On October 1st, Florida citizens have
"the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."
Yes, you read that right, come Saturday assailants that attack will be shot more than not. Originally, Florida law stated that gun owners must first attempt to escape from precarious situations or alleviate them: i.e. giving the assailant your wallet/purse or letting them have your keys.
Now, the "Wild, Wild West" is apparently reborn according to the Washington Post. According to the Post, humans are no more than gun-toting lunatics waiting for a chance to let some shells loose. The NRA and Marion P. Hammer, a Florida Lobbyist, calls the measure the "Castle Doctrine" relating private property and the citizen’s right to protect it.
Not only am I in full support of this law, I’m excited to see the outcome. This law will not be an active thought in our lives but it will end up protecting us in the courtroom. Florida citizens already have the right to carry concealed weapons but in the midst of an attack, if the weapon is used, this law will support that citizen. I can guarantee that no one, as of October 1st, will be looking for a fight and there won’t be shootouts at nearby intersections. This law is no more than protecting citizens from high-priced lawyers and minor stipulations. If I am walking to a movie with my girlfriend and am confronted by a criminal, I have the right to protect, my girlfriend, property, and my life.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Neocon Fanaticism is Reason for War?
Wow, it’s really starting to stack up. Neocons, a group really unbeknownst to the general public, are now the focal point of the Iraqi war. After reading articles and bloggers, many are calling this war more of an imperialistic advantage and excuse to persuade democracy overseas.
I truly feel, disregarding theory and claims, that our intentions in Iraq were for the most part, good. Do people forget Hussein and his atrocities? Has anyone been watching his trial and what he is pleading guilty too? I know individuals personally that invaded his palaces to find millions of dollars in crates, rooms designed specifically for gang rapes, and other unacceptable items owned by a leader. These same troops that I know also justify the war completely, stating that it needed to be done and they feel, it was done at the right time.
Do people need undeniably substantial evidence that Hussein and Bin Laden were cohorts? We just prosecuted Scott Lacey with the murder of his wife without a body. Doesn’t that mean anything? We are quick to kill a man, who I also think is guilty, even though we don’t have undeniably substantial evidence but when it comes to protecting our country from a breeding ground for terrorists, we are called neocon fascists.
I do agree that neoconservatism is wrong. I do agree that Republicans must now consider this when voting, but I’m frustrated with this overgeneralization. I support the war. I support Bush for the most part (his spending habits remind me of my mother’s). I also believe in Republican ideals, but by no means am I a neocon. *
Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article entitled Will Neocon Fanaticism Destroy America (Newsmax) in which he details his view of the war and our inevitable invasion of both Syria and Iran all thanks to neoconservatism. Roberts manages to confuse the reader with body counts, ammo expenditures, and troop numbers trying to claim that this war is really a farce with each insurgent’s death costing us "900,000 rounds of ammunition." Aha! Roberts caught on to the real meaning of the war. Bush’s actual cronies aren’t big oil or Tony Blair, but actually ammunition manufacturers. Bush is ordering ammunition, 1.8 billion rounds according to Roberts, just to put big ammo executive’s kids through college- pure genius.
Neoconservatism is a growing problem and Bush does partly resemble a neocon, but I will say that there is undoubtedly a level of compassion that cannot be ignored. If I say the war is appropriate and the man next to me says otherwise, who is right? We both have different opinions, beliefs, and facts that can defend our claims. God bless our troops and please God, bless our country.
*-My name is derived from the ever-growing liberal ideology and their inane overgeneralization of all Republicans.
I truly feel, disregarding theory and claims, that our intentions in Iraq were for the most part, good. Do people forget Hussein and his atrocities? Has anyone been watching his trial and what he is pleading guilty too? I know individuals personally that invaded his palaces to find millions of dollars in crates, rooms designed specifically for gang rapes, and other unacceptable items owned by a leader. These same troops that I know also justify the war completely, stating that it needed to be done and they feel, it was done at the right time.
Do people need undeniably substantial evidence that Hussein and Bin Laden were cohorts? We just prosecuted Scott Lacey with the murder of his wife without a body. Doesn’t that mean anything? We are quick to kill a man, who I also think is guilty, even though we don’t have undeniably substantial evidence but when it comes to protecting our country from a breeding ground for terrorists, we are called neocon fascists.
