Conservsation

As I drive around burning three dollar a gallon fossil fuel to entertain myself on my days off I have noticed an alarming number of places off limits to me. WTF? It seems like everything is some kind of cockamamie conservation area. Conserved for what? The obscure butt-faced tutu a rare and worthless species of crow. Maybe not that but something equally as stupid.

When I was young we used to take our five thousand pound four wheel drive pick-up trucks and crash through the woods to an undisclosed location where we would set up our trap and shoot skeet with lead bird shot. Then we would four wheel back out. Great fun for an afternoon. Even more fun at night. Try doing that now. The environmentalists have it so you can’t even drive in the woods anymore, much less shoot the evil lead shot in there. And the last box of skeet I bought was three times as much as it should have been but it was environmentally friendly, I kid you not. What a crock.

I am telling you this because I am not that old and this much has changed in my life. By the next generation all this will be forgotten. Freedom as I knew it will be a thing of the distant past instead of the goal it should be. I’m telling you here and now these environmentalists will not stop until they have removed humans from the Earth and are sticking an environmentally friendly gun in their own mouths to make the scouring of the Earth complete. Remember in November, libs out. Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Constitution Pt. 26

Amendment II.

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.

There it is in all it’s simplicity. This, my friends, is probably the most important Amendment because if you don’t have this you won’t have the others. I’ve gone over this before in a post called Gun Rights but we will revisit some of that now.

What is a “well regulated militia”? Well regulated, in the words of the framers simply means functioning well. The militia referred to is you and your neighbors. End of story. You and your neighbors should be well versed in the use of the firearms that you should own. There is a valid argument as to whether the framers intended for everyone to own a firearm. I believe they did but at this time I will concede you the choice but don’t even think of infringing on my right.

Here’s an interesting thought. What is meant by a free State? I notice that State is capitalized, that has referred to the political territory of a State of the United States all through the document. If it had not been capitalized I think it might have referred to a free state of being. That’s pretty sketchy isn’t it?

Personally I think my right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon by any law regulating it in any way. Registration? We don’t need no stinking registration. And I believe we should have access to any weapon made without regulation. I have done nothing that should restrict me from having a shoulder fire cannon. Once I have been convicted of some infraction that might indicate that I would be a threat to the general population then I can see regulation and loss of rights but why should a drunk driver or a tax cheat lose this right?

Finally, I believe that this Amendment was put in place so the people could protect themselves from an out of control gubmint. Do you know of any such gubmints? (Funny note, spell check wanted to change gubmints to varmints.) I suppose I’ll be arrested and sent to Club Gitmo for that last question. Oh well, until next time, screw environmentalists.

Fanny And Freddy

So, have you ever wondered what really happened to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac? Well so did some Representatives in the House. So much so that they filed a freedom of information act request. What did this reveal, you ask? Nothing.

I know what you’re thinking, how can this be? Well sit right back and listen to this. Last week, about the nineteenth or twentieth I was watching something on TV and I heard this. So I wrote it down to research for this week. Do you think I can find it anywhere on the internet? It was definitely on FOX News channel but I can find nothing about it so I’m working from my flawed memory here.

Apparently some Republican Representatives were curious about the circumstances that lead to the bubble burst thing so they contacted the Obama administration about a freedom of information request and here’s what they were told. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are not “full-fledged” gubmint agencies so the act does not apply to them. WTF?

This wasn’t me an’ Bubba from the local watering hole it was duly elected officials from several of the States being treated this way. Now I don’t know about you but I would have been quite upset had me an’ Bubba been treated this way but to have the “administration” treat duly elected Representatives this way really has my blood boiling.

So my next thought is if they’re not full-fledged gubmint agencies why are we fully funding them? I think that might be something that needs looking into. Well, by the handwriting on the wall I see we are probably screwed again so until next time, screw environmentalists.

More Warmi Hyteria

Ian Plimer is a Professor at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. He is Australia’s best known geologist. He has written seven books and published 120 scientific papers. He is twice the winner of Australia’s highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize. Not exactly a slouch.

So, as the Obomunists boldly go where no sane human has gone before I would like to bring something to your attention. In Prof. Plimer’s seventh book he says “Mars enjoys global warming yet has almost no atmosphere. To my knowledge, there is no industry or human emissions of CO2 on Mars. This is strong evidence that the Sun drives climate on Mars. The Sun is probably also the main driving force for climate on Earth.”

