice that should be made by individuals/couples, whereas genocide is somewhat “forced.” Citizens are not being “forced" to have or not have abortions, there is a choice. On the other hand, if I was told or forced to do something I didn’t believe in, than I would stand up. Decisions about abortion become/is: “This is the reality of the world we live in. People will say and do as they please.  All I can do is what is best for me and my family.” I meant this quote to apply to personal issues, not larger societal issues. Our choice to have an abortion is none of society’s business, so to speak. But a plot to destroy a race of people or impede on civil liberties should become everyone’s problem.

END OF PART 1

Tags: part 1/7  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My First Blog

   So, Vin got me all hooked up with this site, though I'm not sure I have strong enough opinions about politics to actually be here.  This blog is simply a test to figure out if I know how to use this thing.  Hopefully one day, I'll be as cool as Vinnie and I can link certain words to other sites-- wouldn't that be cool!  I love ya, Vin :-P
 
CLICK ON THIS!!! to see what I'm reading right now
 
This is me     Figuring out
how to use a table!
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Black Genocide at Planned Parenthood

For those who haven’t heard, and I don’t blame you with the way the media is today, Planned Parenthood is under intense fire as of late for taped conversations where a caller, posed as a racist, inquires about his donation to the organization being used to exclusively kill black babies.

YouTube has plenty of recordings from multiple sting-type operations.

These outward racist statements shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Planned Parenthood was co-founded by Margaret Sanger, a racist and eugenicist who said; “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.”

Since 1974, abortion has killed more blacks than AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease…combined. Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S. and 78% of their clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

The question is; why hasn’t this story been everywhere? This type of genocide should be on the front of newspapers and the leading story on our 9 o’clock news. I have a theory; abortion is seen, not only as a right, but as a sacred act, not to be belittled, degraded, criminalized, or stigmatized. The only acceptable position is “pro-choice.” To be against abortion is to be against a supposed reproductive “right.”   Hopefully this story opens some minds and informs people about the racist beginnings of this organization and the disgusting act done there…like it or not.

P.S.

I find it interesting that when I ask how somebody how he or she feels about abortion, he or she, when ill-informed, undecided, or without strong opinion, usually says “I think a woman has the right to choose,” or something of that nature. 

This is an interesting answer for a couple of reasons; first, it doesn’t answer the question about abortion, just about his or her feelings on the legality of the act, and second it shows just how the argument and discussion about abortion has been framed. To be against abortion, or even question the “right,” is to be anti-woman, ant-constitution, and anti-reproductive rights. If you can frame the debate about the legality, the morality is never rationally discussed. Furthermore, if you can frame the language (fetus, zygote, and product of conception, while scientific terms, dehumanize the baby) you can control so much of the debate.

When I tell people that I think abortion is disgusting, should be criminalized, even in the case of incest or rape, should not be federally funded, and believe abortion is the ending of human life, I am stigmatized as “extreme,” even by people who would personally never have an abortion. What I haven’t been told is that I am being illogical. I’m just being mean. 

I want someone to disprove my logic; Life begins at conception and the premeditated act of ending life should be investigated and criminalized according to the law.

You must ask yourself these very important questions;

Am I for or against the act of abortion, without regard from my feelings of the legality of the procedure?

Am I against abortion except in “extreme” cases (usually incest, rape, and “health of the mother” clauses)? What logical reason do I have for this belief? Is it an emotional or a rational argument for a pro-abortion stance for these circumstances? Does it just seem compassionate?

Also:

Is there any other scientific or moral explanation for when life begins, other than conception?

Should a premeditated act of ending life be criminalized?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In This Fight, Global Warming is a Wimp