I do agree that neoconservatism is wrong. I do agree that Republicans must now consider this when voting, but I’m frustrated with this overgeneralization. I support the war. I support Bush for the most part (his spending habits remind me of my mother’s). I also believe in Republican ideals, but by no means am I a neocon. *
Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article entitled Will Neocon Fanaticism Destroy America (Newsmax) in which he details his view of the war and our inevitable invasion of both Syria and Iran all thanks to neoconservatism. Roberts manages to confuse the reader with body counts, ammo expenditures, and troop numbers trying to claim that this war is really a farce with each insurgent’s death costing us "900,000 rounds of ammunition." Aha! Roberts caught on to the real meaning of the war. Bush’s actual cronies aren’t big oil or Tony Blair, but actually ammunition manufacturers. Bush is ordering ammunition, 1.8 billion rounds according to Roberts, just to put big ammo executive’s kids through college- pure genius.
Neoconservatism is a growing problem and Bush does partly resemble a neocon, but I will say that there is undoubtedly a level of compassion that cannot be ignored. If I say the war is appropriate and the man next to me says otherwise, who is right? We both have different opinions, beliefs, and facts that can defend our claims. God bless our troops and please God, bless our country.
*-My name is derived from the ever-growing liberal ideology and their inane overgeneralization of all Republicans.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Thank You Glenn Beck
For my few readers compliments of Page 2 on Glenn Beck's website. Caption is extremely important.
PICTURE OF THE DAY "Rosie O'Donnell is seen here touring the damage caused by Hurricane Rita in southwestern Louisiana."
PICTURE OF THE DAY "Rosie O'Donnell is seen here touring the damage caused by Hurricane Rita in southwestern Louisiana."
Friday, September 23, 2005
Oil Cronies and Oil War my Ass
Natural causes are the real reason behind the high oil prices, not W nor my hair spray. This map, compliments of Glenn Beck's website, shows exactly why oil prices are reaching record highs. Now some of this blame goes to the 'top-off' gangs. Also, some of the big oil distributors could ease up on their profit margins (I know what you're thinking, Capitalism hurts), but I blame two women: Katrina and Rita.
For a more detailed look and some interesting facts check out:
http://gom.rigzone.com/rita.asp
For a more detailed look and some interesting facts check out:
http://gom.rigzone.com/rita.asp
The Rignt, the Left, and the US - Where are we Going?
No, I'm not wrong but I do agree. We do need to put a stop to the mutation of the Republican Party but more so, the United States. I fully support our leaders but this is getting a little out of hand. Now, with the '06 elections right around the corner, nothing will change until afterwards. I'm talking about our swelling national government, our spending habits, and also our nation's growing dependency and decreasing intelligence.
Just recently, there have been some heated debates around these blogging circles about neoconservatives, our numerous government agencies, and the most recent tragedies. I fully support President Bush however, bloggers from both sides of the spectrum do agree on certain issues. Some being the transportation bill (enough pork to feed California), the spending habits of Congress, and of course, the war in Iraq.
We need to file a chapter 11. Reorganization. Everyone needs to sit back, re-evaluate our current situation, and focus on a solution. The two sides don’t need to agree on policies or situations, but we should all unite in cleaning up our own mess. This "mess", started by neither party (I’m trying to focus on the future), needs to be situated. The Democrats need to stand for something while the Republicans need to revert back to our fundamentals. Yes, more state’s rights and less spending on all levels. I am getting fed up. I am beginning to feel like Patrick Buchanan. The Right is in the wrong direction, the democrats are busying criticizing while not taking actions, and our internal policies have gone to shit (pardon my French but it is quite fitting).
I will be the first to admit that I am rolling over to the bigger picture. I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been voting party lines because it is the lesser of two evils. I’ve come to the conclusion that we need to be more proactive and stop being reactive. Dad29 used a good term during one of our past debates and it dawned on me that this very well might be the case. "Compassionate Conservatism" may well be a mask of big spending, neocon ideals. Granted this terminology cannot be used in all situations but I do agree it’s been getting out of hand.
Thank God for John Roberts. The man we’ve been waiting for. He will definitely curb a lot of our recent bad habits. Once seated, I think he will really help reverse a lot of inane legislature. First stop: the 5th Amendment. As most have already forgotten, the 5th Amendment has been transmogrified into a completely different interpretation. This needs to be reversed. Then we eliminate the Campaign Finance Reform, an abolishment of free speech. To McCain and Feingold I say, "screw you". No, Roberts, is not a god, nor is he going to change the world. I do think he’s going to resuscitate the stagnant bench and put a stick in the spokes of a runaway bike. I know he is only a Supreme Court Justice and really has little bearing on policies, but he hasn’t forgotten about that piece of paper that is the foundation of the United States – the Constitution.
