|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
Welcome to the Editorial Archives of Martin T. Ingham for 2004 Read Martin T. Ingham's Current Column Here! |
| Also, Read Martin's other Archives: Martin's 2006 Archive. Martin's 2005 Archive. |
In this day and age of instant gratification, where people are geared toward movie theaters rather than books, a writer must reflect on the causes for such a trend. True, films, video games, and other such media are quite entrancing and prone to draw people away from the more intellectual and time consuming enjoyment of reading on their own, but there is always a certain percentage of the population who would still rather pick up a paperback than sit in a sticky theater seat. However, in recent years, I have found that number to be shrinking, and this is what I am to discuss.
The causes for the decline of pulp readership in the past decade has many contributing factors, most of which writers and editors have no control over. However, I find it necessary to point out those few causes which are under our control.
As an under-published writer, who's read a bit of everything across the Science Fiction spectrum, I've gained a rare perspective on the subject, one that many professionals would agree with, but at the same time reject, wishing it weren't true, as to admonish themselves of the guilt of their own professional decline.
I'll be blunt. The material published by the vast majority of science fiction magazines today is downright boring. This is due, in part, because most of the stories that are being published aren't screened for their entertainment value. They're being picked because of their "literary merits." A good number of editors today could care less if the story were fun or exciting, so long as it has some strange message, or an ivy league accent.
In this day and age when people would rather watch an action thriller on television than read one in a book, modern magazines are unknowingly aiding this trend, by turning away from fast paced entertaining stories. Instead of giving people what they want, they're telling them what they should want, by publishing high-brow literature which would put anyone but an English professor to sleep. No wonder people would rather watch a movie.
The rationale for such an editorial trend is obvious. Since average working slobs today would rather watch television than read, the editors have decided to write them off. Rather than attempt to draw in an audience with traditionally entertaining material, most sci-fi editors publish material they believe will appeal to a pre-existing audience; the literary elite. However, what they fail to realize when making such a decision is that most of the buyers of such literary material don't like science fiction (some downright shun its name). Today's science fiction magazines are alienating their readers through the publication of long winded literary tales, many of which border on contemporary, and have hardly a shred of fiction or fantasy in them.
Now, I can't say all stories published today are literary nap-catchers. I've read the occasional piece that's slipped through a screener's eyes and made it to an understanding editor, though those tales are few and far between.
My only hope is that editors can once again start thinking like writers, rather than artists, in performing their job. It would also help if they stopped trying to push a left-wing political agenda, which in many cases ruins an otherwise good, bipartisan tale of fiction.
In this day and age, of leftist politicians continually pushing for a nanny state, I find myself speaking out against it and being continually mocked and ridiculed by naïve citizens who can’t for the life of them believe that our “oh so benevolent political leaders” would be doing anything bad to strip the citizens of their rights. Meanwhile, those rights are slowly being eroded bit by bit, and when you show it to them, they just scorn you for questioning the foresight of our elected officials, and back them up, saying our freedom needs to be limited in “some ways” for society’s own good. What a crock!
There are dozens of little erosions of freedom which I could discuss, and I’m sure I’ll eventually address all my concerns in these columns. Today, I shall speak about one of those little erosions of freedom which most people support, and don’t really understand; namely, the theft of a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms if they have been stuck with a restraining order.
Defenders of this act will quickly jump to the logical conclusion that someone with a restraining order placed on them is obviously violent, and must be disarmed to protect those they might hurt. This is not always the case, and it will stop being the case in the majority of cases if it is not stopped soon.
Do you know how easy it is to get a restraining order on someone? All you have to do is go cry to a judge that somebody’s scaring you, and BAM! Instant restraining order. A restraining order is a preliminary action, which is not always based on truth, but the word of a plaintiff, who claims to fear harm from another. The defendant (target of the restraining order) has no say in this matter, and is denied the right to testify in their own defense before the restraining order is imposed. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Now, I am not saying we should stop issuing restraining orders. They are sometimes necessary and very useful against violent or deranged individuals. However, we cannot summarily steal someone’s right to keep and bear arms based on one. It is unjust, taking away someone’s rights without trial or any sort of court hearing. The Defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Not only does this act take gun rights away from those who have yet to commit any crime, it also allows for widespread abuse. Let me give an example:
Say there is a fierce opponent of gun ownership living near you. Say you have met them occasionally at the store, or other public places, and they know you are a proud gun owner. After learning that you’re a gun owner, they suddenly feel “afraid” of you, because they know you carry a gun. In their mind, you are a serious threat, a violent gun-toting maniac, and could perpetrate domestic violence against them. They go down to the courthouse to get a protective order against you. There are plenty of anti-gun judges out there, and all they need to do is find one to issue the restraining order and carry out this injustice, thereby stealing your right to keep and bear arms.
What is far worse is the fact that in many states, these laws not only deny you the right to keep and bear arms for the duration of the restraining order, but permanently steal your gun rights for the rest of your life. This is a harsh violation of the Second Amendment, one that many people think they understand, but do not, and that’s why they support it.
It is not wise to hand more power over to the judiciary. The courts have proven themselves less than competent to stand up for our civil rights in recent history.
As the cold northwind blows, I sit back and ponder what political winds have blown for so long to lead us to this place and time, an era where it is deemed a “cure” for discrimination to discriminate, it is deemed “liberating” to be chained in the shackles of immorality, and personal responsibility has become merely an “option.” Such a strange political mindset we have today, when denying a qualified white man a job and handing it to an under-qualified man of another race, simply to appease a potential accusation of racism, is considered a great step toward defeating racism.
Funny, how granting those trapped in the stranglehold of drug addiction an easier way to access such recreational substances is supposed to aid society, or where taking responsibility for your own actions has now become a choice to which there is no wrong answer. Particularly in the case of the sexually promiscuous who happen to get a moral wakeup call, finding they’re knocked up after screwing around. Yet now one is free to simply do away with the whole troubling situation. Never mind facing consequences, in fact it’s now deemed “responsible” if you take charge and abort that child, rather than “ruin your life” by having a child. No matter that the abortion happens to terminate a life. It wasn’t much of a life yet. Well, neither is the mother’s, for that matter, if she has the nerve to whack her child because it’s convenient. Maybe the doctor should do a double procedure...
Our fine nation has long been at odds with itself. For the better part of a century, there have been 2 primary political ideologies which have been jockeying for position and fighting to their chance to rule our fine nation. A hundred years ago, they were both proud, strong, principled groups; one seeking to promote and preserve the America of today, while the other fought to advance America into the ruler of tomorrow. For the purposes of this article, we shall call them Preservers and Progressives. However, during the second decade of the 20th century, the vile plague of Socialism seeped into our political field, poisoning the Progressive cause. Slowly, that Socialism twisted the Progressive movement, eventually turning them against the founding principles of the nation, all in the name of “advancement.”
Today, those Socialized Progressives are modern leftists. A good many of them reside within the Democratic party. Their agenda is no longer to Progress America, but to Progress the Socialist world plan. In fact, America is a roadblock to their ambition, so they must tear it down, piece by piece, until it is weakened significantly for their world plan to be put into practice. No longer Patriots, the majority of politicians ruling the Democratic Party, are traitors who hate America and will not stop until this fine nation is crushed, and in their minds no longer a threat to “the world.”
Meanwhile, the Preservers are slowly losing ground, as they bend over backwards to appease the Socialist Progressives, some unwilling to accept the Socialists’ true hatred for America. The Republican Party is home to a number of the Preservers, yet the Socialist Progressives are gaining ground in their party as well, hoping to remove their political adversaries by infecting their ranks with their own lot.
The great struggle of these two forces brings an analogy to my mind.
Two Decembers back, I was walking along the stony Maine beach, when two eagles swooped down before me, about 30 feet ahead, and they were ripping into each other, in a gory battle of supremacy. They were pissed at each other for some reason, and were out for blood. After about a minute of ripping into each other, one swooped away, and the other staggered through the air, obviously wounded. Searching the beach where they had fought, there was quite a lot of blood, and a ton of feathers. I would have kept a few of the feathers, but I hear it's a federal felony to possess them, because they're part of an endangered species.
