Proud To Be An American?

Semper Fi. Always faithful.

I saw this in a comment on my sister’s Facebook directed toward the country. This made me think, should a spouse stay faithful or leave if their significant other hits them without reason, snoops on them, or keeps them defenseless? What if this same spouse doesn’t let you speak, and lord help you if you air the dirty laundry? What about keeping you locked in a room without anyone being able to see you? Or takes any money you have comes in, blows it and runs up credit card after credit card?

If they won’t change should you stay faithful or leave them?

Now take this and use it as an analogy of America today. America now can kill you with a drone without trial thanks to NDAA and has murdered Americans before. The NSA was busted for snooping on all electronic communications. Would you tolerate a significant other doing that?

All the limitations on firearms, same as keeping your other half helpless. We don’t have unabridged freedom of speech, look at the whistleblowers being pursued, same as a beaten wife telling a friend. That is if you get to even have friends, indefinite detention anyone? Taxes and running up debt in your name is the same as me controlling all money in the house without asking permission and getting credit cards in my wife’s name and running them up.

Guess what, we’re abused spouses. How’s that make you feel about your relationship with the USA? Do you keep your head down and get back in the kitchen where you belong to cater to Uncle Sam’s every whim?

Fuck that. This place has gone to hell considering where it came from, and I hold those who vote the same crooks into office repeatedly in office responsible. I hold the crooks responsible. I hold those who don’t vote out of apathy responsible and lastly…I hold myself responsible. I’ve made a few bad votes myself.

Guess what? I’m doing something about it, I’m engaged in the political sphere, and not falling for the two party farce, what are you doing? Staying in the kitchen or filing for a divorce?

Advertisements

The Irony of Religious Values in Politics

One of politics biggest ironies to me is when people try to line up their vote with their religious beliefs, and then get self-righteous about it.

“I voted for Obama because he will help the poor.”

Alternatively…

“I voted for Romney because he will keep America’s traditional values and a God-Fearing man.”

Really people? I’m about to reduce your soapbox to kindling. Let’s look at a few relevant scriptures in the Ten Commandments first.

“You shall not murder.” Exodus 20:13

If you were bombed at a wedding, would that be murder? What if, you were minding your own business and someone kicks open the door, you run and get shot down. Oh, it was a drug task force, raiding the wrong house. Murder? Let us go on…

“You shall not commit adultery.” Exodus 20:14

How many politicians have been caught doing this? Clinton, Gingrich and the one Governor with the Brazilian mistress spring immediately to mind. Not exactly people you can trust, let alone with a tool as powerful as the government.

“You shall not steal.” Exodus 20:15

Taxes? Civil Asset Forfeiture? Eminent Domain? Answer this honestly, how big of a check are you willing to write to the government? Should I have to write one too? What if I don’t want too? Then what? It is my money, I gave up time and effort to earn it, so who has a right to it?

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Exodus 20:16

What are politicians caught in all the time? Lies! Yet, people elect a person who has proven they cannot be trusted and get all self-righteous that they voted for them and when caught in a lie they cannot escape from, they quickly make excuses for them. Way to live by your principles people.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” Exodus 20: 17

What is Obama practically famous for? His ‘spread the wealth’ line in that interview. If you think along those lines then you are coveting.

Let’s look at the Golden Rule.

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12

Good Principle? I think so, lines up well with the Non-Aggression Principle; however, when you force your morality on others but recoil when they do the same, then you both have broken the Golden Rule.

Now some may quote the Sermon on the Mount’s Beatitudes to me, however that is Jesus advocating charity from the goodness of your heart and property. That can be admirable, however saying ‘those poor souls, you go help them or else’ isn’t by any stretch. One is charity, the other is welfare.

Think about all this before you consider yourself a good Christian by voting for your particular political flavor to act as your proxy. For them to do what you ask they are committing sin so do not be so proud of yourself, after all you’re an accomplice to everything you proclaim to be against.

Is A Voter Accountable for the Ballots They Cast?

One of my favorite podcasts/radio shows is Free Talk Live and one of the hosts Ian is fond of saying, “not my government” which to a point is correct. However recently I have been thinking voters should be held accountable for the actions of those they voted for, especially if it is an incumbent politician! They have a track record you can look at, instead of the big game they talk. Technically, they do “work” for you in theory.

What if you had not voted though?