Just recently, there have been some heated debates around these blogging circles about neoconservatives, our numerous government agencies, and the most recent tragedies. I fully support President Bush however, bloggers from both sides of the spectrum do agree on certain issues. Some being the transportation bill (enough pork to feed California), the spending habits of Congress, and of course, the war in Iraq.
We need to file a chapter 11. Reorganization. Everyone needs to sit back, re-evaluate our current situation, and focus on a solution. The two sides don’t need to agree on policies or situations, but we should all unite in cleaning up our own mess. This "mess", started by neither party (I’m trying to focus on the future), needs to be situated. The Democrats need to stand for something while the Republicans need to revert back to our fundamentals. Yes, more state’s rights and less spending on all levels. I am getting fed up. I am beginning to feel like Patrick Buchanan. The Right is in the wrong direction, the democrats are busying criticizing while not taking actions, and our internal policies have gone to shit (pardon my French but it is quite fitting).
I will be the first to admit that I am rolling over to the bigger picture. I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been voting party lines because it is the lesser of two evils. I’ve come to the conclusion that we need to be more proactive and stop being reactive. Dad29 used a good term during one of our past debates and it dawned on me that this very well might be the case. "Compassionate Conservatism" may well be a mask of big spending, neocon ideals. Granted this terminology cannot be used in all situations but I do agree it’s been getting out of hand.
Thank God for John Roberts. The man we’ve been waiting for. He will definitely curb a lot of our recent bad habits. Once seated, I think he will really help reverse a lot of inane legislature. First stop: the 5th Amendment. As most have already forgotten, the 5th Amendment has been transmogrified into a completely different interpretation. This needs to be reversed. Then we eliminate the Campaign Finance Reform, an abolishment of free speech. To McCain and Feingold I say, "screw you". No, Roberts, is not a god, nor is he going to change the world. I do think he’s going to resuscitate the stagnant bench and put a stick in the spokes of a runaway bike. I know he is only a Supreme Court Justice and really has little bearing on policies, but he hasn’t forgotten about that piece of paper that is the foundation of the United States – the Constitution.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
The Jenny Crack Program?
Too bad, such a beautiful woman. At least we know how she kept it all off.
This second picture is precisely the point where I fell in love with her.
This second picture is precisely the point where I fell in love with her.
Two Words: Freakin' Awesome
The pilot of this flight deserves a medal. Not only did this guy land the plane with busted landing gear but actually was smart enough to run out the fuel (no fule release option) so if something had happened, the explosion would be lessened.The worst part is, the passengers watched their own impending fate on live tv:
"Passengers said they had watched their own drama unfolding on the news on in-flight televisions until just before the landing. One described it as surreal to watch. Another said she would have been calmer without it. " - Victoria Times
I don't have much more to say other than next time I fly, I'm going to try and book with Jet Blue. Their equipment might not always work but their pilots are definitely sober!
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Slick Willy's new nickname is the Anti-Christ?
Taken directly from Dad29's blog. Found it and thought it deserved repeating. Gives me the chills:
A number of years ago, a VERY-well-connected ex-Jesuit priest wrote a novel called Windswept House. Since this particular Jesuit was assigned to Rome, was multi-lingual, and saw a great deal of "eyes-only" correspondence in his assignment there, the book was taken seriously.
In brief, it was an allegorical portrayal of a number of events in the USA and Rome. The author stridently maintained that it was "semi-fictional;" but it caused quite a stir, insofar as the characters were largely Catholic Bishops and priests, thinly-disguised--we all knew, for example, that Bishop "Cuthbert" certainly resembled a former Archbishop of Milwaukee...and a good portion of the "fictional" events portrayed in the book were historical, not fictional.
Well, one of the book's predictions (more or less--remember, this is "fiction") was that an extremely popular secularist smooth-talker would eventually assume a worldwide office, perhaps the Sec-Gen slot in the UN--and that this figure was really the Anti-Christ.
(Isn't speculation fun???)
