Category: Citizenship

Posted on

When is a “right” not a right?

When it’s licensed, restricted and controlled by the government. When those strictures are applied, “rights” are simply privileges granted by the state, not truly rights.

This thought was, of course, spurred by the upcoming Supreme Court case concerning Washington D.C.’s handgun ban. The specific comment in the recent WaPo article that turned my crank was,

“But even fundamental rights are subject to government restrictions… ”

Yep. That’s so. Suppose your pastor were to make comments from the pulpit about the record of a political candidate revealing that person to be unfit for government service because of specific biblical references to the nature, scope and limits of civil government. In fact, such arguments are completely religious, spiritual and proper from a Christian pulpit, and past generations of Americans would have easily recognized that fact (largely because past generations of Americans–whether they were Christians or not–were far more literate than contemporary Americans and well-versed, even the most anti-christian among them, with the Bible). Today, we have bought the communist-socialist (hence, ACLU dogma) lie that such comments are disallowed by the First Amendment.

Poppycock! Only an illiterate (or lying) person could in any way, shape, fashion of form misread that amendment to get such a result.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… ”

And yet, Congress has passed laws into effect and empowered government agencies to do exactly that. You are free to practice your religion only so far as it does not impinge itself directly upon the practice of politics in any meaningful way.

And what of the other, enumerated, rights of citizens found in the Constitution?

All “subject to government restrictions” of course, because they are no longer recognized as rights but privileges granted by the PTB.

Or, twisted to meaninglessness by liars, poltroons and fools to match up with their own agendas. Just take the First Amendment for example. It was specifically drafted to prevent the federal government from interfering in any way with the practice of individuals in matters of religious conscience, speech and behavior. (For now I’m going to sidestep the abortion of Constitutional precepts embedded in the 14th Amendment.) And what else does it deal with?

POLITICAL speech (read the Framers before you try to argue with me on that one).

The PEOPLE’s rights to assemble peaceably and to seek redress for federal government oppression/mistreatment (wanna join a march for freedom from IRS bullying? Right. I thought not. Don’t want your name on THAT list *sigh*).

A press unencumbered by federal restraints.

But as you well know, freedom of speech is now applied in ways the Framers would find inexplicable, abhorrent, stupid. Trivializing freedom of speech is useful to those who want to restrict the freedom of political speech, and such as McCain-Feingold is but one result.

Heck, the only part of the First Amendment still standing nowadays is freedom of the press, and that’s likely because the press is almost all on the side of tearing down real freedom and replacing it with Orwell’s 1984.

So, as the monkeys on the SCOTUS consider what the Second amendment means, follow along and allegorically apply the G.K Chesterton quote in my right sidebar:

“Though drinking may be a caprice, it is a caprice that cannot be forbidden to a citizen, but can be forbidden to a slave.” G.K. Chesterton

Since the federal government seeks to make slaves of us with its unconscionable prying into our lives on serious matters (like restricting the ennumerated rights in the Bill of Rights that the document says the federal government can NOT), just watch all the other rights we have eaten away as they are deemed either capricious or dangerous by TPTB.

Chattel slavery wasn’t the only thing that was formally ended at Appomattox:

“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.”

Remember,

“Though drinking may be a caprice, it is a caprice that cannot be forbidden to a citizen, but can be forbidden to a slave.”

I’m just waiting for the SCOTUS to deem “keep[ing] and bear[ing] arms” a caprice that’s no longer necessary (or a right that is too dangerous) for citizens to retain.

Headed down the road to slavery. Not chattel slavery, exactly, but worse in some ways.

THIS is an open trackbacks post. Link to THIS post and track back. 🙂

If you have a linkfest/open trackback post to promote OR if you simply want to promote a post via the linkfests/open trackback posts others are offering, GO TO LINKFEST HAVEN DELUXE! Just CLICK the link above or the graphic immediately below.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

If you want to host your own linkfests but have not yet done so, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance. The FAQ there is very helpful in understanding linkfests/open trackbacks.

Posted on

Hobson’s Choice

“A Hobson’s choice is a free choice in which only one option is offered, and one may refuse to take that option. The choice is therefore between taking the option or not taking it. The phrase is said to originate from Thomas Hobson (1544–1630), a livery stable owner at Cambridge, England who, in order to rotate the use of his horses, offered customers the choice of either taking the horse in the stall nearest the door—or taking none at all. It is analagous to the expression ‘my way or the highway’.”1

Well, the presidential field is narrowed even further, it seems. Now, we have a choice between candidates who want to drive the country off a cliff to its doom at 120mph and candidates who want to drive the country off a cliff at a sedate 75mph…

Not really much of a choice.

Makes the case for striving to see congresscritters, state and local pols elected who give a damn about more than just their own personal power and their “Surrender, America!” ideologies. (And if you think for one minute Juan McCain’s “surrender America’s sovereignty at the borders” position isn’t fundamentally the same as the other candidates’ “Surrender America” positions then you are sadly deluded.)