The Whole World Has Gone Green Mad
What do the fight against poverty during the Great Depression, the Space Race, the construction of our railroads, and the eradication of polio all get compared to in Time’s new Special Report? The fight against Global Warming of course!
That’s right, when author Bryan Walsh pens phrases like “…a war of the first order…” and “ [the] most patriotic struggle of all,” he isn’t talking about the war against Islamo-fascism, the war on drugs, or even the war on poverty. No, he is referring to the war on…greenhouse gases? That is worrisome. Of course this is all predicated on
pseudo-science and a steadfast belief that humans are causing global warming. I would go into why I believe that human-caused global warming is a hoax, but as many have said, including Richard Stengel, the managing editor of Time; “the debate is over.”
Before demeaning the U.S. for not ratifying (under Bill Clinton) the Kyoto treaty, a treaty he calls “flawed,” he says that “The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases each year…” Since 95% of the green-house effect is caused by water vapor, and water vapor is of 99.999% natural origin, I’m wondering just where those numbers come from.
Maybe he is referring to the estimated .28% of greenhouse gases attributed to human activity. Okay then; we in the U.S. are directly responsible for one quarter of .28% of all greenhouse gases (roughly .07%). The question is; what do we do now! EEEEK!
Number one, says Mr. Walsh, is not to encourage people to use less, voluntarily, but to “Price the Sky,” or tax the crap out of carbon emissions, making people use less by force. "Carbon Credit" could be short for "communism" except it has more letters (though the same number of syllables). The letters, however, do spell redic rob cant, which may mean “continue to steal” in Latin, but I’m not sure.
I could continue to berate Mr. Walsh for pages and pages (truthfully – this is merely a rebuttal of the first page in his article), but I will end here and hope that you are not amongst the duped when it comes to man-made global warming, or amongst the frightened who think we are all doomed because of a one degree increase over 100 years. You have nothing to fear but environmentalism…like it or not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Environmentalism is a Religion

 
I laugh, hard, when liberals tell me that they are scared of religious people. Environmentalism is not only a religion, but also the newest form of communism, socialism, and progressivism; one with a smiley face instead of brown shirts or black shirts. That, is scary.
The following attributes of the current environmental movement have convinced me be that  it is in fact a religion and that good Christians cannot simultaneously be good Environmentalists:

God/Omnipotent being/Life giverGaia, Mother Nature, Mother Earth

Dogma: The Gaia hypothesis

Place of Worship: Everywhere, anywhere, anytime. You are always in the church of the Earth.

Holy book: An Inconvenient Truth, coupled with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

Holy men/women: Al Gore, Ted Danson, Ted Turner, Bonnie Rait, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, PETA, willing politicians, teachers who preach the faith, The United Nations and countless others.

Followers: Environmentalists and those who have been made to feel guilty for their very existence. The media, world governments, world citizens, liberals and democrats, the uninformed and even the unwilling.

Holy Day: Earth Day, celebrated on the March equinox by the United Nations, and/or April 22.

Sin: Carbon emissions, littering, pollution, Styrofoam, pesticides, “waste,” doubt/debate, chemicals, nuclear power, oil, pharmaceuticals, procreation

Penance Taxes, fines, imprisonment, carbon credits, procreation limits, recycling, and overall green living (hybrid cars, less travel, lowering heat or a.c., and much more).

One ofthe most devastating effects of this religion, so far, has to be the millions killed by malaria because of the banning of DDT, due to pseudo-science, hyped information, scare tactics, and the love of animals over people. Iain Murray just wrote a book on 6 more catastrophes caused by the followers of this underground religion.
I am not saying that you can’t be a Christian and be a good steward of the earth; it’s your duty. But you cannot be a Christian and an Environmentalist…like it or not.
I’m not alone:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

History of Democrats on Blacks in America

 

AN INTERESTING HISTORY LESSON:

-         In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law, making the mere accusation of being a runaway slave reason to deny habeas corpus and legal representation (about 11% of all blacks were actually free). This law also paid judges $10 for a conviction, or for the “return” of a slave, $5 if the person was set free.
- In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by Democrats, allowing slaves to be imported into the territories.
- Disgusted with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Free-Soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party in 1854.
- After denouncing slavery, elderly Republican Senator Charles Sumner was beaten nearly to death while he was reading in his office by Democrat Representative Preston Brooks in 1856.
- In 1858, while debating Republican Abraham Lincoln on slavery, Democrat Senator Stephen A. Douglas said, "For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races."
- In 1863, Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
- In 1865, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, forever banning slavery in the US. It received the votes of 100% of Republicans (88 out of 88 in the House, 30 out of 30 in the Senate), while only getting 23% of the Democrat votes (16 out of 66 in the House, 3 out of 8 in the Senate).
- In 1867, the Texas Republican Party was formed...by 150 blacks and 20 whites.
- In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, granting the newly freed slaves equal rights. It was supported by every single voting Republican (128 of 134, 6 not voting, in the House, and 30 of 32, 2 not voting, in the Senate), but none of the 36 House Democrats nor any of the 6 Senate Democrats voted for it.
- In 1870, the 15th Amendment was passed, guaranteeing black the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, every single Democrat voted against it.
- In the 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted forming the Ku Klux Klan as a means to fight against the spread of the Republican Party.
- Between 1870 and 1875, Republicans passed many pro-black civil rights laws, but when Democrats took strong control of the House in 1892, they repealed all the civil rights laws, allowing southern states to implement the Jim Crow laws.
- In 1913, Democrat President Woodrow Wilson reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government. He named avowed racists like Josephus Daniels and Albert Burleson to his cabinet.
- FDR's first Supreme Court nominee was a life member of the KKK (Senator Hugo Black, Democrat from Alabama).
- In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed, gaining the vote of only 64% of Democrats (153 for, 91 against in the House, 46 for, 21 against in the Senate), while gaining support of 80% of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House, 27 for, 6 against in the Senate).
- In 1993, Democrat President William Jefferson Clinton presented a signatory of "Southern Manifesto", Democrat Senator William Fullbright, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
- The only currently elected federal official to be a Klansman is a Democrat (Robert Byrd, D-WV).
- To this very day, Democrats continue to contend that blacks are inherently inferior. So inferior that they think that blacks require a 20 point bonus (out of 120 possible points) on their college admissions scores simply because they are black. Others feel that blacks are so stupid that they are unable to speak proper English, and must be taught in "Ebonics" in school.
 