Want to play mind-games? JunkYardBlog has an interesting take on X42's latest adventure in the International Intellectualoid Community--from James Pinkerton, no less:
Last week in New York City, the Clinton Global Initiative (GGI) made its bid to upstage the United Nations' 60th anniversary General Assembly. And the former president made a start toward displacing the fading UN from its prominent perch. And he will be back to try again next year.---
Put simply, the CGI is striving to be a better version of the UN, skimming off the cream and the glitz; Mick Jagger, Brad Pitt, and Chris Tucker, among other stars, showed up at the Clinton extravaganza. Convening in Manhattan at the same time as the General Assembly, just a mile or so from UN headquarters, the CGI set forth four missions for itself: a quartet of "breakout sessions" were dedicated global warming, economic development, religious harmony, and effective governance. All weighty topics, no? Exactly the sorts of issues that the UN would worry about, right?
Naaaah. We all know better than that, right? X42 the Anti-Christ? Never.
A number of years ago, a VERY-well-connected ex-Jesuit priest wrote a novel called Windswept House. Since this particular Jesuit was assigned to Rome, was multi-lingual, and saw a great deal of "eyes-only" correspondence in his assignment there, the book was taken seriously.
In brief, it was an allegorical portrayal of a number of events in the USA and Rome. The author stridently maintained that it was "semi-fictional;" but it caused quite a stir, insofar as the characters were largely Catholic Bishops and priests, thinly-disguised--we all knew, for example, that Bishop "Cuthbert" certainly resembled a former Archbishop of Milwaukee...and a good portion of the "fictional" events portrayed in the book were historical, not fictional.
Well, one of the book's predictions (more or less--remember, this is "fiction") was that an extremely popular secularist smooth-talker would eventually assume a worldwide office, perhaps the Sec-Gen slot in the UN--and that this figure was really the Anti-Christ.
(Isn't speculation fun???)
Want to play mind-games? JunkYardBlog has an interesting take on X42's latest adventure in the International Intellectualoid Community--from James Pinkerton, no less:
Last week in New York City, the Clinton Global Initiative (GGI) made its bid to upstage the United Nations' 60th anniversary General Assembly. And the former president made a start toward displacing the fading UN from its prominent perch. And he will be back to try again next year.---
Put simply, the CGI is striving to be a better version of the UN, skimming off the cream and the glitz; Mick Jagger, Brad Pitt, and Chris Tucker, among other stars, showed up at the Clinton extravaganza. Convening in Manhattan at the same time as the General Assembly, just a mile or so from UN headquarters, the CGI set forth four missions for itself: a quartet of "breakout sessions" were dedicated global warming, economic development, religious harmony, and effective governance. All weighty topics, no? Exactly the sorts of issues that the UN would worry about, right?
Naaaah. We all know better than that, right? X42 the Anti-Christ? Never.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Republicans versus Republicans?
We need clarification. Over the past few days, there has been a lot of talk amongst this particular circle of bloggers over conservatives, neo-conservatives, and republicans. Fine, we can all agree that none of us like moderate or ‘cafeteria’ Republicans but I must admit, it is upsetting to see Republicans drawing lines with other Republicans when we should be focusing our attention on the dark side. Instead, we bicker like little children over certain things.
Clarification:
My first point is my blog name Neo-Con Tastic. I took this particular name in the midst of Mick Jagger and his "Sweet Neo-Con" song. The song attacks Bush and the Administration in all aspects of our current events (see my blog in Archives titled "NFL stands for Now Favoring Liberals). I am not a Neo-conservative. I don’t believe in Imperialism, nor in the Illuminati, nor the New World Order, nor "Big Government."
I am a conservative Republican that supports Bush and his ideals. I am a party line voter (except for Buchanan's unsuccessful Independent runs) but by no means does that make me a Neo-Conservative. I will say this; Buchanan in his new book Where the Right went Wrong points out how the Republican party has left their state’s rights roots and low taxes for more of a big government, big spending agenda, I agree. On the other hand, voting for people like Buchanan is quite frankly, a vote for a Democrat. Might as well vote for the Republican ticket. Dad29, DCS, and G, all of you fall privy to voting for Republicans even though they might be a slightly different Republican than you might like. I voted for Bush twice and never regretted that decision, Dad29 you felt differently. I recall you agreeing with the Iraqi invasion and then bad-mouthing it.