What does that suggest to you? Do you think we should just go ahead and trust Algore, because he did make that nifty movie you know? Or should we maybe hold off on this crap and trade BS and look into this a little more first. I realize that Algore has an Honorary Doctorate from McDonald’s Hamburger U but Ian is pretty sharp too. If you will just buy, borrow, steal or rent Prof. Plimer’s book, Heaven and Earth, and look on page 215, second paragraph (because God forbid anyone should actually buy it, read it, and learn) you will find the quote from above and it is backed up with actual real life science and not nifty graphics.

The only reason I’m going here is because the gay rights activists (my term for legislators) on Capitol hill are trotting out their warmi legislation again and it needs to stop now until we can rid this world of them in November. Call them. E-mail them. Write them a nasty-gram. Or stop by and visit them. But let them know that you will not be tipping them this December when they have returned to the only real job they are qualified for, vacuuming out your ashtray at the car wash, if they vote for this now. Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Jim Crow Laws And Smoking

So I’m listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show today and Walter E. Williams is guest hosting. Now he’s talking about Rand Paul and he’s trying to encourage him to vigorously defend his position regarding his response to some question from a lib where he kind of stammered and they took it out of context and made it sound like he was against civil rights for blacks.

Now I have heard of Walter E. Williams before and I have read some of his stuff but I’ve never heard him speak. He is a very compelling speaker and he goes into this long and convoluted comparison using Jim Crow laws. He gets to a part where he is telling how the Jim Crow laws came into being and Williams says how when street cars, that were privately owned, started being segregated some of the companies did not want to segregate. Well the companies who did segregate started to lose business so they got the city council to make these laws so that everybody had to segregate.

Up until now I am just listening. Then he says it’s just like smoking bans and I remember this. Bars and restaurants that did not want smoking, banned it. So people started going in droves to the ones that did not have the ban. The liberal jerks in the nonsmoking joints got the city to make a law so that everyone had to do it. That, my friends, sums up the liberal agenda. Is everybody happy now? Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Red Meat

How about some good news for a change. Steak is okay to eat. Now that’s news I like. It’s true, the Harvard School of Public Health has just finished a new study on red meat that says steak is okay. This is particularly good news for me since I survive on red meat, bread, cheese, and beer. I call it the monks diet. Anyway, I rarely listen to the latest fad “poison food” scare. It seems like everything I like is just pure poison but it never seems to be outlawed. What’s that all about?

Sugar is one I just don’t believe. Sure too much is going to hurt you. And when they found it in hamburgers I thought that was an awful strange place for sugar. It seems like they have sugar and salt in almost everything you eat anymore. I suppose the food companies claim they are just giving the people what they want but I think it’s more along the lines of the tobacco companies who were putting stuff in their products to keep people coming back for more. Just what does the food and drug administration do anyway?

I am happy that I have always tried to have steak when possible, even if it was cheap, at least it was natural and not full of additives. My favorite was the wild venison I used to have on hand. Great taste and less poison. If you are not buying this from me the links above will take you to more evidence. Study takes you to the actual press release from Harvard and steak is okay takes you to a video with the science guy from the Wall Street Journal. Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Constitution Pt. 25

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There it is. The First Amendment. Short isn’t it? Hard to believe those few words mean so much. Let’s break it down. “Congress shall make no law”. Is that straight forward enough? It means Congress shall make no law. Are there any questions about this part?

“Respecting an establishment of religion”. An establishment of religion. What does that mean? If you establish a religion that calls for animal sacrifice what happens now? How about snake handling? Are these things protected here? What about human sacrifice? What about oppressing women as our mooslim friends do? Are these all protected?

You say as long as they’re not breaking any law it’s OK. Well the first part says Congress shall make no law. Now what? This sure got complicated fast didn’t it? I submit to you that these are all OK. The establishment of a religion that teaches human sacrifice is protected. Period. It is protected by the First Amendment. Now let’s move ahead.

“Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Now we  have a problem, don’t we? Did you think that maybe this was a mystical document tucked away somewhere containing infinite wisdom? How are we going to rectify this? I’ll give you the animal sacrifice as this doesn’t really break any laws. I’ll give you the oppression as long as it is consensual. But I don’t think we can allow the human sacrifice even if it’s consensual, can we?