Look closely at candidates for Congress, for state and local offices. Vote “Hell no!” against those whose positions fail to defend the U.S., your State or locality against the evils of alien invasion and… invasive government. Vote for people with the [intestinal fortitude] to tell “Surrender America!” judges, executives and bureaucrats to take a quick ride on the express train to hell.

THIS is an open trackbacks post. Link to THIS post and track back. 🙂

If you have a linkfest/open trackback post to promote OR if you simply want to promote a post via the linkfests/open trackback posts others are offering, GO TO LINKFEST HAVEN DELUXE! Just CLICK the link above or the graphic immediately below.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

If you want to host your own linkfests but have not yet done so, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance. The FAQ there is very helpful in understanding linkfests/open trackbacks.

Posted on

More from the illiterate alien invaders…

On May 1, 2006, I posted “The Proper Display of the Mexican Flag on American Soil” in partial response to alien invaders disrespecting the American flag and displaying the Mexican flag above it… on American soil. I have left comments open for that and for another post in response to the alien invaders partially because I enjoy gleaning dumbass reactions like the one above (from a computer logged on via the Tallahassee, Florida, Broward County Public Schools… of course *heh*)

Victoria Garcia | www.teardrop_13_SG@hotmail.com | IP: 169.139.119.16

All american are some stupid a** who think that you belong here. First of all we were here before you all so if you think that we should go back to our country we R already here. WHITE poeple should hop back on to the MayFlower & go back to BRITIN!
OH AND WE R MEXICAN 4 LIFE NOT LATINOS, LATINOS R RICANS

Feb 6, 11:33 AM

The illiterate boob styling herself (?) “Victoria Garcia” fisks herself; I need make no further comment… but I will, of course.

If you check the comments on that post, you’ll see a sizeable number who share the illiterate boob’s sentiments, essentially, “Gringo, go home!” Of course, that begs the question, if the gringos “go home” how long will it take for the illiterate boob alien invaders to turn America into… the country(ies) they fled? Couldn’t make a success in Mexico, so they came here where the “gringos” had built the most productive, prosperous society in history. Now they want to turn it into the economic and social failure they fled?

Dumbasses.

Be sure and send teardrop_13_SG@hotmail.com a note of thanks for the entertainment “her” idiocy brought you (and, what the heck, visit the Broward County Public Schools website and congratulate them on the fine, fine job they’re doing “edumacatin'” this alien invader… *heh*).

And while you’re at it, why not make up a bumper sticker or three reading “Surrender Our Borders: Vote for Juan “SNake” McCain”

😉

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, A Newt One- BIG THURSDAY GUEST!, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted on

Bright Line Test

There is one clear bright line that even idiots could use–if they could think to do so or suppress their basic sloth–to clearly choose candidates in races for all elective offices who would serve not only present interests but the interests of generations yet to come, and it’s found in a post I wrote a year ago…

Folks, the only difference of opinion that bears on elections of late is this: do you or do you not favor scrapping America in order to make it over into a fledgling third world country, as France, et al are attempting to do in Europe? Each and every one of the potential candidates [running for office as Dhims, and most who are running as Repubs *sigh*] are in favor of policies that would Frenchify America even further. It is still possible that the Republican’ts may come up with a candidate who is willing to at least drag his feet in approaching the ultimate goal of pulling America down to the level of Mexico or Saudi Arabia or Iran or even *shudder* France.

Remember: modern liberalism’s ultimate goal is to destroy the America the Founders left us (debate on this topic welcome, but be forewarned: I come armed with facts and I’m willing to use them. :-)). Modern “conservatism” (so-called) is simply modern liberalism lite, along the vein that R.L. Dabney observed of 19th century conservatism:

“Conservatism’s history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”

You need know nothing of Dabney’s considerable credentials (or his occasional lapses into Southern apologetics–ed.) to observe the authority of his statement; it is self-evident in “compassionate conservatism” that cedes America’s borders to foreign state-sponsored invasion, etc. (Yeh, how about the Mexican government issuing GPS devices to aid illegal border crossings?)

Consider the wisdom of James L. Burnham once again:

“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide.”

Repeat that mantra every time you hear a NON-LIBERAL modern lefty spout modern liberalism’s talking points:

“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide.”

Repeat that mantra every time you hear a modern (FAKE) “conservative” say something assinine like, we need illegal aliens to “do the jobs Americans won’t do” (thank you very much for the lying meme, President Bush).

“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide.”

Again: the bright line,

Do you or do you not favor scrapping America in order to make it over into a fledgling third world country, as France, et al are attempting to do in Europe?