This Eagle brawl brings to mind a parallel to the great struggle being fought within our country. Each Eagle could represent one of the opposing political ideologies, one the Preserving Patriot, the other, the Socialist Traitor. Both are Eagles, yet only one fights for Freedom and Justice, while the other fights for international tyranny, and oppressive government. This inner struggle is reaching the point where the only conclusion must come through a final challenge; one in which I can only hope victory favors the Patriot.
First of all, running the risk of being considered “insensitive” or “non-Politically Correct,” let me wish each and every reader of this column a hearty Merry CHRISTMAS! That’s right, that salutation wishing you happiness and joy during this “superstitious” religious holiday. How insensitive of me. However, I feel confident that anyone who would be offended by such a greeting is not reading my column, as they’ll more likely be thoroughly ensconced within the pages of Michael Moore or Al Franken’s latest book of satirical lies. The only people who find Christmas offensive who dare to read my Conservative insight are looking to get mad, so I’ll indulge them.
In today’s ultra PC world, it would seem the term “Merry Christmas” is quickly vanishing, being quickly replaced by cautious citizens who dare not offend some arrogant Atheist, who might take issue with them over such a kind-hearted greeting. Instead, the mainstream of society is quickly being forced to put forth “Season’s Greetings,” or “Happy Holidays,” both of which would appear to be far less offensive, and religiously neutral. Yet if Merry Christmas is the first to go, certainly Happy Holidays will be next, for it is yet another hated religious greeting: Happy Holy-Days. I mean, what religion-hating Atheist who is offended by Merry Christmas NOT be offended also by Happy Holy-Days? Pretty soon, the only thing you’ll be allowed to say in public without risking a lawsuit will be Happy Solstice… oh, wait, that could offend the flat-earth people. Oh well…
Now, I’ll move on to another matter of religious censorship: The Pledge of Allegiance. We all know how hard the anti-religious zealots have worked to remove “under God” from the United States’ Pledge of Allegiance. Really, how dare our nation endorse such an offensive, non-denominational mentioning of “God” in our Pledge? How Politically Incorrect. Well, it won’t be long before the extremists of the left tackle another offensive phrase in the Pledge: “I Pledge Allegiance.” Seriously, a great many leftists in America today consider themselves Citizens of the World. Therefore, how dare our nation ask them to pledge Allegiance?
The removal of “under God” from the pledge of allegiance is only the first step toward gutting our national pledge. If the extremists of the left continue to get their way, in a few years the Pledge will read like this:
“I pledge friendship to the people of the United States of America, but not to the republic in which they stand, one nation, under oppression, with bigotry and warmongering historically.”
I’m sure a good many Howard Dean supporters would like to replace the current Pledge of Allegiance with that. It’s so “right on, man,” in their own words.
I must ask all you Atheists and “God” haters out there; why are you offended by the phrase, “under God?” if you don’t believe in “God,” what offends you? If you really don’t believe in God, than the phrase should be no more offensive to you than saying “Under Santa Claus.” If it’s a myth to you, then you shouldn’t care, and leave the rest of us to our superstition. The answer is most of the people who hate “under God” aren’t Libertarian Atheists as they claim. They’re hateful Communists who want to erase all traces of God from our society for their own personal gratification.
How can we, as a people, live with such lunacy? We spit on the First Amendment by denying the vast majority of citizens the right to speak their hearts and minds, denying them the right to worship as they see fit through government-endorsed Atheism. How dare we stand for such political correctness, which demands the censorship of potentially offensive words and terms, such as niggardly, or beaver, because they sound similar to offensive racial slurs, or have been used as derogatory slang. How dare we live in a country where every last person is so stuck up that they’re willing to sell out their own language just because somebody might get offended.
I for one will never bend over for the special interest groups who wish to tear America to pieces, one tradition at a time. I’m a niggardly patriot, who wishes you all a Merry Christmas every December, and continues to swear allegiance to this republic, under God! And I’d greatly appreciate a beaver-skin hat for a Christmas present, thank you.
The end of 2003 is upon us, and the dawn of the new year rises to prominence before our eyes. So to greet the new year, I will list off a few of my hopes and goals for the next year. I will not call these Resolutions, as such contrived and overdone self-appointed goals are total BS, and are generally forgotten in about ten second after the clock strikes 12. No, these are simply things that need to be done in my personal life.
Firstly, I’m going to finally, after twenty or so years of lovely lard-living, going to release the few extra pounds I’ve been carrying around since childhood. There is no “excuse” for my being fat. I don’t have a thyroid problem, or a slow metabolism. I just love to eat, and eat I have! Now, I’m not one of those porkers you see now and then in front of a Chinese buffet. I’m never covered in food, nor a sweaty, ugly layabout. I simply eat more than one should, and do it in a mannerly fashion. So, there’s the big one that all fat folks have a problem with.
Secondly, I intend to convert at least 1 liberal to the truth of Conservatism. Oh, my, such a daunting task, yet I’ve always been told I should aim high, and what higher place than the delusional daydreams and arrogant ego of a modern liberal? It shouldn’t be such a difficult task, but it is. There is half a world out there, steadily pushing their big-lie theory and brainwashing the well-meaning and the good intentioned into serving the slavery of socialism. This must be stopped, one person at a time. It is my quest in the new year to touch at least one mind with the truth of Conservatism.
Thirdly, I want to get one of my novels in print. Yea, I’ve got 4 of them, (a 5th on the way), and I’ve been trying for years to get them to the right editor at the right time. The Damn liberalization of the writing profession has totally ruined my chances. Seriously, if Heinlein had had to deal with such biased editors, the only thing they’d leave in tact was the bizarre sexual situations, and delete all his fine points on Firearms Freedom and common sense conservative liberties. So, I’ll keep trying to find the last Conservative Science Fiction Editor on earth to publish one of my books. Good luck!
Finally, in the new year, I’m going to vote for George W. Bush for President, for the Second Time! I can’t say I agree totally with everything he does. In fact, I dislike several of his domestic policies, but he’s a true American Patriot, who works for the people of the United States, unlike a traitor like Howard Dean, who would rather work for the Dictators of the United Nations. In fact, I’m going to vote a straight Republican ticket this fall, because the only Democrats running for office in my neck of the woods are socialist traitors who the founding fathers would have proudly strung up from the nearest oak. I especially want to see my local state legislative representative removed, and will do anything in my power to see her voted out in November. You hear that, Anne C. Perry, I’m ready to unseat your increasingly wide liberal ass, baby!
Well, that about sums up my plans for the coming year, excluding my regular everyday life happenings. I hope that you all have a great new year, and share in the second and fourth goals. Do not be afraid to save someone’s life from the mind-killer that is modern liberalism. The worst they can do is stay a pissy liberal and tell you off with their “oh so open minded” attitude, and the best they can do is thank you for showing them the light.
Free the Mind of an Enslaved Liberal. Do it Today!
A couple years ago, my father and I went to look at a job. As self-employed Masons, we commonly were called to look at odd jobs and gave quotes on the work. It happened to be the week after September 11, 2001 when we went to look at this particular job. Arriving on the scene in mid morning, the home owner greeted us and showed us the mess of a block cellar way he wanted us to repair. After having us examine the cellar entrance, the subject of the 9/11 terrorist attacks came up, quite naturally, and this is where things got interesting.
This middle class homeowner had the nerve to say America deserved to be attacked, because we had so unjustly attacked other countries in the past. The man claimed to be a Vietnam veteran, and that made him an authority on international justice. He had the nerve to say innocent Americans deserved to be murdered by terrorists, simply because he was sore about being drafted 30+ years ago.
After his little crybaby speech, about how cruel and deserving America was, my father politely told him we’d work up a quote for his job and drove off. Rest assured, we never gave the guy a quote, nor talked to him ever again. He’s on our Blacklist!
Believe it or not, there are a lot more little traitors out there, like this fellow who believe America is evil, and deserves to be attacked. I can certainly read this into Howard Dean’s belief structure, as the man is so full of hate and disgust for our fine country and its non-socialist citizens. There is a quick and easy way to deal with these traitors, and that’s to blacklist them. Whenever you fun afoul of one of these vile traitors, who you’d like to simply punch in the nose, make a note of who they are, and in the future refuse to work for them. Do not talk to them, do not serve them, do not acknowledge their existence. Treat them the way they ought to be treated, as if they didn’t exist.
