The Second Amendment and Guns in the Good Old U. S. of A.

I was EXTREMELY happy to see last month, in D.C. v Heller,
that the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment do indeed recognize that the right to "Keep & Bear Arms" is an individual right. I have to admit, that is a Make or Break right as far as I'm concerned. What do I mean by "Make or Break" you may ask? Just that if some way the second amendment was misinterpreted or repealed, or otherwise done away with, I would NOT give up my guns. you can read into that what you will, but that famous phrase, often quoted, "Cold Dead Fingers" comes to mind.

This country was established / created with guns. The right to keep and bear arms was so important to the Founders, that they listed that right Second - not ninth or tenth - it wasn't an afterthought. It is a Fundamental Right - intended to allow American citizens to protect themselves from a Corrupt Government, and oh yeah, in order to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones, as well as the lives of others who have no ability to protect themselves. (just thought I'd throw that last bit in, so you wouldn't think I was some crazy conspiracy wacko).

You see, that's the mistake all these gun control wackos make when they try to compare this country with England, France, etc. Those countries were old and established before guns were ever invented. This country was established, built, defended, and expanded because guns were available and allowed the American settlers to rise to an equal footing with the English, and to ultimately win our freedom and retain it. Of course, all those things took place between the American Settlers, and what they saw as a Corrupt Government.

The amazing thing about the Supreme Court's opinion in the D.C. v Heller case, was not which side they came down on - individual right or State's government right - but the fact that it was not a unanimous decision. How could four of nine of the highest judges in the land misinterpret the Constitution so much? Not to mention how all the bleeding heart/liberal/gun control nuts (I know this is redundant, but just go with it)as well as what were typically well intentioned national organizations. I have seen countless public statements from these organizations decrying the coming lawlessness, violence, etc., because the Court stated that Individuals have a right to keep & bear arms. This right does NOT apply to Felons, the mentally unstable, or anyone ever charged with a crime of Domestic Violence. Someone please explain to me how a law abiding citizen's right to own a gun makes the country more lawless, violent, etc.?

All this talk about guns, makes me want to go out and buy another. Watch for my next posting.

Letter to the Editor

The following was a letter to the editor I wrote and had published in the Memphis Commercial Appeal - They supply the title. The content is pretty self-explanatory, but let me just say that it just goes to show how the Media manipulates what we know and how we form our opinions.

*No space available for real news*

Almost daily, I see a letter in this space attacking the president for the "ill conceived," "deceitful," "illegal," etc., war in Iraq.

I personally dislike President Bush and believe he has set back the Republican Party and the conservative movement at least two generations, with the help of Republicans in Congress who were so bad they lost the majority in both houses. One of the big reasons for the destruction of the president and the party was the media's coverage of the war in Iraq and the lack of WMD.

A couple of weeks ago, I found an Associated Press story online about the secret removal of almost 600 tons of yellowcake uranium from 20 miles south of Baghdad to Canada (July 6 article, "Nuclear seed removed from Iraq"). Of course, the article made a point to say that the uranium was not weapons grade but also failed to note that it is the material of choice to create weapons-grade uranium.

I remember like it was yesterday in 2003, when former ambassador of the Clinton administration Joseph Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband) wrote an op-ed in The New York Times stating that he found no evidence that Iraq had purchased, or tried to purchase, yellowcake uranium from Niger, where Wilson was sent by President Bush to find such evidence.

There was also intelligence offered by the Bush administration about Iraq trying to buy 50,000 to 60,000 aluminum tubes used in centrifuges to enrich yellowcake.

Wilson's op-ed was the beginning of the downfall of the Bush administration.

Now, it's obvious there was no need to secure the uranium, just a need for the aluminum tubes, since it is now known Iraq had the uranium. Where were the front-page headlines that almost 600 tons of yellowcake uranium were found in Iraq? Were the American press and this newspaper afraid the truth might help to validate the reason for the war in Iraq?

Goodbye to the Republican Party

Thanks to George W. Bush and the previous Republican majority, The Republican Party as we know it, will end this coming November 4th. If by some miracle, John McCain wins in November, The Republican Party will suffer an extended period as the minority, trivialized party - longer even than the coming period of darkness caused by President Bush. Longer than the stretch of time caused by the ambitious, self-centered sell-outs that were the Republican Majorities in both the House and the Senate. If McCain loses, there is a chance that the party may return, but only if Conservatives Refuse to vote for the liberal Republican candidate, and liberal Republican policies. If Conservatives accept the liberal policies and liberal candidates the Republican Party is currently offering, then the party ends. For the first time in my life, I will NOT be voting for the Republican presidential candidate.

I just read a quote by Newt Gingrich, that “reasonable Conservatives” will come around and vote for McCain, and so Newt is not concerned about Bob Barr, Libertarian Presidential Candidate, taking votes from John McCain. Once again, that is the problem.

If Conservatives vote for McCain, they are trivializing themselves. Ever since the mid-term election of 2006, the Republicans have been looking for the route to regain the power of the majority. Misguidedly, they have settled on the theory that since the Democrat Party regained the majority by promoting their liberal agenda, that the Republicans would likewise promote a liberal agenda.

