Saturday, September 20, 2008

Another History Lesson

When you take money from the rich and give it to the poor, you only encourage people to be poor.

Then the poor keep voting to give the government more and more power, willingly giving up their rights, because they rely on the government to care for them.

Government loves this because all it really wants to do is control the people. This is also commonly referred to as wealth redistribution.

You know who is really, really good at forced wealth redistribution? SOCIALISTS and COMMUNISTS.

And despite lots of good intentions and far too many attempts, history tells us that it never ends well.

Monday, June 23, 2008

New Laws

I'm not of big fan of enacting new legislation, but for some time now I have been seeing a part of social interaction which is sadly deficient in controlling laws.
I hereby propose that Chapter 50 be added to the Florida Penal Code, simply titled: "Stupidity".
While it may be tempting to start this new chapter with general "Misdemeanor Stupidity" followed up by "Felony Stupidity", I have noticed that in a lot of cases, violating the Stupidity Statutes tends to be a self-correcting problem.
No, Gentle Readers, I have decided -- this very day, as a matter-of-fact -- that Chapter 50 only needs to consist of two charges:
1) Failure To Mind Your Own Business; and
2) Aggravated Failure To Mind Your Own Business.
The elements of the misdemeanor offence would be as follows:
A person, at a time and a place;intentionally or knowingly;involves himself in the affairs of a second or third party;when a reasonable man would decide it isn't the first person's business;and by such involvement tends to cause a breach of the peace.
For instance, here we have "Frank". "Frank" is regularly having chandelier-swinging sex with "JoAnne", with the caveat that both "Frank" and "JoAnne" are married -- but not to each other."Darlene" is a neighbor to "Frank", but isn't married to either one, nor is she either kith or kin to either "Frank" or "JoAnne".However, "Darlene" is outraged enough by the activities of two consenting adult strangers that she arranges to tell the wife of "Frank" about the infidelity -- resulting in "Mrs Frank" destroying various toys belonging to her spouse, selling off others, setting fire to still more, and following up by standing in the front yard, shrieking like a banshee and throwing various breakables at "Frank" and his car, thereby waking up the whole sodding neighborhood and necessitating the attention of the Gardai.In this case, "Frank" would be firmly advised to find other lodging for the nonce, "Mrs. Frank" would be gently advised to cease and desist from the Abusive, Indecent or Profane Language (In A Public Place) -- not to mention the Littering -- and "Darlene" would be hauled off to jail for misdemeanor Failure To Mind Her Own Business.
The elements of the felony offence would be the same as above, only replace the last line with:"and such involvement causes the risk of death, serious bodily injury or the felony arrest of one or both of the involved parties."
As an example -- a creative articulation -- here is "Joe". Some years ago "Joe" and his daughter "Shannon" had a falling out, leading to Shannon running off to California, vowing Never To Return.Time, distance, and the arrival of a grand-daughter has mellowed the relationship between "Joe" and "Shannon" enough that "Shannon" and her daughter have moved back to town.All is peachy and keen ... until "Chuck" hears from his sister's daughter's boyfriend's second-cousin-twice-removed's baby-sitter that "Shannon" has apparently taken up with a non-mainstream, somewhat untraditional religion."Chuck" -- bearing in mind that while he is a work buddy to "Joe", he is not a relative, nor would he actually recognize "Shannon" if her were to bump into her on the street -- breaks the news to "Joe" about his daughters choice in religion over a beer in the parking lot after work, and follows up with what seems to have been a truly awe-inspiring recital of those things what "everybody knows" about them "damn witches".Let us say that "Joe" is inspired enough by this performance that he takes about $41.00 worth of gasoline, throws it upon the porch of his daughters rented house, and follows it up with a lit road flare.In this -- hypothetical -- case, "Joe" would be arrested for Arson and "Chuck" would be arrested for Aggravated Failure To Mind His Own Goddess-be-damned Business.
I realize that some of the elements of this offence must be fine-tuned, but for too long have busy-bodies been nosing off into others peoples business thereby causing hate, discontent, heartburn and police involvement -- and the time is now to start making them shoulder some of the responsibility for the result.

Friday, June 13, 2008

It is the Right of Revolution

Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment

Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street.
They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas. Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus." There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.So.

Liberals love the Constitution.
They especially love the Bill of Rights.

They love all the Amendments.
Except for one: the Second Amendment.[...]

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights. But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that some restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth. We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes to the Second Amendment...You could hear a pin drop for all the protest you'll get from liberals when politicians talk about further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms. Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Washington D.C. ban on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable. (Later this year, the Supreme Court will quite likely issue an opinion to the contrary in the Heller case.)

Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment? Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. What if a politician -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?Ridiculous, right? We'd take to the streets, we'd send angry letters to our representatives in Washington, we'd call our progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, we'd be up in arms. (Yeah, pun intended.)And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.This hardly seems consistent.Indeed!

And this conclusion:

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night. It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again:

It is the right of revolution.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Interesting Times Ahead

An interesting analogy:
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas Rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid for the presidency.

The old rancher said,"Well, ya know, Obama is a post turtle." Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.The old rancher said "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain "You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you wonder what king of dumb ass put him up there."

Interesting times ahead.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Where Have The Heros Gone?

Fighting legends

In the early days, legionnaires were looked down upon by other French forces.
And, because their code of honour is to never surrender arms, they were often quite literally used as cannon fodder.

Yet despite this level of devotion to France, foreign legionnaires were forbidden from stepping on French soil. In time, however, this would change.