Mind you, the 60’s anti-discrimination laws kind of hinder our ability to do this. Thanks to them, anybody who walks into a shop or restaurant must be served, so long as they meet the establishment's dress code (which in most cases is simply shirt and shoes). This is a fine law, if it stops people from blocking blacks or Hispanics from being served in an establishment, but we should have the right to choose who we serve based on politics. There is no right to be worked for, according to the Constitution!
As a self-employed worker, I have the right to decide who I work for, therefore I don’t work for traitors. I’ll work for Democrats, and even liberals, so long as they don’t espouse hatred for America or the Constitution, but I’ll not stand for someone who stands there and tells me that terrorists have the right to attack us, because our past foreign policy was mean-spirited towards them.
These traitors would have the nerve to call my Blacklisting them Discrimination. This from the same people who are the most racist, bigoted of all. The modern left doesn’t want to promote equality. They instead foster race hatred, through division and reverse discrimination, and overall look down on minorities.
The right’s viewpoint on race is fairly simple: it’s a belief that people are equal to the full extent of their abilities, regardless of skin color or ethnic background. It holds no prejudice against people based on superficial aspects such as these. People ought to be free to rise and fall on the societal playing field based upon their own abilities, and they may alter those abilities through their own determination, education and perspiration. The general consensus of today’s right-wingers believes this.
The left on the other hand does not share this set of beliefs, despite its cry for equality and social harmony. They, themselves, are the perpetrators of division and social inequity. It is they who say “minorities” are inferior and can’t do anything on their own, and that therefore the minorities must be discriminated for, and the majority oppressed in order to help them out. It’s only fair, since that majority of “whites” oppressed them for so long. Never mind the fact that non-minorities are oppressed and discriminated against by affirmative action and similar programs, the very minorities they’re promoting are being discriminated against, by saying that minorities are inferior and can’t accomplish anything without the white liberal elitists handing everything to them.
How is it just to discrimination to favor one race over another, yet it’s somehow wrong to blacklist people based on their politics. The Constitution grants us freedom of speech. It also gives us freedom of association. It also used to give us the right to not associate with undesireables, and nobody is more undesired than a traitor. I do not believe in racism or prejudice, but I do believe in justice and honor, and I see nothing wrong with discriminating against those who would like to see me dead because I love my country. The owners of stores and other business establishments in this fine country deserve the right to say “We don’t serve your kind” to a lefty traitor when they walk through their door. It’s about time we had the right to blacklist again!
Earlier this week, I had a rather unpleasant experience. My computer became infected with some sort of virus, which twisted my system up and totally immobilized it. It had my system so twisted, it behaved as though there were no hard drive space left, yet I had a good 49 gigs left. My operating system was a mess, and totally worthless. All I could do was format my computer and reprogram it from scratch. Fortunately, computers are simply child’s play for me, and after a few hours time I had my system up and running again, minus a few files I neglected to back up prior to the virus.
Running into this situation has reminded me of how vulnerable all our lives are to disruption, and how helpless most of us are when those little mishaps occur. Honestly, a corrupted computer is the simplest of things to fix, and I’m sure a strong half of computer users would have the skill and know-how to reprogram their system with the original program discs, which these days are made idiot-proof, so you can handle reprogramming your computer, so long as you can read.
Yet other dilemmas in life are hardly as idiot-proof as computers. We live in a mechanical age, an era of technology that the vast majority of us really don’t understand. Our civilization is based upon the discoveries and technological advances of a handful of visionaries, men with genius and foresight who created everything from affordable Automobiles to Nuclear power plants. Yet despite the genius required to first construct these marvels, it does not take a genius to review their work and learn how to duplicate it. No, it simply takes someone willing to take the time and effort necessary to learn.
Let’s take cars for example. How many of you really know how to work on them? I bet well under half of today’s drivers actually know how to do more than change their engine oil, and I’m not sure half even know how to do that anymore. Most people simply hop in their car and expect it to start, and if it doesn’t they’re at the mercy of whatever grease monkey they can stir up to diagnose and fix it. Mind you, modern designs don’t help much. All the fancy add-ons (pollution control this, computer controlled that) make sure you are unable to do anything for yourself. Even if you knew how, to properly work on a modern car you’d need tens of thousands of dollars worth of special equipment. Equipment that serves no practical purpose, other than to make things too complicated for you to fix it yourself.
Answer this; if your car died on a deserted highway someplace, would you have enough know-how to figure out what was wrong and fix it enough to get you back to civilization, or would you be left to the mercies of someone who might or might not come by to help?
In this era of high technology, where we are at its mercy, we must know how those things around us work, so we do not become immobilized when they break down. We must become self-dependent.
Honestly ask yourself: How many of the items in my daily life can I maintain myself? It it’s more than your digital watch or electric toaster, then you are by no means free. You are a slave to those who do know how to fix those devices. “Can I fix my own water heater?” Yes, if you bother to read the manual. “But the guy at the store told me I shouldn’t.” Really? That’s strange. Why ever would he say that? Maybe it’s because he wants you to buy into a maintenance plan run by his store, or he wants a fellow union member to get work. It’s called job security.
The arrogance of academia makes things worse. They go out of their way to indoctrinate every young American into the mindset that performing manual labor; doing anything practical or that produces something, is demeaning and beneath their dignity. I’ll tell you what’s really beneath my dignity. It’s being a slave to someone who charges twenty bucks to fix a lawn mower that needs 2 nuts tightened.
As we get into the full swing of the new year, I am going to make it my personal responsibility to learn how to maintain and repair all the major machines in my life. It started with a little software problem, and it’s going to end with me rebuilding a car engine, smithing my own rifles, assembling my own computer, and many more stops in between. I refuse to be a slave any longer to people of equal intelligence who happen to be making money in one particular niche. Before I’m out of this life, I’m going to be a jack of all trades, and a master of many.
Science Fiction legend Robert A. Heinlein once wrote; “Specialization is for insects,” saying a man should learn to do everything that he can in order to further himself and survive. Now more than ever before in history, it is truly the only way to be free in a world where most people are satisfied being slaves to each other’s genius.
Although local news, this breaking news should draw national interest and attention.
On the 16th of January, the Baldacci administration selected a wholesale distribution company to handle all of Maine’s Liquor and fortified wine sales statewide. Maine has always had very strict laws when it comes to alcohol, and the government utterly controls who sells it and where, and has it regulated even more than it is in other states. To make matters worse, the state grants one single company an exclusive right to distribute liquor in the state, enforcing a strict monopoly, and denying free enterprise.
In the running for Maine’s Liquor monopoly were 4 companies: Maine Centric of Auburn; Maine Liquors of Augusta, and Reids Distribution Center of Bangor (all three Maine based and operated companies), and then there was Martignetti Companies of Massachusetts. Guess who got the bid. Yep, Martignetti’s. Now, I am all for free enterprise and selling to the highest bidder, but the shady and back-room politics behind Martignetti’s triumph greatly disturbs me, as I shall explain.
In order to be handed a Monopoly over Maine’s Liquor, Martignetti handed out some cold, hard cash. Above and beyond the state’s fee of $125 million to acquire the exclusive liquor Monopoly, Martignetti’s went farther. To outbid their Maine rivals, they offered to pay the state an additional $25-40 million over the next 10 years. Additionally, Martignetti offered to give the state 50% of their Profits, over an undisclosed amount. Well, how could a money-grubbing liberal politician, like Baldacci’s appointee, Richard Thompson, say no to that? What would happen to private companies who accepted bribes of this nature? No doubt, there would be a thorough federal investigation into the fairness of said practice.
The Baldacci Administration had the choice of 3 Maine based companies, or one out of state company with a whole lot of payola. No doubt, the Maine based companies would have produced greater revenue for the state, they being wholly based in Maine, their employees paying income taxes to the state, and they’d have been more efficient, because they wouldn’t have to ship everything through Massachusetts before heading it up to Maine for sale, as Martignetti will. For a Governor who won office, touting how he’s for Maine Jobs, John “Baldface” Baldacci is truly a back-stabbing liberal scumbag, who cares more for dirty money in his pockets than Maine jobs, or honest companies.