The Republicans totally missed the lesson of the last election – that the country wants a party that sticks to its professed political agenda – remember George H.W. Bush, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” He ran as a pseudo-conservative, with the promise to continue the Ronald Reagan era, but he folded like a cheap suit to the Democrats, and what should have been his second term was Bill Clinton’s first. Newt Gingrich was wrong, I AM a reasonable Conservative, and I want Conservatism to regain its prominence in American politics. If I and others vote for the Liberal Republican candidate, that won’t happen.

People tell me that if I don’t vote for McCain, it’s a defacto vote for Obama – Not true – it’s a vote FOR conservatism. People ask me, “don’t you want to win?” Meaning that a third party candidate can’t win. What is the benefit of “winning” when McCain will do nearly as much damage to the country as Obama, and will do even more damage to the Conservative Movement?

If John McCain somehow wins the election for President, the Republicans in Congress will HAVE to support him. That means supporting his Liberal Agenda. When that happens, they will further alienate Conservatives, and fewer and fewer will turn out to vote for Republicans, and the party will continue to veer to the Left looking to regain the majority – it’s would be the perpetuation of the current cycle.

If McCain loses, the Republicans in Congress would be an opposition party, and would be able to oppose the Liberal Agenda of Barack Obama. The Republican Party would have the opportunity to return to its Conservative roots. The point of a two party system is to have two parties with different philosophies. It is looking like the only way to give the voters a second political philosophy is to promote a third party, since the Republicans are becoming Democrats, and the Democrats are becoming Socialists.

John McCain is for open borders, amnesty for the Illegal’s currently in this country. He is against drilling in ANWR, he is for sacrificing the National economy on the alter of “Global Warming.” He is actively promoting “Cap & Trade” which will further injure the economy, raise taxes, reduce our National energy production, and make the U.S. more dependent on Arab oil suppliers. He wants to close Guantanamo Bay, and treat terrorists like holiday guests. He wants to further restrict Freedom of Speech by expanding campaign finance restrictions. Other than his position on the War on Terror, which is not as strong as it should be, see above regarding Gitmo and the nation’s borders, why would I want him to “win?”

More On The Border

Some more thoughts on the border issue - I actually could write PAGES about this issue, but just in case someone actually reads this thing, I will try to limit myself to avoid boring the reader.

Do you know that Memphis is a "Sanctuary City? Actually, Tennessee is a Sanctuary STATE.
Illegal aliens who break the law and get convicted, can and as a matter of course, GET PROBATION! They can even Diversion, which is like probation, except that when they successfully complete it, the charge is erased from their record, like it never happened.

The reason I even mention this is that when an illegal alien is in the USA, they are in a constant state of continually violating the law - the first and most important condition of probation or diversion, is to NOT violate the law. Of course, as you can guess, the fact that an illegal IS illegal, is ignored - so in reality, illegals get EXTRA benefits for being in the country illegally - they can violate probation without their probation being violated.

We the citizens of the USA, besides paying for the standard entitlements for illegals, also pay for public defenders to represent them, interpreters to translate not only in court, but in police departments, public attorney's offices, probation offices, jails, clerks offices, etc. We also have to pay for all the documentation to be printed in multiple languages.

One of the main problems with the current flood of illegal aliens, is the ending of the American "Melting Pot." The multitudes of illegals tend to isolate themselves in their own communities, so that the nation is becoming a collection of these isolated communities, rather than the immigrants desiring to become Americans, they remain separated and the population continues to grow more apart.

Open borders and the tolerance and acceptance of illegal aliens, along with no control of who or what enters the country at the borders . . . Do you think Muslim Extremist terrorists, and other global terrorists that wish for the destruction of the USA DON'T know how easily our national security can be breached?

COMMON SENSE ABOUT THE BORDER

For whatever reason, there is no political party, and apparently few citizens with the desire to protect this country. The current front-running Democrat in the presidential sweepstakes as well as the Republican candidate, both believe in an open southern border. Their positions can't be based on the welfare of the citizens of this country, but I think it is based on their own self-interests. They both want the Mexicans that ARE citizens as well as the prospective citizens ( The current Illegals) to see them as the champions of the illegals - which I believe, they think will turn into votes, and thus job security. If they were at all concerned with the welfare of USA citizens, they would have to be against an open border.
There are many reasons to be for a secure border - National Security, Jobs for citizens, an ever increasing tax burden on taxpayers, a drain on entitlements for our native born free-loaders, added crime, etc. I read a survey that stated that 1/3 of all the inmates in California are illegals. Here in Memphis, there are over 10,000 new lawbreakers that are illegals every year.
And of course, part of the problem is all of the money that surrounds the issue of illegal aliens.
One recent Sunday I was driving around doing my shopping and I saw a woman at a major intersection wearing a sandwich board sign. The sign was written in Spanish, but I could read it - it was an advertisement stating that you don't have to be a documented resident of the country to buy a house! And to call this woman for help in being an illegal homeowner!
Have you seen the news stories of the amounts of illegal narcotics that are stopped at the border? Then you can guess about the amounts that are missed. You can also guess as to the amounts of weapons, explosives and terrorists that aren't stopped at the border with it in its current state of insecurity.
There was a just an Absolut Vodka commercial that was produced in Spanish that showed the North American Continent with the western half of the USA as part of Mexico, with the caption, "How it would look in an Absolut World." This glamorizes the "Reconquista" philosophy of Mexico Firsters.