Strangely, there’s slightly more hope for France, since I wrote those words a year ago. But less hope for the U.S., as the unholy alliance of governors effecting virtual sanctuary states (*cough* Mike Huckabee *cough*) for alien invaders (and cities doing the same for localities), Mass Media Podpeople, congresscritters *spit* and other politicians waving the “Run away! Run away!” flag, and all other kinds of surrenderist anti-westerners duke it out with a remnant of States and localities (and individuals) seeking to preserve what little remains of the Republic the Founders left us–even attempt to restore some little bits of it.

What will be the end of the conflict? I dunno. But more and more, unless folks seriously ask the bright line question over and over concerning every candidate for every elective position, our children and grandchildren can look forward to no longer being a part of a great nation.

Do you or do you not favor scrapping America in order to make it over into a fledgling third world country, as France, et al are attempting to do in Europe?

And if you don’t, what the HECK are you doing about it?

Trackposted to Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Mark My Words, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Big Dog’s Weblog, Nuke Gingrich, Right Truth, and DragonLady’s World, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted on

Sheeple Without a Shepherd

Call this an editorial, an opinion piece with a twist: I leave Mike Huckabee twisting in the wind of his own bloviation, as recorded in the YouTube piece below. “Mike Huckabee for Dogcatcher: the stray dog packs’ best friend!”

Well, the Republican’t sheeple of Iowa have adequately demonstrated that they are either

  1. too stupid to be out without a keeper (or, alternatively, as an old cowpoke I once knew was wont to say, too dumb to pour piss from a boot)

    2. or

  2. fully on board with the move to surrender U.S. sovereignty at the behest of The Governor from Tyson Foods

Personally, I’m going for the (kinder, gentler, more) charitable interpretation: dumber than a bag of hammers. (On that note, I will say I had a conversation with an elderly gentleman just last night who was really sold out for The Governor from Tyson Foods… until I played the following Youtube video for him… )

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Celebrity Smack, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted on

People are stupid

You know it’s true. One can scarcely get through a morning without being reminded multiple times that 99% (plus) of Americans are proof that the counter-evolutionary pressures of a modern society are enabling people who are too stupid to survive outside a cocoon.

Of the many examples I’ve witnessed just today, one was truly irritating. Kathleen Parker, a syndicated supposedly “conservative” columnist (add 5 IQ points to the Mass Media Podpeople average–*heh*) had this to say in a column about–Barack Hussein Obama-Winfrey and Billary “Whitewater” Clinton duking it out over their respective foreign policy dredentials,

“…this presidential election isn’t about hair-poofing, cross-dressing or floating crosses, entertaining as those digressions have been. Until further notice, it’s primarily about terror…”

Please. Perhaps the election can be characterized as “primarily about terrorism” but few folks I know feel terror when contemplating the election. Well, unless it really sinks in what electing someone like The Breck Girl (Or The Prancing Pony–whichever works better for you in thinking about Little Johnnie Edwards’ campaign) to the presidency might mean *shudder*.

That dispensed with (it’s “terrorism” not “terror”–think it through, please), the American electorate is being told loudly and clearly: “You are all idiots!” After all, what are the two major parties offering to this election that is “primarily about terrorISM“–and what is the Mass Media Podpeople’s Hivemind elevating with its attention?

Billary Whitewater Clinton–what you see is what you get: someone who is better suited to a role that deposits her under a house blown by a Kansas tornado.

Barack Hussein Obama-Winfrey–give him a talk show, but never the presidency.

The Breck Girl. There’s really no “there” there.

Senator Plagiarism. Cheap, crooked politician; sells his soul for a law school paper or a stolen speech. All the character of a person who cheats at solitaire.

None of them have the character OR experience to provide what is needed.

Rudy “Grab the Govt Money and Run” Guiliani. Just another shadow of Tamany Hall.

The Holier-than-thou Governor from Tyson Foods. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him, even if I could throw him from the pulpit to the mourners’ bench.

John Never-Saw-a-Free-Speech-Right-I-Didn’t-Hate-or-a-Wetback-I-Didn’t-Love McCainiac. Snake McCain. Serial liar.

Nutso Paul. Gee, I want to like the guy, but I’m seriously afraid that he’d get mistaken for a garden gnome in the Rose Garden. Or maybe not mistaken for…

The Android Which Will Say ANYTHING to Get Elected Romney. About as much integrity as The Governor from Tyson Foods, but with less consistency of position.

Again, nothing in character or experience commends any of these to office higher than they have already attained (and at least two were obviously elected to offices they should not have been, IMO).

But what of Fred, who appears to be the only person whose views and public life are fairly consistent with the Founders’ and Framers’ views? Obviously that renders him unelectable by an electorate dominated by subliterate sheeple who have no idea (nor any means to gain any idea) what that means.

The vote come election day will be mostly neither “Nay” nor “Yea” on any candidates but simply a loud and grating “Baaaah.”