Thus, out of state Special Interests win out against honest, hard-working Mainers. And the worst part of it is, this works perfectly into the liberals’ anti-business stance. In the State of Maine, the liberal Democrats, who have controlled the state for decades, have systematically worked to eradicate Maine’s jobs, heading toward a socialist utopia where the remaining citizens who haven’t fled to find work elsewhere, will be hopelessly dependent on government, and under the thumb of the liberal elite and their welfare system. If you think it can’t happen to your state, just look at California. With purposeful liberal mismanagement prior to the election of Schwarzenegger, the state was rapidly losing jobs and heading toward economic collapse. It was only the vast size of California’s economy and resources that kept them afloat so long, unlike Maine’s economy which is imploding under the same mismanagement.
The socialist anti-business war of the left is not being waged on the national level so much as it’s waged locally. It is being fought in each and every state, through Democrat legislators and Governors, who are trying to oppress the working men and women of their states in order to make themselves more important and indispensable. It is nothing more than an elitist power grab. Democrats are no longer the party of the people. They are the party of Special Interests; of everyone who is disgruntled with the American system and the power it gives to the common man. It is full of people who hate America, hate our freedom and power, and want to claim all that power for themselves, rather than leave it in the hands of “the commoners,” and they have the nerve to compare Bush to Hitler!
It is time for the old-school Democrats, who truly love their country and believe in freedom, jobs, and prosperity to wake up and realize that their party has been stolen from them.
“Do as I say, not as I do.” How hypocritical is that statement. Yet how many parents do you hear that simple statement from? Did your parents use that excuse, to try to make you do things they themselves wouldn’t? How many politicians tell us that every day? Almost all of them!
I remember some Christian Democrats in 1998, saying how it was okay for Bill Clinton to cheat on his wife, because he was in such a powerful and stressful position. Yet it was not right for anyone else. It was a “Do as I say,” syndrome. Don’t hold those above you to as high a standard as you hold yourself, and demand that those beneath you be better than you. Oh, the hypocrisy!
I do not believe in “Do as I say, not as I do.” I believe in “Do as I say, because that’s what’s right, and that’s why I do it!” I do not ask of anyone what I do not ask of myself. When I say, “don’t smoke Pot,” I speak from authority, because I have personally never partaken in that illegal substance. When I say “Don’t cheat on your wife,” likewise, I speak from authority.
It’s important to be the epitome of what you would desire those around to you emulate. If you want your children, or your neighbor’s children, to grow up to be strong, healthy, intelligent, and of moral integrity, then you must strive to do as you say. You can’t expect those who look up to you to do things you wouldn’t be bothered doing. If you go around bragging about all the stupid stuff you did, doped up in College, don’t be surprised to see your kids getting popped for possession, or disgraced doing some lame stunt. They’re just following your example.
I have found that in this world, there are 2 kinds of leaders. There are Instructors, those who will tell you to do as they say and not as they do. Then there are Guides, those people who practice what they preach. They are the people who actually follow their own advice, and guide people through their own example. Occasionally, these Guides fail in their attemps to live the straight and narrow, falling into something they say others should not partake of, yet that is no reason to think it is not important to lead by example. It simply proves that they are human, also, and sometimes can’t live up to their own desires.
It is important to try, time and again, to be that Guide in life that everyone can look up to. There are quite a few who manage to live that life of a Guide, living as they would like everyone to live, without a shred of hypocrisy. They are generally people you don’t know, unless they’re your neighbors, or family members. They’re everyday men and women who live a normal life, who are truly wiser than anyone making headlines.
Over my life, I have known plenty of Instructors. I intend to be a Guide.
Every week since the day I was born, I have heard reports of innocent men, women, and children being murdered by terrorist bombers in Israel, and every week I’ve heard the same cries for peace from politicians and observers who are safe and sound thousands of miles away from the conflict. It may sound good to demand instant peace in the Middle-East, but it presently isn't practical or possible.
The Palestinians cry for peace, then contradict it by murdering innocent civilians by the dozens. People truly seeking peace do not strap bombs to themselves and blow up restaurants and convenience stores full of civilians, and though these acts may only be perpetrated by a minority of the Palestinian community, the vast majority of them support the continued violence, cheering and celebrating whenever they hear news of the death and destruction caused by their countrymen. If the terrorists didn't have support from their people, they wouldn't be acting out in such a way.
It is time politicians around the world stopped tying Israel’s hands and started doing right by them, by letting their democratically elected government do what it deems fit to protect its sovereignty and its population. If terrorist factions were performing equitable acts on American soil, or British soil, or even on French soil, would any of these countries stand for foreign powers telling them how and when they could retaliate? Hell NO!
War is the only definition for what the Palestinians are perpetrating against Israel, and the only way to stop a war is for one side to be decimated to the point where they haven't the means or the will to wage war any longer. It may not be nice, convenient, or clean, but it's the way it is, and it's the only way to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle-East.
Life is full of experiences which we must not refrain from seeking. I continue to be reminded of this now and then, as I try something new which I had gone out of my way to avoid in the past. There are always the big things to choose, such as venturing into a new field of study, or starting a new career, yet I’m not so much talking of those major decisions. Today, I’m thinking of all these minor, insignificant experiences which we can overlook if we try.
I had an experience with experiencing a simple pleasure recently. Now, I am by no means a wealthy man, nor even middle class by urban standards, so I’ve always been frugal and cautious when buying even frivolous things, such as snacks. Therefore, it was throwing caution to the wind for me to buy an expensive pint of Ice Cream, for the same price that I’d usually pay for a whole half gallon (4 times as much, for those of you in Rio Linda). I’d never considered “wasting” my money on such expensive ice cream. I’d always figured Ice Cream was Ice Cream, and that the little containers were just a fad, a scam by the brand name producers to sell less for more. How wrong I turned out to be when I finally broke down and shelled out $2.69 for a pint of Godiva White Chocolate Raspberry. From the first taste to the last scrape at the bottom of the container, it was truly a million times above and beyond the cheap store brand I’d always equated it with.
Well, I must admit, previous bad experiences had turned me off to the experience of tasty ice cream. A friend once supplied me with a taste of Ben N Jerry’s ice cream. I forget which variety, but it was one of their famous ones. I must say, that frozen hippy milk tasted more like frozen crap that it turned me off to all the small containers. I don’t understand why people like their garbage. It really isn’t any different than the store brand half gallons which you can buy for less than a single pint of that product of hippy-communists.
Another turn off to the “fancy” ice creams was the horrid crap they sell at ice cream shacks. Stopping by the gee dunks in the summer, they’ll charge you a dollar a scoop for what they claim to be “famous” or “special” ice cream, and it tastes just like the same cheap crap you buy in the half gallons for two bucks a half gallon on sale. Sometimes, it’s even worse, with chunks of frost and ice mixed in, as they scrape the sides of their containers to get that extra dollar’s worth out of an empty container. So much for take-out ice cream. At least their fries are usually nice.
I’m slowing discovering that there is a difference in all things. Whether it’s the subtle difference between name brand snacks and their much cheaper and bulkier store brand counterparts, or the more obvious difference between a chuck steak and a t-bone, all things have different levels of enjoyment. However, much of that has been lost on many, due to our constant desire to have plenty over quality. A lot of us (and I’ll admit, I’m still one of them much of the time) would rather have that huge bag of no-name brand potato chips, than buy a bag half the size of Lays for the same price. Somehow, it feels like you’re not getting your full money’s worth if you can get more of a similar product for less than the higher quality genuine article. Why not pay half the price for a cheap knock-off? Well, in many cases, it pays to take the knock off, but when it comes to the simple pleasures, sometimes, just occasionally, you ought to try going all out, and trying something new. You can do it regardless of income, so long as you make sure it’s a special occasion. Doing it every day just turns it into a waste of money, and a boring, everyday thing.
I was just thinking the other day about the whole abortion debate. For the most part, the pro-life (anti-abortion) crowd, are very religious, and believe in God, heaven, etc… whereas the pro-death (pro-abortion) crowd, are generally atheistic, or don’t believe in God. The more I compare the two, the more absurd it seems.