On that note, Dad29 makes many good points (see comments on DCS’s blog entitled "Boycott") about where the Neo-Conservative ideal was formed but then reiterates with a comparison of FDR. In my eyes, ‘Dad’29, I think you are erroneous in your remarks. For you to (basically) compare FDR to Bush is quite asinine. I do agree that Bush is dancing on the "Big Government" line but I feel he is forced to, especially now considering the Katrina tragedy. Otherwise, I’m comfortable with Bush’s decisions. You should know my views on commie FDR and how his mistakes were still being eliminated as lately as the Reagan Administration. FDR was no more than a communist disguised as a Democrat that let over 3000 people die so we could go to war, inevitably ending the Great Depression. Besides that FDR remark, your comments are airtight (notice how people rarely retort your comments but end up redirecting the battle - see DCS "Boycott" comments).
As far as Mr. Bush Rocks is concerned, I respect and appreciate all of you remarks. Your blog is definitely out there insofar as how you feel over other people, countries, etc. As a matter of fact, when I first read your blog, I thought you were a liberal mocking both conservatives and Republicans. Some of your comments were offensive, wrong, and extrapolated from lunacy. Every time someone said that they weren't a Neo-Con or didn't agree with you, you answered with the question, 'Oh, are you a liberal?' That is a mockery and insult. You and I have many different views but we have one objective in common: destroying the left. Bush Rocks, I’d be fine with you linking me to your site but understand that I am a Republican, Conservative, Catholic, and a Capitalist (also an avid poker player). Some people might think that that combination does not exist but here’s to yours truly. I also appreciate that you respect my views and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.
Feel free to correct me but as time progresses, everyone gains different perspectives and objectives in this tumultuous world of politics.
Clarification:
My first point is my blog name Neo-Con Tastic. I took this particular name in the midst of Mick Jagger and his "Sweet Neo-Con" song. The song attacks Bush and the Administration in all aspects of our current events (see my blog in Archives titled "NFL stands for Now Favoring Liberals). I am not a Neo-conservative. I don’t believe in Imperialism, nor in the Illuminati, nor the New World Order, nor "Big Government."
I am a conservative Republican that supports Bush and his ideals. I am a party line voter (except for Buchanan's unsuccessful Independent runs) but by no means does that make me a Neo-Conservative. I will say this; Buchanan in his new book Where the Right went Wrong points out how the Republican party has left their state’s rights roots and low taxes for more of a big government, big spending agenda, I agree. On the other hand, voting for people like Buchanan is quite frankly, a vote for a Democrat. Might as well vote for the Republican ticket. Dad29, DCS, and G, all of you fall privy to voting for Republicans even though they might be a slightly different Republican than you might like. I voted for Bush twice and never regretted that decision, Dad29 you felt differently. I recall you agreeing with the Iraqi invasion and then bad-mouthing it.
On that note, Dad29 makes many good points (see comments on DCS’s blog entitled "Boycott") about where the Neo-Conservative ideal was formed but then reiterates with a comparison of FDR. In my eyes, ‘Dad’29, I think you are erroneous in your remarks. For you to (basically) compare FDR to Bush is quite asinine. I do agree that Bush is dancing on the "Big Government" line but I feel he is forced to, especially now considering the Katrina tragedy. Otherwise, I’m comfortable with Bush’s decisions. You should know my views on commie FDR and how his mistakes were still being eliminated as lately as the Reagan Administration. FDR was no more than a communist disguised as a Democrat that let over 3000 people die so we could go to war, inevitably ending the Great Depression. Besides that FDR remark, your comments are airtight (notice how people rarely retort your comments but end up redirecting the battle - see DCS "Boycott" comments).
As far as Mr. Bush Rocks is concerned, I respect and appreciate all of you remarks. Your blog is definitely out there insofar as how you feel over other people, countries, etc. As a matter of fact, when I first read your blog, I thought you were a liberal mocking both conservatives and Republicans. Some of your comments were offensive, wrong, and extrapolated from lunacy. Every time someone said that they weren't a Neo-Con or didn't agree with you, you answered with the question, 'Oh, are you a liberal?' That is a mockery and insult. You and I have many different views but we have one objective in common: destroying the left. Bush Rocks, I’d be fine with you linking me to your site but understand that I am a Republican, Conservative, Catholic, and a Capitalist (also an avid poker player). Some people might think that that combination does not exist but here’s to yours truly. I also appreciate that you respect my views and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.
