The (Liberal) First Amendment

There are two versions of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

1. 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.


And then there's the Liberal's version of the Amendment:

2. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of ourspeech, or of the press associated with us; or the right of the people we choose to allow peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Only those who agree with our opinions (people, the press and otherwise) will be allowed any true 'freedom of speech' without our interference.


The screams (of protest) the second version will be little surprise, as neither will be the vicious slander (of myself) that I am certain is to follow my choosing to ignore the protests. I can imagine I will be called all sorts of terrible things, and I will be attacked from every angle. I have seen it happen on too many blogs, in too many networks, to think I might be given anything else.

Conservatives are not always a prize package... I will not deny that... but at least we are willing to admit that some of our members (even some of our leaders, perhaps!) are not everything we want them to be. That they do not hold up to the standards we set - that they are hypocritical.

Democrats are known for hypocrisy. The blinders they have on must be immense, and how they can see any part of reality is something I wonder all the time. They attack their opponents for things they themselves do, and then when brought to the question, they attack again, or lie, even when faced with irrefutable proof they are lying.

For example, we have Al Gore, the self-styled 'inventor of the Internet'. The man is a joke, as pretty much everyone who will be reading this knows very well already. His own opinion of himself far outweighs any real capability on his part.

To give an example I have used many times before - we have his unwillingness to fly on a commercial airplane, instead choosing to use a gas-guzzling private jet. How can we learn from your example, Mister Gore, when you create such a quantity of (as you call them) 'greenhouse gasses' crossing the country on a private jet because you're too snide to fly in pubic (with Secret Service agents)?

And what of Mrs. Clinton and the matter of licenses for illegal immigrants? She did a fine job of tripping over her own tounge several weeks ago when she had to cover her butt because her support for Spitzer backfired in her face. Hillary is, as I have heard said in several articles, a typical Liberal, trying to have it 'both ways', as it were, and to have the support of all sides.

Truth no longer matters to Liberals, as shown by their relation to the First Amendment of our constitution. As I have said before, the Amendment is only fitting to theirstandard, and anyone who dissagrees with them is not allowed its protection, as far as they are concerned.

Under other circumstances I'd make a sarcastic comment here, but the circumstances are such that it would not be appropriate, because their behavior is what the world expects from them - indignancy and arrogance. Truth is not one-sided... unless you're a Democrat.

Allowances...

The Iranian president spoke at Columbia University the other day. There was obligatory objection to some of the statements he made by the University staff, and 'snarls' from newspapers, with more coming now.

It really is amazing what's acceptable and what isn't. Many people (in the United States and in Europe) accept the attacks on Israelis by the Middle East (I would make a bet, 9 out of 10 that Iran is involved in funding the terrorists, as well as the still-radical former associates of the PLO...), and there is the obligatory wrist-slap and scolding...

But we are dealing with a different, though related, matter here and now. I was reading the news earlier (on several web sites, though I will not deny I prefer what I consider more balanced sites - such as FoxNews or Sean Hannity's site), and human rights groups are screaming as loudly as they may over the comments made by Iraninan P.M. Ahmadinejad in reference to his comment (paraphrased here) that "... there are no gays in our country, as there are in yours,".

The extremist Iranian government has been murdering people for many, many years, for all sorts of (what would be considered, at least, in this country) 'minor infractions', if they would be considered 'infractions' at all.

As I've asked before... what have we come to, when such behaviors as the Iranians undertake - the beating of women who do not behave to a rediculous, chauvenistic standard, the killing of people who do not agree with their religious beleifs, and the hanging of people who do not fit their standard as for what is 'acceptable' in society.

Some of the world claims to have come a 'long way' in the past several hundred years. But, I will ask, where have we gone when the United States is not truly supported by its people or by our supposed 'allies' in the U.N.? We have gone to a terrible place.

It's like deciding, when a boat is sinking, who you save based on, for example, what level of education they have, or because of their political orientation. Both are totally unacceptable reasons, but people still choose to follow blindly.

I can think of a fallen nation on this Earth where people used to do things of that sort. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whom it is I'm referring to.

All I finish with is a prayer that God above will save us from the folly of the ignorant religious zealots who populate the world - in this case, those of the Middle East and their relatives.

May Adonai bless you and keep you - to the Jews out there... l'shana tovah.

Convenient Speech

This will be quick.

I finally saw a reaction from PETA today, in the Michael Vick case. Convenient how they only get (directly and visibly) involved when the matter is already long at hand, and various groups have said 'don't convict him before the trial, without proof!'

I would say there's proof enough, folks, and that more of his co-defendants are going to turn State's Evidence before long...