-They continue to support an organization -- Planned Parenthood -- that was founded by a person who believed "colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated" (Margaret Sanger- a devout eugenicist).  Since 1974, abortion has killed more blacks than AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer, and heart disease…combined.

Most of these facts are well known amongst devout conservatives, so sourcing them is a hard thing to do. You will find a lot of it repeated on the websites below, but I don't know if any of the information is owned by anyone.  I researched most of this on the web after I heard about it from other bloggers.  I think this is the most linked collection you will find. With a half-black candidate running on the Democratic ticket, there will be even more tension amongst blacks and conservatives. It is important that the facts are laid our clearly.  Republicans are now, and have always been, the party for Blacks in America.  Thank God for that.

Prominent Black Conservatives/Historical figures/websites:

Booker T. Washington            Zora Neale Hurston    Frederick Douglass

Star Parker                              Condoleeza Rice         Alan Keyes

Thomas Sowell                        Walter E. Williams      Michael Steele           

Armstrong Williams                Larry Elder                  Ken Blackwell           

La Shawn Barber                    Shelby Steele              Frances Rice

National Black Republican Association

The Black Republican

The Black GOP

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If It Was Free, It Wouldn't Be So Expensive

Below, my friends, is the best list of articles and videos (for those who don't like to read) you will find on the myths of socialized, single-payer, government-run healthcare. Don't be overwhelmed, take your time, and visit each of the links. This subject will be passionately debated in the coming months. Take a look and you WILL learn a lot...like it or not.

FREEMARKETCURE.COM
http://www.freemarketcure.com/twowomen.php VIDEO “Two Women”
 
http://www.freemarketcure.com/thelemon.php VIDEO “The Lemon”

http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php VIDEO “Uninsured in America (2007)”

http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php VIDEO “Brain Tumor”

JOHN STOSSEL 20/20 SPECIAL:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I VIDEO PART 1/6

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BpsEAVbCkMM VIDEO PART 2/6

http://youtube.com/watch?v=refrYKq9tZQ&feature=related VIDEO PART 3/6

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QzhiG0dcwN8&feature=related VIDEO PART 4/6

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xsp_Jh5EIT0&feature=related VIDEO PART 5/6

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU&feature=related VIDEO PART 6/6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xkMSOBQVC8 VIDEO “Socialized Medicine and the Subsidy Problem”

ARTICLES:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25137 Single Payer Systems Kill by Deroy Murdock (Posted: 02/22/2008)

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5011 "Single-Payer" Health Care Is Anything But Freeby Paul S. Hsieh, MD (September 17, 2007)

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5024 Sicko: What Michael Moore Forgot to Tell Youby Richard E. Ralston (September 19, 2007)

P.S. Check out the blog I wrote on socialized healthcare (No Thanks to Government Run Healthcare). More to come...

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do You Have to be a Socialist to be a Democrat?

I read an interesting article this week in Forbes magazine, entitled Bad Medicine, by David Whelan. It talked about failing hospitals in the United States and what little is being done to help the situation, as far as government is concerned.
 
According to the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths:  “[You are] five times more likely to die from visiting a hospital than from not having health insurance.”
Don’t get me wrong, the last thing I want is for government to get involved in healthcare. What I want is for them to STOP getting involved in healthcare.

Specialty Hospital: A center that focuses on the care of a particular body part, such as the heart, spine, or joints, or on a specific disease, such as cancer.

Currently there are 60,000 hospitals overall in the United States, and only 200 specialty hospitals, however, according to Forbes:

The University of Iowa did a study and found that “complication rates are 40% lower for hip and knee surgeries at specialty hospitals than at big community hospitals.”