Feel free to correct me but as time progresses, everyone gains different perspectives and objectives in this tumultuous world of politics.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Devil's Law Firm
After writing the blog on the NFL and ACLU, I felt the need to go into more detail on how the ACLU is destroying the moral fabric of the US. The Anti-Christian Lawyers Union has be demoralizing our children, defending perverts, and promoting liberalism. They are dangerous to the United States and should be stopped. Let me just list a few of the ACLU’s recent cases and viewpoints:
-Promoted a child nudist camp in Virginia called "White Tail Park." The park, geared to 12 – 17 year olds, wanted parents banned from entering and the ACLU came to the defense of the park; promoting the child’s right to privacy.
-In Kentucky (2005) the ACLU defended a school that offered "Sexual Orientation Classes" and "Gay/Straight Alliances." The parents wanted a class promoting abstinence education and were denied.
-Florida (2005), a 13-year-old child wanted an abortion and the parents wouldn’t let her. The ACLU stepped in and sued the parents for an invasion of privacy.
-On numerous occasions, the ACLU has defended Internet child pornography and defended pedophiles on where they could be, joining church groups and hanging out in public parks. In one situation the ACLU defended a pervert saying that ‘he was allowed to be in public parks and if he had sexual fantasies or thoughts about the children, that was allowed because of his right to privacy.’
-The ACLU has literally eliminated Boy Scouts from using certain public properties.
-The ACLU has taken filters off public library computers, allowing children to experience the Internet and sexually explicit websites.
-Recently had a coach removed from a team of youths for praying with them before games.
-Currently, the ACLU is defending the artist who created the memorial in Pennsylvania that looks like the Islamic symbol: the Red Crescent.
Those are just a few of the examples of how the ACLU is corrupting the United States. On another note, Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually worked with the ACLU in an attempt to lower the age to 12 of consent to have sex. The United States Supreme Court actually has an ACLU confidant in one of its seats thanks to good, old slick Willy. We must stop sitting idly by while this happens and take a stand for our children, our country, and our morals.
-"One Nation under God – to Hell with the ACLU."
-Promoted a child nudist camp in Virginia called "White Tail Park." The park, geared to 12 – 17 year olds, wanted parents banned from entering and the ACLU came to the defense of the park; promoting the child’s right to privacy.
-In Kentucky (2005) the ACLU defended a school that offered "Sexual Orientation Classes" and "Gay/Straight Alliances." The parents wanted a class promoting abstinence education and were denied.
-Florida (2005), a 13-year-old child wanted an abortion and the parents wouldn’t let her. The ACLU stepped in and sued the parents for an invasion of privacy.
-On numerous occasions, the ACLU has defended Internet child pornography and defended pedophiles on where they could be, joining church groups and hanging out in public parks. In one situation the ACLU defended a pervert saying that ‘he was allowed to be in public parks and if he had sexual fantasies or thoughts about the children, that was allowed because of his right to privacy.’
-The ACLU has literally eliminated Boy Scouts from using certain public properties.
-The ACLU has taken filters off public library computers, allowing children to experience the Internet and sexually explicit websites.
-Recently had a coach removed from a team of youths for praying with them before games.
-Currently, the ACLU is defending the artist who created the memorial in Pennsylvania that looks like the Islamic symbol: the Red Crescent.
Those are just a few of the examples of how the ACLU is corrupting the United States. On another note, Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually worked with the ACLU in an attempt to lower the age to 12 of consent to have sex. The United States Supreme Court actually has an ACLU confidant in one of its seats thanks to good, old slick Willy. We must stop sitting idly by while this happens and take a stand for our children, our country, and our morals.
-"One Nation under God – to Hell with the ACLU."
MSM is at it Again
Recently, we have been bombarded with mainstream media stories over the mandatory NFL searches. This year, the government is enforcing a policy that all NFL games require a search/pat-down prior to entering the stadiums. All major news networks have been promoting this as being unconstitutional and invasive. With them is the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union (ACLU) filing a lawsuit to stop the searches from occurring. Here are a couple of quotes:
"The pat down search is basically an unlawful search and seizure violates the 4th amendment of the constitution." - Becky Steele, ACLU
"I believe we will be sued or could be sued, personally I don’t even know if I want pat down searches to occur on myself." - Patrick Manteiga, Tampa Sports Authority Chairman
I find it quite humorous because all of the individuals interviewed for comments felt that not only was this practice acceptable but also non-invasive. This just goes to show that the majority of the citizens don’t side with the opinions of the MSM or ACLU. Finally the media found one individual at the recent Tampa Bay game claiming that the Bush Administration enacted this policy to ‘instill fear’ in the citizens to boost his approval ratings over the war in Iraq. Wow, that conspiracy sounds genius! Bush and his Halliburton cronies are patting everyone down so they still think terrorism exists. I just want to know how the liberals found out that terrorism in the US isn’t going to happen ever again. On a side note, everyone else interviewed and supported the decision received about 10 seconds of talk time while the one lunatic, also drunk I might add, received nearly 5 minutes.