Yet another example of how our society has reduced morality to a matter of profit.

PETA Hypocrisy

This post is about animal cruelty and the hypocrisy of those who claim to 'fight' it. I'm referring, as made obvious by the post title, to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - more about them later) and its associate organizations' behavior during the recent matter of a certain football player (Michael Vick) and his running a dog-fighting arena. A matter they seem to be completely ignoring.

In the past, I have heard PETA referred to as a bunch of terrorists who go around wreaking havoc, throwing mud on people wearing furs and leather, and causing damage to laboratories.

Apparently, the cruelty of animal testing and the fur/leather industry mean more than the cruelty of training dogs in to viciousness, then setting them loose on each other in a small ring. Those animals are then bet upon, as to which one will win. The loser is killed. I have heard of dogs being put to sleep, shot, or beaten to death.

It's horrific, and for some reason we haven't heard a single word out of PETA during the entire matter. Some of the media is making a hue and cry about Vick's behavior, but not a peep out of an organization that claims to dedicate itself to the preservation of animal lives, and the discouragement of animal cruelty.

Turning a blind eye to this doesn't say much for PETA. I hope I get some responses to this post, because I really want to see if anyone out there knows where PETA and their sanctimonious behavior are when these animals need (and deserve) some champions. No, they aren't having tests performed on them, no, they're not being skinned and turned in to coats, gloves, hats and shoes, but they should be receiving the same protection as the animals that are.

I guess they don't think throwing animal blood on a football player will make as much a difference for their cause as doing it to a scientist or a clothing manufacturer. Too bad for the dogs… they apparently don’t matter.

Getting Away with it All...

Reasonable limits...

People keep talking about those, and then they only apply them when they feel they are necessary - only when they apply to the cases that they want them to apply to.

Case in point: an article from the NY Times I saw on AOL recently. It was about a
(man I consider a)dirtbag who's been posting pictures (fully clothed, but still inappropriate, considering what accompanies them) of young children on his web site. A site that was shut down recently by its host, but that he plans to restart the function of with a foreign host. Dutch, I believe.

This is the first time I've seen a Californian Liberal (in recent history) complain about a child-related pervert. Most of the time they claim that we're either violating the rights of those animals or that we're falsely accusing them. No matter what our reasons are, they say, we have no right to protest their actions.

Suddenly, now that they are being directly affected, it's become an important issue to them. When it involves East Coast parties, then it is acceptable to claim that the police have 'falsely accused' the parties involved - and when a man like this starts doing online postings about 'trolling' for children on the West Coast, it is 'unacceptable' and 'inappropriate'.

Make up your minds, folks. Either do what's right and support all the kids, or support the people who damage our children in the name of their own pleasure.

Dog Fighting...

I just heard a story on one of the radio shows about how an NFL player's being held responsible (we'll see if it actually happens or not) for his involvement in some illegal dog fighting on his property. That, when it comes down to it, as terrible as it is that it happened, important as it is that it be stopped, is not the main matter at hand here, however.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who's heard of PETA - People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals. They're a wild bunch - none too nice, and certainly viscious when it comes to their beliefs. They will go to seemingly any lengths for the protection of those animals... and indeed in the past they've gone to almost rediculous lengths to get their point across.

Tonight, though, I have to say I agree with one of Mark Levin's callers. He spoke of how similar deeds as were being done to those poor canines were being undertaken in Iraqi prisons before the United States went in to the country and dealt with the monster formerly called Saddam Hussein.

Simply enough, all the time I hear people screaming about how we need to treat ANIMALS more fairly... I have one question for them: Where are you when PEOPLE are being tortured in a similar fashion?

These are the same people who support the 'Libs and say that Republicans/Conservatives are 'Monsters'. It's such hypocrisy that they say these things, and then when the time comes to step up behind their beliefs and support them for a creature that we do not consider an 'animal' (e.g., a cat, dog or rabbit), such as a man or woman being held captive, they are NOWHERE to be seen!

Hypocrisy DOES love to run in packs, doesn't it, now?

I know they (referring to the aforementioned 'libs (liberals) probably won't be willing to listen, and even if they do, the chances are that they will say I'm being 'rediculous', or 'unfair'.

Very unfair that I think we should grant our own kind the same fair treatment that so many (including myself) feel that animals of all sorts deserve, no?

Where are the ethics of it, my friends, if we won't give our own kind the same respect we give other species?

Definitions

To come on to a completely different subject than the one I've discussed so many times in the past... I go to child sexual abuse and the support it seems to receive in various ways throughout our nation.