Medicare says that “patients of all types are four times as likely to die in a full service hospital after orthopedic surgery as they would after the same procedure in a specialty hospital.

HealthGrades, a quality review firm that ranks hospitals by their complication and morality rates explains that three of the nation’s top ten cardiac programs are specialty hospitals, and three of the top ten hospitals in the U.S. for joint replacement are specialty hospitals.

Apparently, these numbers just aren’t good enough for the hypocrites in D.C., who have repeatedly blocked the expansion of these specialty hospitals, at the behest of wealthy lobbying firms representing corporate hospitals across the U.S. In 2003, “congress effectively banned new physician-owned specialty hospitals,” according to Forbes.

Representative Fortney “Pete” Stark Jr., Democrat-CA, said that “[These doctors] (referring to doctors who own specialty hospitals) make enough money.” 

You’re right Pete, doctors making a lot of money, who ever heard of such a thing? Scandalous. We should punish these greedy s.o.b.’s, regardless if it hurts patients, diminishes competition, and adds to your socialist agenda…like it or not.

Read the article here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0310/086.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Incredible, Edible...Corn?

With what can you both get drunk from and fuel your car? Ethanol! Don't do both.

With the talk amongst politicians, pundits, and everyday Americans, about what is dubbed as "excessive" profits by oil companies, the word "ethanol" has popped up increasingly more often. Ethanol is a bio-fuel. According to wikipedia, "Ethanol is produced both as a petrochemical, through the hydration of ethylene, and biologically, by fermenting sugars with yeast." A lot of big words there, but basically what it means is that yeast eats sugar, producing a chemical effect, the scientific explanation of which is long, boring, and hard to grasp without your own personal chemistry teacher . This leads to the production of ethanol (used in alcohol, or fuel for these purposes).

This production on ethanol, which is completely renewable, has many people talking about its benefits for fuel, as a replacement, or at the very least, as a compliment to, petroleum (i.e. E85 gasoline), which isn't easily renewable. However, is ethanol the answer to our problems?

Here are two videos showing why ethanol is not now, nor will ever be, the "silver bullet" that kills the dependence-monster of oil for fuel. Most interestingly, both videos tell us that if all the United States' current farm land was converted to corn for the sake of ethanol production, only 12% of our fuel needs would be met...like it or not.

If you are truly interested in learning about what the religion of environmentalism has been preaching as the save-all-end-all in fuel production, watch these:

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rebate and Switch

    In a futile attempt to “jump-start” the economy, our legislators, with the help and praise of the media, and the electorate, will vote to take the first step towards a communist state.
    
Please tell me that I am not the only one who thinks that this “tax rebate,” as it is being called, is nothing more that the redistribution of wealth.  If you make under $3000 a year, you will be eligible for about $300 in a “tax rebate.”  The problem is…people who make $3000 a year don’t pay an effective federal tax rate!
    
Will Cingular Wireless be sending rebates to non-customers anytime soon?  No, and rightfully so.   A rebate is cash back on money already spent, not free money to one person, paid for by another.  That, my red coated friends, is called communism.  If you want the people making $3000 or less to have more money, tell them to get jobs that pay more than $3000 per year, or, even better, get rid of the payroll tax for this small group of people, so they can keep their money when they earn it, not later in the year after the government has squandered it.
    
For those of you smart enough to make more than $3000 per year (if you can read, you probably do), a larger payment may be on its way.  If the purpose is to jump-start the economy, which is not in a recession and therefore doesn’t need a jump-start, why not just cut the taxes, permanently, for the people this is supposed to help, instead of offering some quick-fix that will, mark my words, backfire?
    Will somebody please comment and reaffirm my faith in my friends, family, and the American people.  Let me not thinks that I be surrounded by a pack-a commie hippies, intent on squashin’ me capitalist freedoms, and taking away me hard earned pence fur dey’re political asprations.  
    
Sorry, I sometimes acquire an Irish accent when I get emotional.
    
I’m all for giving people back their own money, especially in the form of tax cuts.  As a matter of fact, that forms the basis of my crazy, right-wing ideology.  What I am whole-heartedly against, however, is giving people money from other’s pockets, and other’s earnings, under the guise of a so-called “tax rebates.”  You didn’t earn their money, so you deserve absolutely none of it, you greedy #%*^%@…like it or not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Way Too Many Acronyms

*I found this gem on top of my fridge, a product of another rant, gathering dust instead of informing and entertaining eager minds, or mind, as it turns out.