Moving on, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. What exactly does “abridging” mean? To deprive. Abridging means depriving. Does this mean that we can say whatever we want whenever we want? What about racial slurs, are they protected? What about the proverbial yelling fire in a crowded movie theater? How about inciting a riot, has the Congress deprived us of free speech by making that law? I think all of it is protected. This kind of puts a cramp in the hate speech laws doesn’t it?

“Congress shall make no law of the press”. Now that’s weird isn’t it? Is it Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the press? Or is it Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press? Or is it all-inclusive Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of, or abridging the freedom of the press? I think it’s just abridging the freedom. I think the establishment is just for the religion because we sure have a lot of laws regarding the establishment of the press.

“Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. How about Tea Parties, are they protected here? Townhalls? Conventions? Company picnics? Family reunions? This all sounds OK right? What about a group of people getting together to practice and train with their firearms? Are they peaceably assembled?

And finally, “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Now I have heard some people say that the people can petition the gubmint about their grievances but that don’t mean the gubmint has to do anything about it but I beg to differ. Redress, what does that mean? It means the setting right of what is wrong. So, the gubmint has to set it right according to this. Not just listen but actually fix it.

OK, we have covered a lot of ground here for a short little Amendment but the thing is that this is a right. It is God-given. But the key is responsibility. Somebody has to take responsibility in order to have these rights. That’s where animal rights falls down. Animals do not take responsibility for their actions and people must. Without responsibility there is no right. If you apply this across the board you will find that no sane human being is going to yell fire in a crowded movie theater or sacrifice Aunt Emma to the sun god.

If you have any questions or comments please leave them in the comments section. Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Constitution Pt. 24

Congress of the United States

begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

The Conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of t he several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution: viz..

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution…

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States,

and President of the Senate.

ATTEST,

JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

SAM A. OTIS Secretary of the Senate.

On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights.

This is the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. In one week, when I return, we will start with the First Amendment. It’s short but I think we’ll find plenty of things to discuss here. Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Constitution Pt. 23

In Convention Monday September 17th 1787.

Present The States of

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Resolved,

That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of the nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution.

That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected; That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.

By the unanimous Order of the Convention

G. WASHINGTON-Presid.

W> JACKSON Secretary.

That is the Convention. This week I have a special schedule. I have to travel for work so I will be out of communication for the week but tomorrow I will post the convening of Congress and then the week after, when I return it will be the usual four days of rants mixed with news then we will start with the First Amendment. Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Who’s Responsible

Today I have a question for you. Who is responsible for this country? Let’s look at this question in a few different ways. Who is responsible for our economic situation? Is Bush really the one who is responsible for all this crap? He did start it didn’t he? Did Bush start tarp or was it Pelosi and the boys? Or, is Obama responsible now? After all, he is the man in charge. When you buy a company do you go in and a year later blame its failure on the fact that your predecessor started it?

OK, let’s forget that for now. Who is responsible for border security? Bush didn’t get the fence built. Obama isn’t working on it. Should the State of Arizona do it all? What about Sheriff Joe? Can he do it all? I hear he’s running for Governor. The Governor they have is doing a pretty good job isn’t she? But what about Texas? Here’s an ADD question. How come we don’t hear about problems in New Mexico? Arnold is a total waste of space but then California got what they bargained for.

OK, forget that. What about unemployment? Why are GM and GE not doing more for America’s workers? (That even sounds communist.) Should there be some kind of law that says everybody is entitled to a job? What about Steve Jobs? He’s doing pretty well isn’t he? Shouldn’t he put on some more people? Or maybe the Microsoft guy, I hear he’s doing pretty good? Say, what about the feds? I hear they’re putting on 16,000 IRS agents? What’s that all about anyway?

OK, let’s look at this from my prospective. Who TOOK responsibility over the fields of Pennsylvania on September 11? Oh yeah. The American people baby, that’s who. I submit to you that the American people are responsible for this whole thing. Perhaps we should get off our couch and go vote. Or maybe do something radical like campaign for the candidate that is going to do the job we elect them for. How about this, get yourself elected? Ow that’s freaky huh?

Hey, just shooting from the hip here. Until next time, screw environmentalists.