Paraphrasing a book I once read, the game with these animals is all about euphemism. For example, do you know the actual definition of the term 'pedophile'? There is a reason, you see, that child molesters and the members of NAMBLA (The Nat’l American Man-Boy Love Assoc.), a group that I will discuss later or at another time) use that term.

'Pedophile' means, simply enough, 'lover of children', when translated from its original Latin, and it does not mean 'love' in the sense that the child molester puts it. Also, something said by NAMBLA associates, is to call their actions 'intergenerational love'. It's enough to make you want to throw up.

The only way that someone who puts their hands (sexually) on a child 'loves' that child is the same way they'd 'love' a nice house or car, or a good meal. They love the feeling it creates in them - one of pleasure. To these, children are nothing more than a toy or an object. Something to be used and/or played with, then thrown in to the trash when the user has no more interest in it.

From what I understand, NAMBLA has made available (on any number of occasions) information about how a man could 'find his way' to 'love a little boy' as he chooses to. Of course, they're careful to make sure that they don't give any ways to do it in this nation (and if they've ever done that, they've done their best not to be obvious about it), but they make it easy for their associate molesters (I will not refer to them as pedophiles' - that is their word, as I said earlier) to get what they want.

Of course, any member of that organization would call me a 'fascist', or use some similar term, and say, "You're denying these children their right to do as they will!"

They're children. There's a reason there's a charge called statutory rape, and it’s because the kids in primary question (I would say generally, at most, in their early teens, if even that old…) here have no concept of what saying ‘yes’ means. They are not, despite the beliefs of NAMBLA, capable of understanding of what these acts will do to their bodies, or their minds.

Also, we find sometimes NAMBLA and its associates trying to throw in with the homo- and bi-sexual crowds. I can tell you from conversations I’ve had with friends of both orientations that as far as they’re concerned, child molesters have nothing to do with their beliefs. Molesting a child is a crime, they say to me, and I agree wholeheartedly.
I conclude with this statement: I hear people all the time talking about how the “abuser needs help.” What about the victim?

Enough...

The President has not taken in to enough consideration the consequences of this so-called amnesty bill. Not only would it create a rather sizable block of new liberal voters, further unbalancing our two-party system, but it would also put a sizable strain on a welfare system that most of these people are probably already using with false social security numbers.

According to Ann Coulter, whites were a 2/3 majority in the U.S. Not to be racist, but, by 2050, we're going to be a significant minority, if the number of immigrants continues to increase.

Something else that is not taken in to consideration, from what I can see, is that doing this will create a significant number of people who suddenly have to be paid at the minumum wage, which a lot of businesses in this country are not going to like - even the Unions, who claim to be anti-illegal immigrant use illegal labor for their construction rather than their associates (as I myslef saw recently, near where I work). This will encourage attempts to try to continue illegal immigration, as businesses try to replace their 'cheap labor'.

Some immigrants may even attempt to remain illegal, since even a lot of people who are legal citizens in this counry are convinced we're living in a police state. An associate of mine (a black gentleman I have known for a very, very long time, more than 20 years) has told me about any number of other blacks he knows, to give an example, who refuse to get EZ-Pass - an item used on the East Coast to get through toll booths to and from bridges, tunnels and roadways more rapidly. They seem to think that the government is monitoring where they're going (and when) if they use EZ-Pass.

What they don't seem to understand is that even if you wait that extra 20 minutes (or however long or short you're there for), your face and license plate are photographed the moment you come in to the toll booth. If the government wanted to know where you were, they'd know already, so stop with the conspiracy theories already. They're getting very tiring.

But there is something even more important than that - another reason we should be more careful about immigration - the reason I believe our borders should be under heavy guard. We have terrorists using our 'open borders' to come in to the country illegally.

Illegal labor is one thing. Getting blown to bits is something else entirely. I like being in one piece (and breathing), so we need to start being more careful, if not because of the damage that illegal labor does to our economy (and will continue to do, likely no matter what), but because our lives are in danger because of madmen we seem to welcome with open arms, whether they come to the U.S. with permission or not.

Only In Vermont

A woman was arrested at some point within the past few days for one of the most rediculous reasons I've ever heard, and it's something that could ONLY have happened in the Northeastern United States.

She was making faces at a police dog.

They claim she was distracting the dog from its duties by doing so - she had a pretty high BAC (approximately .21), but they attempted to charge her with animal cruelty.

For making faces at a dog.

I think there are reasonable limits, folks, and we just passed one of them. Her behavior was perhaps, not appropriate, but there is no reason for charging her with what they attempted to (the 'cruelty' charge didn't go through). From what I know of them, dogs are not stupid animals, and a police dog... well, a police dog I would have expected to have been trained to ignore distractions from the duties it had been trained to do.