 

    It occurred to me yesterday, while sitting in yet another seemingly pointless meeting, that the government’s hands are in just about everything we do.  My co-workers and I were taking one of four HAZMAT (hazardous materials) certification tests when it struck me.  I shouldn't’t be as mad at the undeniably boring instructor as I should be with my own government.  It is because of over regulation that I sat, completely unnecessarily, in a room for ninety minutes (ninety minutes I’ll want back when I sit on my death bed, no doubt) learning about DOT (Department of Transportation) regulations on the transporting and handling of what they deem hazardous (almost everything).

The regulations put forth by the government on my company, and countless others were all written with good intentions, but as it turns out, they often hurt much more than they help.  The most obvious damage is done economically, and for me, emotionally.

    I looked around to try and quickly add up the amount of money it takes my company to comply with this particular DOT regulation. The woman giving the meeting has to be paid, and everyone else in the room is getting paid, overtime in some cases.  The tests were about ten pages long, and the packets used to follow along with the instructor were over twenty pages long.  Three meetings were given that day, to over 75 people. My company gives these tests to most of the people who work for us in the U.S., somewhere around 30,000 people.  Everyone who handles, may handle, or may come in contact with, ship, pack, or transport, test, recondition, repair, modify, marks, or prepares hazardous material must comply with this regulation every two years, after any job function change, or anytime the DOT updates or changes the regulations.  All new employees must attend within ninety days of being hired.  All these records must be kept as long as the employee works for the company, and ninety days thereafter.

    I just wrote that and I don’t know what it means, so I am assuming that companies need to hire some sort of interpreter also.  Consider the costs associated with the paperwork alone you are talking about tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps more.  Add to that the cost associated with storing that paperwork.

    This is the tip of the iceberg my friends.  Each car in our fleet has to have stickers, cages, spill kits, coolers, and be packed with absorbent material.  In our lab our garbage’s have to have special color bags and chemicals all have to have special markings.  The books that explain all these markings must be accessible. The specimens in our lab must be packed a certain way for disposal and shipment, in accordance with not only IDOT but with the CDC (Center for Disease Control), EPA (The Environmental Protection Agency), ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), and IATA (International Air Transport Association).  These specimens, when disposed of (within 120 days after we receive them, according to regulations), must then be transported (not by us, we don’t have the license), for a fee, according to the regulations set by IDOT, the EPA, CDC, ICAO, and IATA, to name a few.

    That is all for just a few of the many, many, many, regulations my company has to follow, all with their own certification tests, meetings, paperwork, and costs.  Not to mention, mine is one of hundreds, if not thousands, of companies doing the exact same thing, in a very large, very regulated, country.

    I kept thinking, who pays for all this?  Is it my boss?  It is the shareholders?  No.  Our customers pay for it.  All of these extra costs are considered every time prices for our services are set.  With each new tax, or regulation comes a higher price.  So, who are our customers?  Hospitals, doctors and insurance companies mostly.  That’s not a problem.  If anyone can afford it, they can. But who pays their costs?  As it turns out, the very people these regulations were supposed to protect; the patients, and the American people in general.  In other words: you.

I work for the largest independent clinical laboratory in the U.S.  My company employees over 30,000 people, in multiple countries, and tests over 100,000 specimens a night.  That means that 100,000 people, 100,000 lives.  People, who are awaiting results for something as simple as cholesterol test, to results on something life changing, like pregnancy, or even cancer, results.

The worst part about all of this is that nothing will be done about it.  Anyone who tries to change these regulations will be vilified.  

    “Jobs will be lost, people will be put back in danger!”  I can almost hear the hysterics now.  “We need these regulations to keep big business in check!  We’re protecting the little guy,” they’ll say, no doubt in soft, caring voices. 

    It doesn’t matter that these regulations do more harm than good, and stifle business, growth, and the over-all economy. Their intentions are pure, and therefore the program is worthy.  You’re never going to get the government to willingly give up its control over people...like it or not.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Useless Guns Okay in D.C.

    The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case, the first of its kind in about seventy years, questioning the meaning of the Second Amendment.  For those of you who haven’t read the Constitution (hopefully you’re foreign born, that’s your only excuse), the Amendment in question gives the people (or the State, we’re still confused) the right to bear arms.  More specifically, the Second Amendment reads:

 

            A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

    That’s it, the whole thing, the nuts and bolts, the frank and beans, the whole enchilada, everything.  For over 200 years, scholars, judges, lawyers, lawmakers, students, and every-day citizens have argued the meaning of those twenty-seven words.

On November 20th, 2007 the Supreme Court agreed to hear Washington D.C. v. Heller, in a lawsuit, upheld by a lower court, in which Heller argues that the law banning handguns, rifles, and shotguns, including those in your own home,