The MSM and ACLU are also pointing fingers at picking up the bill. They can’t help but mention that the government might pay the bill, in turn, coming from us, the taxpayers. Oh no, I can’t afford any more taxes that might prevent a terrorist attack. It’s amazing how slanted the MSM is, now trying to repeal the government’s efforts to protecting its citizens. And for those who don’t like the rule are undoubtedly the ones trying to hide something, be it a joint or a bomb.
"The pat down search is basically an unlawful search and seizure violates the 4th amendment of the constitution." - Becky Steele, ACLU
"I believe we will be sued or could be sued, personally I don’t even know if I want pat down searches to occur on myself." - Patrick Manteiga, Tampa Sports Authority Chairman
I find it quite humorous because all of the individuals interviewed for comments felt that not only was this practice acceptable but also non-invasive. This just goes to show that the majority of the citizens don’t side with the opinions of the MSM or ACLU. Finally the media found one individual at the recent Tampa Bay game claiming that the Bush Administration enacted this policy to ‘instill fear’ in the citizens to boost his approval ratings over the war in Iraq. Wow, that conspiracy sounds genius! Bush and his Halliburton cronies are patting everyone down so they still think terrorism exists. I just want to know how the liberals found out that terrorism in the US isn’t going to happen ever again. On a side note, everyone else interviewed and supported the decision received about 10 seconds of talk time while the one lunatic, also drunk I might add, received nearly 5 minutes.
The MSM and ACLU are also pointing fingers at picking up the bill. They can’t help but mention that the government might pay the bill, in turn, coming from us, the taxpayers. Oh no, I can’t afford any more taxes that might prevent a terrorist attack. It’s amazing how slanted the MSM is, now trying to repeal the government’s efforts to protecting its citizens. And for those who don’t like the rule are undoubtedly the ones trying to hide something, be it a joint or a bomb.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
$2000 Free-For-All
Reports from numerous sources are claiming that individuals are calling in and lodging complaints about the use of the now-defunct $2000 FEMA debit cards. Shopkeepers and storeowners are finding the FEMA cards to being misused in a variety of settings. One clerk called and complained that disaster-stricken individuals in Atlanta are buying premier Louis Vuitton purses with their cards as opposed to necessities like… food, water, and diapers.
Another store-clerk called in a radio show to explain that her Game Stop video game store received correspondence from their Home Office that the cards should be taken with no hesitation. Thank God the evacuees can now purchase their X-Box 360 without being criticized! Granted, it is hard to delineate what is appropriate in some situations, I think we can all agree that $800 purses and $400 gaming systems aren’t necessary. We donated that money to the cause. We pay the taxes that assisted in the relief efforts. We should dictate, to an extent, what the money should be used for. The current policy: no alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. That would be my first three purchases.
It’s definitely not hard to decide what is appropriate for the funds but if the evacuees can’t delineate acceptable versus non-acceptable purchases, we should do it for them. A lot of the victims decided not to evacuate and supposedly we should have made that decision for them – so is there a difference between the two? Not in my book.
Another store-clerk called in a radio show to explain that her Game Stop video game store received correspondence from their Home Office that the cards should be taken with no hesitation. Thank God the evacuees can now purchase their X-Box 360 without being criticized! Granted, it is hard to delineate what is appropriate in some situations, I think we can all agree that $800 purses and $400 gaming systems aren’t necessary. We donated that money to the cause. We pay the taxes that assisted in the relief efforts. We should dictate, to an extent, what the money should be used for. The current policy: no alcohol, tobacco, or firearms. That would be my first three purchases.
It’s definitely not hard to decide what is appropriate for the funds but if the evacuees can’t delineate acceptable versus non-acceptable purchases, we should do it for them. A lot of the victims decided not to evacuate and supposedly we should have made that decision for them – so is there a difference between the two? Not in my book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
