27 September 2006

Say it again

Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist, Islamofacist,

There, I said it and I am proud! Go pound pig fat, Mohammad....

10 September 2006

Second Amendment Sisters

We Hold These Truths
©By Genie Jennings
Second Amendment Sisters
Maine Coordinator
June 2006
If we question anything about our Founders, it must be how they determined the equality of all men, and rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be “self-evident.” Philosophically, such a priori knowledge would be the only explanation, for there was certainly no empirical evidence to support such a theory. Instead, to this day it is easy to find evidence to the contrary.
Yet, we are each of us born with this innate knowledge of freedom and equality. There is a striving within all humans to achieve both. The history of western civilization portrays a long, bloody struggle that culminated in our American Revolution. Then, mankind took a quantum leap and “. . .brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” 1
Our Founding Fathers had two compelling concepts when they met to construct our Constitution. First, they wanted to devise a form of government based on the needs and desires of the governed people themselves. Second, they wanted to limit the powers of that government.
As students of history they were aware and wary of the tendency of power to be concentrated. The three branches of our government were designed to avoid that concentration. One segment, the legislature, is responsible for making laws; a second, the executive, for carrying out those laws; and a third, the judicial, for determining the validity of those laws. This federal government would honor the rights of states to conduct internal matters, and would honor the rights of individual citizens. .It is essential to remember this mind-set, and the circumstances under which the Constitution was written. The country had just concluded a horrific war of rebellion. The war had severed ties not only with a European kingdom, but also with neighbors and family. The American Revolution was not the desire of all the colonists. The aftermath was brutal and vindictive. The war had taken a tremendous toll in lives and fortunes and energy and spirit. Their sacrifices were not in vain, for the result was a country that has been the beacon to the world since its inception. There is something in the heart of man that longs for liberty and equality.
There is something in the nature of man that attempts to deny both to others. The Constitution of the United States is primarily a description of the limits of the federal government. It was divided into branches to dissipate power, thus making it difficult to deprive the citizenry of their Creator-given rights. The Bill of Rights was added as amendments to the document to list some, while cautioning that there are other unenumerated ones. Assaults are constantly made against those rights. They are eroded before a complacent public unless and until their importance is understood by enough people to spark a protest. Few have been as contested as the Second Amendment.
Its importance cannot be denied. It is the second amendment to the Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was considered paramount to our founders. In the original ten amendments it comes immediately after that which describes our inherent rights to think and worship and gather together and communicate. We have the right to protect all those other rights.
Each of us has a vested interest in maintaining our unique form of government. Our elected officials, as do our military, swear an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. Each citizen has a duty to do the same. It is, after all, a government of the People, by the People, for the People.
The first clause of the Second Amendment has been a stumbling block in recent years. ‘Militia’ say those who would limit the right to keep and bear arms, ‘now is the National Guard; therefore, there is no individual right.’ Many activists, who strive to protect all Rights, especially enumerated Rights and particularly this Right; often ignore that first clause because of its seeming ambiguity.
Constitutionalists understand that “militia” is the key to the Second Amendment. It not only defines the Right, but is the essence of its true importance. For the militia is the citizen army, not forces under the command of state or federal governors.
It was the citizen who grabbed his musket and rushed to “ . . .that rood bridge that arched the flood” to “fire the shot heard ‘round the world.” 2 It was the militia, the citizen army, who augmented Washington’s forces. It was the militia, ordinary citizens, who turned out in Baltimore to fight off the British blockade.
Individuals kept their muskets ready to protect their homes and families. Cannons sat on town greens to protect the public buildings. The militia, the citizens, hastened together to fight fires and invaders.
Our population has grown and we have become a nation of specialists. We hire soldiers and sailors to protect us against foreign invasion. We hire police to protect us against criminals. Yet, ultimately, we cannot depend upon these others; we cannot shirk our duties. We are the militia. Self-defense is a basic human right. The Second Amendment is the Constitution’s self-defense. We must honor it. We must uphold it. We, too, must be prepared to sacrifice for it. Our nation was conceived in liberty. It can long endure.
1Abraham Lincoln2 Ralph Waldo Emerson

http://www.2asisters.org/

WTF!

Apparently this country has forgotten where exactly the 9/11 terrorists came from:

"Thousands of students from Saudi Arabia are enrolling on college campuses across the United States this semester under a new educational exchange program brokered by President Bush and Saudi King Abdullah. " (H/T Captainsquarters).

And President Bush is brokering a deal to let more potential terrorists in? This has got to be one of the stupidist things that I have seen all day (although the day is young) and perhaps all week. Let me be clear on one point: I do not consider all Saudis terrorists. However, considering the lax monitoring of student visa's and considering that daring probe beyond the usual questions apparently constitutes harrassment of practitioners of the Religion of Peace, this seems to me a very stupid policy!

CaptainEd (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008028.php#trackbacks) attempts to argue that allowing 15,000 young Muslim men into this country can somehow serve to "moderate" the radical elements of Islam. Sorry, sir as much as I appreciate and admire your opnions, on this you are dead wrong.

Admissions offices across the country are probably jumping for joy at the thot of all those full-tuition students. And we know well the whorish nature academia. In what fields do these students study? Almost universally real (hard) science. Let me speculate for a minute: Aside from the symbolism, why did the terriorists of 9/11 choose the World Trade Center? The WTC was a uniquely constructed building with a central structural core and with cantilevered floors. I suspect that someone (hint: these weren't philosphy or poli-sci majors) did their homework and determined how to inflict maximum damage. Was the 1993 attack benchtest? Was it an attempt to destablize the building and collect information? I don't know for sure, but it seems logicial and would one way I would approach the problem.

My opinion: keep the Saudis out, at least until they manage to "earn" their way back.


Note to self- Pick up another couple of boxes of .308.

AWOL

I'll admit to being AWOL. Between the "paycheck yoke", a late run of coho salmon, and a bout of general laziness I haven't had the time to think let alone post. It has been a busy close of summer. Looks like I am going to miss another season of moose hunting! Sometimes I wish I wasn't a responsible adult.

I have been following The Path to 9/11 bruhaa closely. Until the congress critters Dirty Harry Reid and Dick "The Turbin" Durbin, et. al. weighed-in with the threats to ABC's broadcast priveleges it was amusing. Now it is serious. Rarely do I watch television and almost never the big three sisters. But in light of Bubba and his lawyers complaints, I think that I will tune in, if for no other reason than spite.

When the letter from Reid, Durbin, et. al. first came out I thought it was a hoax, either as a prop to generate controversy and thereby boost ratings, or by those intent on rewriting the Clinton hoping to kill the production. I couldn't imagine those open minded liberals objecting to contraverseal material considering the Michael Moore production of his view of 9/11 or the conspiracy nuts and Loose Change. Afterall, weren't these same senators that funded the crucifix in urine display through the NEA?

Look, I doubt that The Path to 9/11 is going to change any minds about what happened. There is enough blame to spread here. Are the Democrats so afraid of a different view? Other opinions? Where are the discussions that they are so very proud of touting? Terrorism didn't begin in January 2000 with the inaguration of George Bush nor will it end with his term, contrary to what the idiots on the left believe.

Redstate.org (www.redstate.org) has 6 clips of The Path to 9/11 (http://www.redstate.com/911clips) which I think covers the entire "docu-drama". You can judge for yourself.

John at PowerlineBlog, has an excellent -as always- analysis (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015216.php). BTW there is a comprehensive list of terrorist acts which occured prior to January 2000.