I think perhaps if they're afraid a dog could be distracted by someone sticking their tounge out at it (or something of that sort) we need to work on our animal training for the Vermont Police Department.

A Long-sought understanding, Finally Realized.

From our parents and our grandparents, we have heard so many stories. Stories of monsters that are seemingly unbelievable - and I do not, unfortunately, mean creatures of fantasy, like the creatures that my friends in elementary school used to make me think lived under my bed.

I mean men such as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Men like the leaders of Vietnam and North Korea during the late twentieth century. Creatures of terrible darkness - creatures that various members of our society do not want our children to learn of, anymore.

The Holocaust has, in part, become (to use it as an example) an ethnic pity-party. Six million Jews died in that war, among them my Oma's entire family, and much of my Opa's as well. That's quite a number, when you think about it- six million lives suddenly extinguished, as if they had never been.

What we neglect to remember, be we Jewish or otherwise, is that at least SIX MILLION PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE JEWS died at the hands of the Nazis. TWELVE million. It is a number far more frightening than six.

Yet the politicians, and so many liberal Jews (I am, I will say again, Jewish, the son of two Reform Jews, both politically conservative, as am I) have turned it exclusively in to a Jewish concern. Every other life lost in the Holocaust is forgotten. They are forgotten so much so, in fact, that the leader of Iran chooses to say the Holocaust never happened - likely because he hates Jews. Yet he has never taken the others who died in to consideration, and I doubt that he ever will.

And I do not think the Liberals take it in to consideration. I wonder sometimes if they even remember that the Holocaust took place, and if it did, if they remember anything or anyone other than the Jews who died.

During the war that surrounded that horror, many Americans gave their lives for the sake of the rest of the world - for the sake of other Americans as well, and for that they were thanked, and thanked strongly - the country stood behind its troops. People gave of themselves - sacrificed their needs so that those who fought for our freedom could have the food, weapons and equipment they needed to win the battles they fought.

During Korea, we were not as prepared as we should have been, and we were kicked in the shins for it, to use the expression. We paid the price for that so-named 'Police Action', but we still brought a cease-fire that kept Seoul safe from the socialists of North Korea.

Then came the 1960s, and Vietnam. The behavior of our people during that war is almost as bad as that of the Liberals in our country now, and their reaction to the situation in Iraq. They disgust me; they have no concept of the harm their words cause. These men are fighting for us - dying for our freedom, and they spit upon them, and upon what they believe in. It makes me sick.

They concern themselves exclusively with politics - exclusively with winning their precious votes and their 'power'. Yet that has no meaning without freedom… and the men who fight to help us keep that freedom (and others achieve it) are derided for their actions.

All the news media speak of is the negative - they do not speak of how we took the people of Iraq out from under a horrible regime - Saddam Hussein, too, it seems, is forgotten in the wake of the Liberals' desire for power. The deaths he caused with his gassing of Kurds, and the troops he used to pull people from their families and kill them for deriding him… it is all forgotten when the time comes for the vote to be cast to decide if our supposed 'leaders' get to keep their jobs.

There was a debate on the other night between the Democratic presidential nominees… or at least that was what it was supposed to be. It turned in to a Bush-bash, which somehow just does not surprise me. When it comes down to it, a Liberal (Democrat or otherwise) has a difficult time answering questions and giving simple information - they have a much easier time attacking people for their supposed wrongs and faults.

They are like leeches, sucking the lifeblood out of our nation. Drawing out our freedoms, and trying to bury us under an endlessly expanding government… one they hope one day will have the power to rule the lives of everyone but themselves.

In the end, however, that is not truly what disgusts me about the Liberals of our beloved United States. My disgust is shown far better by a simple act on their part - a show they put on for the rest of us, fooling us in to believing they care about our nation.

My disgust is best shown through two acts they have put on, and excellent acts they were, I must say. They certainly had me fooled. After 9/11, so many of the Democrats who now attack our President screamed for Saddam Hussein's head, and for the al Quaeda to be wiped out, and when the time came to vote, they stood by our President in his declarations.

Yes, they stood with him… as long as it was politically advantageous to do so.

Now, though, they have forgotten 9/11, if they ever truly remembered the lives of those we lost during that horror in the first place, and their only concern is attacking their opposition with lies and misinformation so that they might further empower their party.

Every life lost no longer important, every lost American, Iraqi and otherwise, is only important to the Liberals (and their media supporters) when they can use those lives to further their ends.

Our grandparents, in many cases, when they were our age, would have found the behavior of the Liberals to be disgusting. That it was something that lessened everyone who came in to direct contact with it.

We might agree… but to the Liberals it's just another tool.