How could an Atheist be in favor of abortion? To them, there is no afterlife, no existence beyond this physical form. Therefore, to abort an unborn child is the ultimate form of extermination. It denies the very existence of another person, and wipes them from history completely. To them, there should be nothing more despicable. Life should be ever more sacred, as it’s all they’ve got. Truly, to condone abortion they must be the most vile and evil of individuals, on par with Hitler’s Nazis.
For a religious person who believes in God and the afterlife, abortion should be a much less disastrous event. They most obviously believe the unborn child has a soul, and will go to heaven, rather than be snuffed out of existence forever. If someone’s Buddhist or of another sect that believes in reincarnation, they will no doubt believe that soul will be reborn into another life. Therefore, abortion is ever less evil, for that child will still exist in another form. The only sin would be that of the mother who chooses to commit murder to abort that child. Still, it is less a cosmic crime than wiping someone from existence entirely, as an atheist must believe.
In many cases, the roles are reversed when it comes to abortion. Those that should be fiercely opposed to it are its staunchest supporters, where those who might be inclined to let is slide are the ones fighting against the atrocity.
Personally, I do not believe in abortion being a cure-all for unwanted pregnancies. Easy abortions make it too easy for society to become immoral and depraved. People can screw around sexually all they want, and if an “accident” happens, all they need is to fork over some blood money and have the doctor scrape the consequences off the uterine wall. How shameful.
However, I do believe in the limited use of abortion in some cases. In the case of extreme genetic deformity or rape or incest, where the mother did not choose to get pregnant and is truly a victim, then abortion should be an option. I believe in such cases that a child’s soul would be better off staying off this orb, and I can’t imagine God would want a child born without legs, or with some other grotesque deformity. I do not see it as part of a divine plan to have people born into suffering. God certainly created us, but we create ourselves. Therefore, it is our responsibility to take matters into our own hands, but in the process we must be certain to determine the difference between putting an end to suffering, and a quick fix out of a slut’s own poor judgement.
If you want to screw around, that’s your choice, and you should pay the consequences, not denying a child life because it’s inconvenient for you. It wasn’t inconvenitent to spread your legs, obviously, or you wouldn’t have done it. Aborting a perfectly healthy child, simply because the mother is promiscuous or doesn’t want to be bothered having it is not equitable to a genetically deformed or inbred child who does not deserve pain and suffering, none of which is their fault or request.
It’s a shame how few people give a damn!
This has most certainly been an interesting week for me. For the first time since I started writing my editorial columns for the NCA, I have had the pleasure of being sent hate-mail. It was all in response to last week’s column, regarding abortion and religion. Obviously, the subject of abortion is a very complex one which almost everyone is passionate about, and I personally do not fall into one of the normal “schools” of thought when it comes to the subject, so it’s understandable how people could be sparked off by my comments about it. I happened to get a number of them from each side of the issue, via the NCA webmaster.
Here are a couple of examples of the hate-letters the NCA Webmaster received, denouncing my editorial on abortion. (Note: Names have been omitted to protect the hateful senders.)
Hate-Mail #1: “Maine’s favorite Conservative Columnist? Conservative my ass! That (expletive) is nothing but a moderate liberal mouthpiece masquerading as a republican. He thinks religious people should be in favor of abortion, and atheists should not? Who the hell is he to say what’s right or wrong for us to believe? How could a true Conservative say a child should be aborted, simply because it is the product of rape? God gave that child life, perhaps trying to make a blessing out of a tragedy. His viewpoints are in no way Conservative, and they’re not at all religious, despite what Mr. Three Cents for brains would have us believe. I suggest you drop this “columnist” before you lose readers. It’s not like you have many to spare.”
Hate-Mail #2: “I just read your site to laugh at how stupid you conservatives are, but this week you gave me the icing on the cake. Your Three Cents Worth column was a real hoot. You have a hate-mongering Christian talking about how anyone who supports Abortion is a Nazi, yet then says it’s okay to perform abortions if the pregnancy is “unclean” in some way. Typical, a Christian Conservative man presumes to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her own body, and making a total hypocritical asshole out of himself at the same time. Thanks for the laughs...”
Hate-Mail #3: “WTF?!? I don’t know where Martin Ingham gets his views, but he is so off base when it comes to religion. His comments are offensive to people on all sides of the argument. I was insulted due to the obvious anti-Christian overtones in his piece, and even my agnostic roommate (a believer in freedom of choice) was offended by the very hypocritical stance on both sides of the issue. Who’s supposed to decide when abortion should be allowed? What really is the difference between a child produced by Rape, and one by pure indiscretion? Both are unwanted. They should either both have a right to live, or both be permitted aborted. You can’t try to ride the third rail, as Ingham has chosen to do. Perhaps you should actually read his articles before you damage your site’s credibility by publishing them.”
That certainly is a lot of hate, isn’t it? Well, I will do my best to address these concerns, and I’m very glad to remain uncensored by my friends at the New Conservative Alliance. First of all, anyone who’s read more of my columns, other than last week’s, can tell I am very Conservative on most issues. Also, I am offended by some readers who have the nerve to consider anything less than an absolute ban on abortion to be liberal.
My stance on abortion is very clear. I do not believe in its widespread use as a form of contraception. If people want to screw around, fine, but they can’t expect to simply flush the consequences down the sink. However, when someone is the victim of rape, or incest, or is carrying a severely genetically defective child, I believe it is morally right to abort that pregnancy for the betterment of society. Mankind has certain responsibilities, and purposely forcing a genetically degenerate child to be born, and become a lifelong drag on society, not to mention the emotional strain of the parents who have to watch them suffer, is more of a crime than simply allowing abortion as an option. I do not call for mandatory abortions for genetically damaged children, but it should be an option for the parents. Likewise, incest is a heinous crime, and no child should be forced upon a woman in such a manner.
Go ahead and bitch and whine about how horrible my point of view is. Yet, in doing so, perhaps you should consider that your black and white view of the issue can be equally considered an atrocity.
Yet again, as happens to many a writer now and then, I find myself plagued with writer’s block. Surprising, considering the vast wealth of material I have to write about. There’s the chaos in Haiti, the same-sex marriage controversy, the outlandish claims that the Bush administration has been holding Osama Bin Laden captive for years now and are ready to release him in time for the election, to name just a few. However, despite the number of possible subjects, I find myself unable to put it all together.
Sometimes, life can really get to me. I look out and see the madness of the modern world, and know so much of it could so easily be put right, were half the people not against it for whatever reason. I become particularly sickened to see so many misled people trying to fix injustice by perpetrating more injustice. It’s especially a trait of guilt-edged liberals. Trying to drag people down to create “equality,” or using discrimination like affirmative action to level the playing field for under-qualified minorities. Yes, injustice, more than anything, drives me to despair.
I must stop and think, why is it so hard to continue? What is this unbreakable block all about? Why do I find myself stuck without the ability to conjure anything of value on the page? Just stray thoughts, and self-pontification. Could it be a plot of the vast-left-wing conspiracy, using their evil voodoo and psychic energy to break my concentration and weaken my strengths? Truly, I jest, however should a liberal in the media make such a claim about Conservatives using “psychic powers” to disrupt them, they would be taken seriously, and they’d be blaming Bush for it.
Sometimes, liberals just make you want to punch them until they stop trying to get up. It’s not the everyday Joe liberal on the street, but those ultra-leftists, who brag about wanting to destroy our society, our very way of life; those that make no bones about wanting to steal the six-gun as my side, or deny me the right to cut a tree in my back yard, because “they” know better how to run my life for me. Always, the liberal elite knows best. If the common people were to make their own life choices for themselves, dear god, what ever would those blood sucking liberals leeching off the bureaucratic system survive? They’d have to get a real job, and they couldn’t possibly stand that. The only kind of crap they want to shovel is their own legislative BS.
So, it would seem I’ve managed to make an entire column while trying to break through my writer’s block. Perhaps now I’ve worked up the spirit to work on my latest science fiction short, which lurks in the forefront of my mind, but the words lay deep in the darkest recesses of my heart. Maybe, just maybe, this column of stray thoughts will have broken through the mental blockage that has kept me from my writing for so many days. Have a good week, Conservative allies, and I hope you liberals see the light!