In Mexico, during the Battle of Camarón on 30 April 1863, the Legion’s reputation for being a dispensable unit of undesirables was suddenly elevated to its now highly respected status as a fighting force to be reckoned with.
A small infantry patrol led by Capitane Danjou was attacked and besieged by three battalions of the Mexican infantry and cavalry. Danjou’s men were forced to make a defence in the Hacienda Camarón near Puebla.

It was 62 legionnaires and three officers against more than 2000 Mexican soldiers.
Legend has it that despite being hopelessly outnumbered, the legionnaires kept the Mexicans at bay for more than a day, refusing to surrender.
When the last of the men had run out of ammunition, they fixed bayonets and charged their enemy.
When asked to surrender again, the legionnaires demanded to be allowed safe passage home and to take with them the French flag and the body of their fallen capitane.

Out of respect for their courage, the Mexican commander agreed to their terms, commenting 'These are not men, they are devils.'

The battle, the name of which now adorns the Legion’s flag, remains symbolic of their vow never to give up arms. It was the turning point for the Legion.
Camarón Day, celebrated every year on 30 April, is a special day for the Legion, when the wooden prosthetic hand of Danjou is taken down from its place of honour and displayed, as the men remember their fallen heroes.

This same scenario is undoubtedly being relived as we speak in the sandbox. How long it will take for the heroic actions that our troops are performing daily to be published for the world to see and appreciate is unknown...

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

That's the best I can do today...

I meander through the fields and valleys of the Web from time to time.

A post somewhere will capture my interest, and I'll click on the links it contains.

Those links will contain further links, which will lead me to something else, and by the time I look up an hour or two has gone past and I've no idea what I did with the time.

Monday, April 07, 2008

An Interesting Quote..

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

...this from Sir Robert Peel - who is credited with the conception of the first police metropolitian Londaon!

Saturday, March 15, 2008


At this time, I'd like to remind each of my readers that any functioning cell-phone can reach 911.

And when I say any cell-phone I mean just that: any functioning cell-phone can be used to contact 911.

If the battery has enough charge to hit a tower, and the phone works, you can dial 911 on it.

Doesn't matter if you cancelled your service -- you can dial 911 on it.

Doesn't matter if your service cancelled your service -- you can dial 911 on the cell-phone.

Doesn't matter if you've never even had a service -- you can still dial 911 on that phone.

Run over your allotted time limit? You can still dial 911.

The cell-phone company got you cut off until you pay them both legs, one arm and your first-born? You can still dial 911.

Yes, you can buy a pay-as-you-go phone -- but never buy any minutes -- and you can still dial 911.

The FCC requires all cell-phone services to route any 911 call to a Public Safety Answering Point regardless of whether the caller subscribes or not.

Thank you for your attention.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

What THEY Don't want you to know...

JERUSALEM (AP) -- A gunman infiltrated a Jewish seminary in Jerusalem and opened fire in a library Thursday night, killing at least seven people, officials said.
Rescue workers said at least 10 people were wounded. Government spokesman Daniel Seaman and police said there was only one gunman though initial reports said there were two....
Yitzhak Dadon, a seminary student, said he was armed with a rifle and waited on the roof of a nearby building during the attack.
"He came out of the library spraying automatic fire. ... The terrorist came to the entrance and I shot him twice in the head," he said.

Funny how the AP news reports here missed that little tidbit and the end and never reported it...

And this one.

JERUSALEM, Israel - One Israeli was killed and six others injured Thursday evening in two separate terrorist attacks in the Jerusalem area.
Two Palestinian terrorists disguised in Israel Defense Forces (IDF) uniforms entered the study hall at Makor Haim High School in Kibbutz Kfar Etzion southeast of Jerusalem.Armed with guns and knives, the terrorists managed to stab several students before armed school counselors arrived and shot them dead.

What is this? Responsible gun carry by - of all people - EDUCATORS and CIVILIAN BY-STANDERS??? Can this be true?

One can only wonder at what the body count might have been had there not been responsible gun carrying civilians on the scene...

Saturday, March 08, 2008

of MICE and MEN

Have we gotten so far from nature that we have lost the ability to fight for our lives?

Last week, Elizabeth City State University in North Carolina ran an emergency response drill. A campus police officer posing as a gunman burst into a classroom, where he proceeded to hold the students hostage and terrorize them with a fake gun for 10 minutes.

Not one of the students fought back.

Not one thought to pick up a chair or a desk, or even a book, to defend themselves. They all lined up against a wall and passively waited for death.

One of the students said, "I was prepared to die at that moment."

Several students say they considered leaping from a window.

A mouse has more courage than that.
Against insurmountable odds, it will growl at you and be prepared to fight, even to its death.

The college students who meekly bared their throats to those who wanted to rip them out are dead already - they just don't know it.

The will to live is life. - never forget that!


Sunday, January 27, 2008

Politcal "Change"

I hear political analysts and voters (especially very young voters) emphasizing that a vote for their particular candidate is a vote for change.

The tragic and pathetic thing is that they are focusing on superficial racial or gender "differences" instead of looking beneath the skin to see the collectivist inside the hide.

Electing an authoritarian to replace an authoritarian is not voting for change at all.

It is shortsighted and ignorant.

It is an admission that you are OK with everything that Bush the Second has done and with everything that Clinton the First did before that.

Pretending that the race or gender of a candidate equals change is exactly the kind of faulty thinking that the state has been encouraging for the past few generations.

It looks like it worked.

Now the voters are so completely racist and sexist that they can't see past those traits.

That is very bad for America and the world of liberty.