I would ask why? Was it apathy, or none of the several (there are more than two) running just didn’t line up with your principles? I can respect the second. If you are not involved in politics and making sure the government does not overreach then we will have few option since diplomacy failed. Fight or retreat. With the state of the electorate, I would leave and let the country fall, they deserve everything that comes to them.

People complain about things that affect them (understandably) but are so damn short sighted they do not realize and/or care about the ill effects on others. Yes, you may be having a hard time making ends meet and sign up for government assistance; but do you realize that your neighbors on the block just got saddled with the burden of your life as well as their own. Selfish if you ask me. Yet your vote in November made it possible by keeping the status quo.

On the other hand, as another example, you see unrest overseas and say someone should do something about it, so you vote for the neoconservative politician that will send troops overseas. The admirable thing would be if you went, not by sending proxies. That vote you just cast does more than waste money on things that does not matter to our well-being as a whole, you just ripped men and women from families to handle someone else’s business instead of their own. Because you are such a busybody, some will not make it home on his or her own. You were an accessory in their death, and a family loses a father/husband/son or mother/wife/daughter because you chose someone with a track record of sending troops overseas.

A voter’s hands are not clean. Those hands hit a button far more powerful than the trigger of a fully automatic weapon. It keeps a government that steals (taxes), enslaves (prison), murders (current wars/death penalty/civilians killed in battle or police raids), invades your privacy and subjugates everyone (victimless crimes). The common criminal only wishes they had it so good and Al Capone would be jealous he hadn’t thought of it.

Voting has consequences and you are fully accountable for those votes.

“Marriage Isn’t About Desires of Adults”

I get a newsletter from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, and this week I got one concerning the Supreme Court’s taking on Prop. 8 and the Defense Of Marriage Act. I thought to myself that this might be interesting; it also was infuriating to my personal philosophy. Here’s a link here so let’s take a look.

Those pressing the Supreme Court to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 essentially argue that marriage as we’ve always known it is not constitutional. But redefining marriage would make marriage about the desires of adults rather than the well-being of children.

That was the takeaway from a media briefing Tuesday at the National Press Club featuring Heritage’s Ryan T. Anderson, Claremont Institute legal scholar John C. Eastman, and Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Austin R. Nimocks (who is also co-counsel in the Prop 8 case).

“Government is not in the marriage business to regulate citizens’ romantic lives,” Anderson said. “Encouraging marriage is the only way to ensure adults take responsibility for their children.”

And what is DOMA? Regulation.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would further separate marriage from the reality that every child needs both a mother and a father, Anderson said, and transform the institution into whatever emotional bond the government says it is.

Say what? The damn welfare state and irresponsible heterosexual people are doing a bang up job of screwing up the ‘sanctity of marriage’. Look at Hollywood and the amount of kids on food stamps, government insurance, etc. And you know what? Everyone of them came from a heterosexual relationship. Let’s move on…

 Among the consequences: erosion of religious freedom and growth of the welfare state.

There is nothing “equal” about redefining marriage, Anderson said, a point he also made in a piece this week in The Washington Post. And the Court has held that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right, said Eastman, author of Heritage’s legal memo on the marriage cases.

Religious freedom? Is someone else’s actions in their life going to come between you and your God? Does your God not realize it’s not your doing? Not very omniscient if it doesn’t. It’s not Biblical? I offer this…

Welfare state? You know what grows that? Democrats do. Republicans do. A supermajority of straight politicians. Excuses. The real growth comes from politicians bribing constituents with ‘free’ money.

This line…”same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right” If it’s not, then neither is heterosexual marriage and in the name of equality all marriages should be annulled or government gets the hell out of it and stays out.

“What is at stake is the constitutional authority of the American people,” Anderson said.

To that I offer this…

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports DOMA as legal. However, State’s can define marriage under the 10th, however it’s not right. The Constitution is flawed after all, but I can argue with this point from the Declaration of Independence...”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

All men and women, straight, bisexual, homosexual, all races and creeds, are created equal free to their Life, Liberty to do what they want without physically harming another and pursuit of happiness, such as marrying whoever they love. Stating that someone has power to limit this flies in the face of what this country was founded on.

What would you do if a majority voted that you couldn’t marry your sweetheart?

Gun Control After A Disaster? Not If Arkansas Has A Say.