So, after the horrid train bombings in Madrid last week, the Spanish people have overwhelmingly deposed their Conservative government and elected their Socialists adversaries. Truly a foolish, knee-jerk reaction. I must say, I was hoping the Spanish would show more common sense and courage in the face of adversity, but alas, they have let Conservatives down the world over. It is a sad day for Spain, which will be pulling out of Iraq, and turning against America and our efforts to fend off the evils of the world at large.
Let me share an analogy. Let’s compare Spain’s Conservative leaders to a doctor, and terrorists to a cancer. The doctor prescribes chemotherapy, which is the appropriate treatment for the cancer. It is working well, but the patient gets sick and throws up because the cancer doesn’t want to give up without a fight. Not wanting to feel sick from the treatment, the patient (Spanish voters) fire the doctor who prescribed chemo, and hire a new doctor who slaps a band aid over their cancer and sends them home. The vomiting stops, but the cancer lives to grow and finish the patient off in the near future.
This is what Spanish voters have done. They have reacted without bothering to think about the long term repercussions of their actions. They have decided to befriend their cancer, rather than kill it, and have therefore spelled their own doom at the hands of corrupt socialist bureaucracy and terrorist propagation.
Daring to speak what many can conceive by few would dare to mention, I would not be entirely surprised if these Spanish Socialists had a hand in the train bombings that left 200 dead in Madrid. These radical leftists are the same people who emulate Lenin, who once said terrorism is just another form of persuasion. The bombings persuaded voters, all right. It persuaded them to make a foolish decision which will only attract more terrorism in the future. It’s just too convenient that these bombings occurred less than a week from Spain’s national elections.
Spain will be sorry for electing the Socialists, but by the time they are it will be too late. The socialists will bankrupt their economy and make the citizens wholly dependent on the state for their needs, and will have alienated Spain’s greatest friends. In addition, I’m sure there will be more terrorist attacks, as the terrorists have proven in the past that they don’t care if you wish to appease them. They want you and your people dead, and will not stop until you are their slaves or six feet under. So there will be more terrorist attacks in Spain, unless the Socialists were responsible for orchestrating this as a stunt to steal votes, in which case I expect the only terror in Spain to be the corruption of the government terrorizing the citizens through corrupt economic, social, and foreign policies.
The Socialists of America are very desperate for a win this coming November. They see President Bush and the Republicans as an incredibly tough adversary to defeat. John Kerry has very little chance of deposing this sitting president, with his shady record, and constant double-speak. I would not put it past these cowardly leftists to commit some acts of terrorism themselves against our fine nation prior to the election. They might think it could bolster their chances, but I think any such act would only solidify our nation against their sleazy tactics. Still, be very skeptical about any terrorist activity this summer and fall. It could be originating from closer than you think.
Last week, the Christian Civic League of Maine announced that they were going to seek out and publish online facts and credible allegations about our state legislators’ sexuality. This proposal lasted about ten minutes before the entire state was screaming, left and right, about “invasion of privacy” and “discrimination.” Therefore, the next day the idea was scrapped, without anyone bothering to defend this brave initiative.
Our legislators are our representatives in state government. They are there to represent our values and ideas. Therefore, we must know who they are. Otherwise, they will not be representing us. They will be representing their secret lives.
I am not extremely interested in whether our legislators are homosexual, though I do believe it is an intrinsic part of the full disclosure which our elected officials should be required to share. We should know everything about our legislators that can affect the way they represent us. “Invasion of Privacy” is not an issue. When they take on the task of representing the people in government, they give up their right to absolute privacy. For our form of government to remain accountable and functional, we cannot afford our elected officials the luxury of privacy. If they want to keep their secrets private, they shouldn’t be running for political office.
People vote for a candidate, based on what they know about them. If a candidate is homosexual and conceals it from his/her constituents, they are not being elected. The person they’re pretending to be is elected, and therefore the voters are being cheated out of their choice. In this day and age, where homosexuality and sexual promiscuity are “no big deal,” it’s time the people were told the truth about who their elected officials are, especially during an election year, so they have the chance to place an educated vote, instead of a shot in the dark. If our legislators can’t get re-elected based on who they really are, then they shouldn’t have been elected in the first place. As I said, they really weren’t. The perception (lie) of who they were was elected.
Besides knowing the sexuality of our elected officials, the people should also be apprised of our legislators’ financial background. We should know whether a candidate has been able to balance their own checkbook, so we know if we can trust them to balance the state’s. If they are financially irresponsible in their “private” life, how can we expect them to be responsible in their public role as a legislator?
We trust our legislators with one of the most important jobs in our country. They hold the very fabric of our society in their hands. They write and alter laws, which impact the well-being of every single citizen in the state. How can we trust strangers to decide our issues for us? If we don’t know who and what our legislators are, it’s no better than having monarchy in England deciding our laws!
The people of this country have to start demanding full disclosure from their local, state, and federal government officials. We need to know who we’re voting for, and what they stand for. This isn’t a cure-all, but it is a major step in cleaning up our government, and making sure they truly represent “we the people,” and not their own corrupt agendas.
In today’s society, I am thoroughly discouraged by the lack of common courtesy shown by the majority of people to everyone around them. In this world of anything goes, and do what you feel, nobody is responsible for their own actions, and nobody seems to care how their actions affect those around them, or otherwise.
Let me go over a few recent cases with you.
The other day, I had a rather rude awakening to the kind of people who now live in my neighborhood. I happen to own 5 acres of land which I am slowly developing into a farm, and someday soon planning to build on. A few days ago, a fairly new resident to our neck of the woods decided it would be fun for him to chew up my farm road with his 4-wheeler, without permission. Oh, he’d gotten permission to use a road adjacent to my property from the cousin by marriage of the guy who owns the road, but he’d gotten no such permission to step one foot on my property, let alone 4 wheels! The farm road in question is not built up in places, and during these early spring weeks, when the ground is still very wet and only half-thawed, it is not firm enough to drive on. So now I have a farm road with 6 inch ruts in places. If that wasn’t bad enough, the bastard had the nerve to back over one of my apple trees while screwing around on my property. I could demand payment for the damaged, but the guy would just pull a song and dance about “not knowin’ nothin’” and that he had a right to trespass on my property because I didn’t have big neon sign saying “Stay the hell out!”
We see discourtesy like this every day, all over our nation, and throughout the world. It is insulting, and there is no call for such disrespectful behavior.
Further insult came in the past 24 hours after I wrote a petition, protesting Sony Pictures’ recent plans to turn Richard Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies,” into a movie, despite the fact that his “non-fiction” book has been proven to contain various lies, half-truths, and misrepresentation of documented facts, not to mention it totally contradicts his own past statements from a year ago. For every supportive signature I received on my petition, there was a smartass post, threatening or insulting me personally, showing the mentality of 8th grade bullies. I seriously doubt any of those petty liberal signers were of voting age, and any that were are likely brainwashed college students taking time out from smoking a reefer to get a chuckle out of mocking my intelligent petition.
Yes, we live in a world where common courtesy is not so common at all, and where petty pea-brained bullies think they have a right to screw with us, just because we’re in the way of their fun. This cruel climate has to stop. More of us have to stand up to such petty tyranny and tell the punks where to get off. This world would be a lot better off if everyone tried to show a little professional respect for one another, and acknowledge the fact that your neighbor has rights as well, and is equally a free American, and should not be the object of you malicious fun.
One of the key talking points for John Kerry and his cohorts running as Democrats this year is their claim that George W. Bush has “alienated the world,” from America, and turned the world against us. This is a very easily exposed misrepresentation, and one I will elaborate on for those who might be inclined to believe the spin.
The whole world is not against us. Those who have “turned” against us are as follows: the left-wingers in Canada, the French and Germans who are upset because we shut down their flow of illegal oil money from Saddam’s Iraq, the Russians because they enjoy the tension and are sore because we shot down one of their biggest creditors (and it seems Putin sometimes thinks it’s still the cold war), and the Socialists in Spain who were put in power by the terrorists. Those are the nations that have “turned against us.”
Here is just a recap of who is still supportive of America and is not “against us.” Some are small players, some are easily recognized as key powers, but all are members of the world community, and their numbers, military strength, populations, and UN votes all outnumber those handful of petty nations who stand against the United States because they hate America at heart:
THE LIST :
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Iceland, Japan, Kuwait, Macedonia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Rwanda, Singapore, the Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
Certainly, these nations make up more of the free world than France, Germany, Canada, and Russia. Certainly, these nations far outnumber our true enemies who would hate America no matter what we did or who was in power, such as Syria, Iran, and North Korea (all of which are very silent at the moment). I would also like to point out that the war also effectively disarmed the terrorist regime of Libya, who are now on their way to becoming our friends and allies for peace, and it all happened without a shot fired in Libya. Somehow, I think having Libya turn over their WMD’s, and stop their Nuclear Bomb program that was mere months away from producing a functional warhead is worth having the French upset with us.
Those who would believe that our nation has been “alienated” from the world is only listening to the hype of a biased media. A handful of kook protestors scream and shout, and the press trumpet their noise a thousand times louder than it is, simply to sensationalize the story, or in some cases to convince people that the current Administration is “the great Satan.”
When it comes down to it, the countries that hate America now have always hated America, and those who are “alienated” are alienated for very material reasons. As I and many others have explained before, France and Germany were raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal oil revenue, trading with Saddam Hussein behind the scenes in spite of the UN sanctions! Saddam owed Russia millions of dollars he borrowed from them during the cold war and embargo years, and with him out of power the Russians have no one to send a bill to, so that’s why they’re upset. Canada opposes the war for various reasons, but mostly because they are very socialized and hate our Conservative President, and want to help destroy him however possible. That, and the liberal government is heavily influenced by French Canadians who feel obligated to side with their kinsmen across the sea.
This is just another left-wing talking point, exposed and shot down by common sense and the truth. That’s my Three Cents Worth!
Before voting this November, anyone thinking of casting a ballot should be aware of John Kerry’s voting record and where he stands on the issues. This man is in my opinion not even worthy to win the Democratic party primary, but as he has acquired the votes to become the party’s nominee, there is no choice in my mind other than to vote for George W. Bush.
Here is where John Kerry stands on several key issues:
1: If you are in favor of Federal Gun Registration and Licensing, and do not believe in civilian gun ownership, you should vote for Kerry.
Based on Kerry’s past votes for anti-gun legislation, as well as personal statements and campaign speeches in which he calls for tighter laws that would deny law abiding citizens their right to keep and bear arms, one could easily conclude that he hates the Constitution’s Second Amendment. He has a pro-gun rating of “F” from the National Rifle Association, for his anti-gun stance. He has voiced admiration for Canada’s gun laws, under which you must have each gun registered and buy a license every year to own or even touch one. He has never challenged a law that would deny citizens a right to keep and bear arms, and supported many that limit a law abiding citizen’s ability to acquire firearms (including the Brady Bill in 1993, and the assault weapons ban this year).
2: If you believe in a woman’s right to choose an abortion, believe the government should use tax payer money to fund abortions, that children under 18 should be allowed to have abortions without letting their parents know about it, and that the Untied States government should give money to Communist China to fund their forced abortion and sterilization program, you should be for Kerry.
Kerry is very pro-abortion. He has voted to uphold abortion rights 100% of the time, including when those right infringe on a parent’s right to care for their child, or in cases of forced abortions by foreign governments. He has voted to federally fund abortions (to use taxpayer money to fund abortions for anyone who asks for them). He has voted against having parents of minors under 18 notified when those minors seek to have an abortion, and voted against requiring a parent’s approval before an abortion could be granted, thus denying parental rights. He is in favor of children having the right to have an abortion without even letting their legal guardians know about it! That is just over the line in my opinion.
Partial Birth Abortion: Kerry has also voted against banning the gruesome Partial Birth Abortion procedure, during which a child is delivered feet first and has its head chopped off before it can breathe its first breath. He has voted against a ban on this form of abortion 3 times, despite the fact that the procedure has never been deemed necessary for the health or safety of the mother.
Forced Abortions By Foreign Governments: When the senate voted on a bill that would stop the government from sending money to the UN Population Fund if that money was then sent to China expressly for the advancement of their FORCED abortion and sterilization program, Kerry voted against it, thinking it’s a government’s right to make their citizens abort their children and sterilize them to assure they can’t ever have children again, all against the will of said citizens.
3: If you do not believe in executing criminals in any instance, with the possible exception of extreme cases of terrorism, you might support Kerry.
John Kerry is against the Federal death penalty. He has repeatedly voted against the death penalty, and even voted against applying it to terrorists, though he recently changed his mind and in 2002 did voice support for executing terrorists because of the September 11th attacks. Despite his few words in favor of executing terrorists, Kerry still opposes the death penalty in almost every instance, and has voiced particular opposition to executing those who commit murder while under the influence of illegal drugs.
4: If you think taxes on everyone are too low, then Kerry’s your man, but don’t expect him to pay the “extra” tax. Also, if you believe the government should be allowed to spend money they don’t have and increase the national debt (deficit spending), Kerry will satisfy you on that requirement.
John Kerry is constantly saying that taxes in America are too low, and that everyone ought to pay higher taxes. In spite of his call for higher taxation, he apparently doesn’t believe it should apply to him, for in Massachusetts there are 2 state income tax rates. Each year, despite the option to pay more, as he advocates everyone else ought to do, Mr. Kerry always chooses to pay at the lower tax rate. Kerry voted against the Bush tax cut which provided a significant reduction in taxes for all income brackets, and vows to repeal it should he become president. He voted for the largest tax hike in United States history in 1993. He has voted against tax relief packages to benefit middle and lower income families 10 times while in congress, and has voted against balancing the federal budget 5 separate times. He has also voted on 5 separate occasions to appropriate money from the Social Security Trust Fund, and used it to fund other government programs, helping to destabilize the system designed to provide security for our nation’s elderly.
5: If you dislike the United States military and want it cut at all levels, Kerry is your man, big time! Additionally, if you want to weaken our intelligence agencies through funding cuts, he will deliver.
Kerry voted 7 times to seriously cut funding to the military. He voted against funds that would increase soldier pay and develop key military technology (including the Trident Submarine project, Stealth Bombers, and SDI Star Wars tech). While a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he pushed to cut funding of the US intelligence community (including the CIA and FBI) by 2.6 Billion dollars, contributing to their inability to prevent 9/11. Kerry voted against the first Gulf War in 1991, yet voted in favor of the second gulf war in 2003, despite the fact that he “changed his mind” and then voted against funding the war. Oh, but he was in favor of it before he was against it. Somehow that’s supposed to make everybody on both sides happy.
6: If you believe it is okay for a Presidential Candidate to have in the past plotted to assassinate legitimately elected United States Senators, Kerry’s your man. Also, if you still believe the Vietnam War is a valid issue in today’s society, you’ll like Kerry’s constant use of it for talking points. If you like Jane Fonda, John Kerry is her male counterpart, politically.
John Kerry served for approximately 4 months in Vietnam, during which he saw no major combat. After receiving undisclosed injuries, he was discharged and given 3 purple hearts. Following his discharge, he helped anti-war elements in their protests, and even helped start an anti-war organization; “Vietnam Veterans against the War” (VVAW). He spoke in favor of putting US troops under the direct and permanent control of the United Nations, and handing our military sovereignty over to them. In 1971, he attended a seminar bankrolled by Jane Fonda, during which 125 self-proclaimed Vietnam veterans told of the atrocities they’d witnessed and commited while serving. Shortly thereafter, most of the “veterans” were proved to have never served in the military, and nearly every atrocity they’d spoken of was a lie. It is also a recorded fact that in November of 1971, Kerry attended a meeting of VVAW during which they plotted the assassination of pro-war US Senators (while he was officially a member of their group).
7: If you believe in Gay Marriage, Kerry is your obvious choice for president. If you believe the government shouldn’t pass legislation to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, it’s Kerry all the way. Also, Kerry’s your man if you believe each and every state should be forced to recognize Gay Marriage licenses from other states.
Kerry openly supports Civil Unions for homosexuals, and although he has recently claimed to not be in favor of Gay Marriage, he has fought and still fights any legislation that would deny full-fledged homosexual marriage rights. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which gave states the right to make their own decisions on whether to recognize homosexual marriages as valid. He further sent a letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, speaking in opposition to a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only being between a man and a woman.