Should a Governor be able to stop gun sales, their dispensement and the transporting of them during a disaster? A bunch of Representatives in Arkansas don’t believe so, and they filed H.B. 1819. It takes the above ‘power’ from the Governor in a disaster. Not a lot to read:

SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 12-75-114(e)(8), concerning the disaster emergency responsibilities of the Governor, is amended to read as follows:
(8) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles; and

And…its not finished apparently. After Katrina, a law was passed in Arkansas making it illegal for the Governor to confiscate guns after a disaster, if I remember right. This strips more power, from the Governor. So, thoughts on the Bill?

Feinstein and Cruz Go Toe to Toe, and the Winner Is?

So yesterday Senator Ted Cruz took on Senator Feinstein about her bill. You can watch a particularly telling clip here…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSTw0TCcFcY&sns=em

See how much you mean to the Democrat Senators, they acknowledge their double standard and argue mostly emotionally. Cruz’s question was a good one and the answer was telling. Feinstein said she makes an exception for the Second Amendment. And asks that her right to opinion be respected.
Funny. And I agree, respect her right to her opinion, but when she tries to force her opinion into a law, then it effects me and changes the game. It’s no longer opinion its a fact of law.
Sen. Durbin cites case law, which is humorous to me. You have the words

…shall not be infringed

What’s that mean? No limits. Exactly. Case law is judges and lawyers attempting to limit that. Which makes their arguments invalid and the only way to make it happen is by the monopoly of force the government has.

I made this point to a friend yesterday after he saw the video, all these Senators who passed this out of committee should be arrested for treason. Wouldn’t you consider disarming the populace of the weapons that can be best used to deter an invasion by our enemies as an act of aiding and abetting America’s enemies?

However our military won’t, the younger ones are worried about their enlistment benefits and the older ones don’t know anything but the military life. A few maybe think along the same lines as I, but they stay mostly silent. They have failed their Oath. This is why I no longer say they are protecting my freedoms, since their boss the U.S Government is the biggest threat to my freedoms.

Someone had to say it.

Arkansas Realizing It’s Sovereignty?

An old friend of mine brought this to my attention. HOUSE BILL 1752 apparently is some congress people growing some guts and realizing the 10th, 9th and 2nd Amendments exist. This should make for interesting committee meetings.

4-21-103. Prohibitions.

(a) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Arkansas and that remains within the borders of Arkansas is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce, as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.

So, I better invest in a Nighthawk 1911 since it’s made in Arkansas.

5-73-134. Unlawful enforcement of federal statutes.
(a) An employee of an agency of the State of Arkansas, any public servant of the State of Arkansas, or an agent or employee of the United States Government shall not knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the United States Government created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 and relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Arkansas so long as that firearm, accessory, or ammunition is within the borders of Arkansas.
(b) A person who violates this section upon conviction is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

I wonder what the punishment for that is?

12-15-101. Prohibition against federal firearm regulation.
A federal law, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013, shall be unenforceable within the borders of Arkansas if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to:
(1) Prohibit or restrict ownership of a semiautomatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or

(2) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.

Hmmm, a way around a assault weapon ban? I like, I like. We got to make sure this passes.

Now They’re After Our Guns…Our Taser Guns!

This was just brought to my attention by an activist friend, Nicholas; its a shell bill at the moment but the title gives me concern…HB1951: PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION AND USE OF A TASER STUN GUN. Here is the current text from Rep. Frederick J. Love (yes I am calling him out):

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:

SECTION 1. The purpose of this act is to prohibit the possession and use of a taser stun gun.

The Bill text is here

What in the hell is the reasoning behind this? I can understand the reasoning behind a gun ban, but a taser? If someone attacks you the options you have are: comply, run, fight. Fighting back is limited to hand to hand, pepper spray or a ‘legally-carried’ gun, if you want to stay out of jail. Use a knife, go to jail. Use a gun without a permit (unless on your property) go to jail. And if this passes, use a taser, go to jail.

Lets examine this, if you’re attacked you have to be a better fighter (against someone who makes a living attacking others), pepper spray them (which can be fought through, why else would a cop need a taser themselves), or to have a gun handy (but first you have to pay the State Police $144 dollars on top of the cost of required training the law mandates for the permission to carry a handgun.)

Thanks for stacking the deck in the predators favor Rep. Flowers. Who are you representing again? The bad guys or the good ones?