8: If you don’t believe children should be allowed to pray or express a belief in God on school grounds, believe it’s your constitutional right to burn the US Flag in protest, or that human Cloning is a great idea, it’s Kerry again!
John Kerry voted against allowing voluntary prayer in public school. He voted to deny a student the right to worship however they desire at recess or during other free time, and thus voted to demand forced atheism in public schools. Kerry also voted against laws that would make desecration of the US flag a crime. He also voted against a ban on Human Cloning, though fully supports the forced abortion of said clones if the parents live in China.
9: If you believe Communist China is a-okay, despite their atrocious treatment of their own people, that America should destroy its Nuclear Arsenal, regardless of whether or not our rivals do the same, or that we should snuggle up to terrorists, so long as they’re Communist, then Kerry can make your dreams a reality!
Kerry supported giving China “Favored Nation” status for trade purposes, despite their poor human rights record. In fact, he argued against allowing the human rights issue from even being entered into the decision making process. He is in favor of disarming America’s Nuclear arsenal, without requiring a similar disarming from our adversaries or allies. He has voiced favor for, and called for military action against Iraq up until he declared his candidacy for the Democratic Primary for President. In the mid-eighties, Kerry also met with Communist Sandinistas in Central America.
10: If you believe in higher environmental regulations of private land, allowing third world nations to pollute all they want, while crippling America with tight restrictions on pollution, and that we should not seek to extract our own natural resources, including oil, to become self-sufficient, your choice is John Kerry!
Kerry’s stance on the environment is very green, when it applies to the "common people," and exempts the rich elites such as himself. He voted for the Kyoto Environmental Protocol, despite the fact that it exempted major third world polluters, including China, which produces many hundred times more air & water pollution than America. He has voted to raise gasoline taxes multiple times, and has argued that gas prices are too cheap, and the affordability of fuel is responsible for much damage to the environment. He has sided with ecological exremists in saying Sport Utility Vehicles (minivans, trucks, etc...) are "evil," yet he personally owns 7 (or his "family" owns them, as he sometimes claims). He is against drilling for oil in ANWR, despite the fact that it is a barren arctic wasteland, and drilling would cause no foreseeable ecological damage. He was against the Nantucket sound wind farm project, a clean alternative energy source, until the man spearheading the project contributed millions to Kerry's campaign, just showing how much he really cares about the environment or fighting "special interests."
So there some top reasons to vote for John Kerry this November. If you agree with Kerry on these issues, you will be very wise to give him your vote. However, if you disagree with some, if not all, of his stances on these issues, then you must think twice before even giving him a hand to shake.
This is an issue that many people really don’t understand all that well. Believe it or not, Free Trade is anything but free for us, and I intend to spend this article enlightening those who have little understanding of the fundamentals behind modern Free Trade.
Free Trade is one issue on which I differ from many Conservatives. It is generally thought that pro-business Conservatives are in favor of Free Trade, and many are. However, there are just as many Free Trade Liberals (it was, after all, Bill Clinton who signed on to NAFTA). I am very much opposed to the kind of Free Trade which is going on today, because it will soon prove to be America’s downfall, unless we work to change it.
To explain the economic impact of Free Trade, let’s put you, the reader, into a little tale. In this tale, you are a Carpenter. Your friend Rick is a factory worker, and he wants you to build an addition onto his house. Suddenly, the quality products that Rick produces in the factory (let’s say they’re shirts), are imported from Communist China for half the price. Now, the gullible consumer thinks, “Oh, boy, what a bargain. Why do I want to blow $6 on a shirt when I can buy one of these Chinese ones for $3?” Therefore, Rick’s factory closes, and he has no income. Therefore, he cannot afford to have the addition built onto his house. You, the carpenter, do not get the income from building Rick’s addition, and therefore cannot afford the $3 for the cheap Chinese shirt. Had Rick’s factory remained in business, you’d have been able to buy the American made shirt for the few extra dollars, because you’d have made the few extra dollars.
Free Trade takes American dollars out of the hands of Americans. If you don’t have a job that makes you money, how do you intend to buy the cheaper imported merchandise? In the long run, you end up unable to make money to buy the cheap crap. Before Free Trade, things may have cost a little more, but there was more money in the hands of American workers to purchase them.
Who does benefit from Free Trade? America’s enemies, of course. Places like Communist China, where they use slave labor to flood the American market with cheap goods, in a long term plan to destroy America’s industrial capabilities, and bankrupt our Capitalist Economy. Most people are under the false assumption that the Red Chinese are being Commercialized by our Free Trade, when in truth it is merely a ruse they use to destroy us.
For those of you who are thinking that John Kerry would do anything to stop free trade, I have to say you’re dead wrong. Kerry is very much in favor of Free Trade. In fact, his wife’s company, makers of Heinz Ketchup, have in the past couple of years moved over 60% of their manufacturing out of the country, which means without Free Trade Heinz would suddenly find their overseas factories unable to ship their product to America, and they would be forced to relocate back to the United States, which would cost Theresa Heinz Kerry a few million; truly nothing compared to the 40 million she recently spent on a private jet, or the 600+ million she has stashed away in bank accounts around the world. Kerry is not anti-free trade, just to clear the air of that assumption.
Free Trade weakens America, leaving us open to future invasions from our enemies. It also lowers the income of the average American, and although it does lower the cost of goods in the stores, people can afford fewer items because they aren’t making as much money to buy the cheaper product. The only people who benefit from Free Trade are the wealthy elite, like John Kerry, and America’s enemies overseas, who want to see our system destroyed.
However, Free Trade does have a very vociferous enabler: the labor unions. It is the big labor unions who have inflated the price of American products to the extreme, and made Free Trade irresistable. The unions of America have spent the past 50 years gutting America’s industrial base, making demands for pay hikes and employee benefits far beyond what is reasonable, driving up the cost of American goods to the point where they are not affordable, and Free Trade appears the only answer for the middle/lower income worker. If workers were willing to accept honest pay rates, and corrupt unions didn’t have a monopoly on labor in so many industries, American goods would still be affordably priced. We have laws in place that protect the health and well-being of workers, as well as minimum wage laws; meaning labor unions are no longer necessary. In today’s workplace, the individual has the power to speak for himself. He doesn’t need some union thug to speak for him, nor should he be forced to belong to a union, simply to work in his chosen field. Ah, but this is all a different column altogether.
Today, I would like to talk with you about Civilian Gun Ownership. As you can imagine, I am a strong advocate of the right to keep and bear arms. Now, I could go out and find plenty of news stories and statistical studies to explain my position, and I could go out and pick apart some of the fraudulent studies funded by the anti-gun lobby and show you where they’re lying and how they’re distorting the facts, but I’ll save that for another time. Today, I am simply going to use Common Sense and Logic to explain why private gun ownership is a good idea. Unlike my opponents, who use “feelings” and are of the mindset of “it’s the way I wish it were, so I’m going to make believe it is that way,” I am going to use rational thinking as my talking points.
Let’s begin with the most common misconception that more guns will mean more crime. First of all, how a gun can stand up and start doing things on its own is totally beyond me. I do not understand how the mere presence of a simple mechanical tool can magically create crime. They can be used in the commission of a crime, but so can a car, or a baseball bat. Are we going to outlaw America’s favorite sport, simply because some slimeball could pick up a bat and take a swing at someone, or threaten a convenience store clerk with it?
Well, I must say, that little paragraph has opened the door to more questions and conjecture from both friend and foe of gun ownership. It leads us into the most clear rebuttal from the anti-gunners that “But baseball bats have a different, passive use. Guns are designed to kill, so that’s what they’re supposed to do.” Well, that is mostly true. Guns are designed to kill, however, they are not designed to be used in the commission of crimes. They are designed for the harvesting of meat through traditional (even aboriginal) means, as well as personal defense from violent criminals. Guns are designed to stop crime, not aid it, however any inanimate object can be used for either good or evil. Therefore, guns can aid evil people in the commission of evil acts, but that leads us into our next talking point.
Banning guns will not take them out of the hands of the criminals. There is a large misconception that in a free and open market society one can abolish gun ownership and somehow keep them away from criminals. In fact, banning guns merely makes the law-abiding citizens who want to be good and obey the government comply with the gun ban, leaving the criminals, who don’t care that they’re breaking the law by owning a gun, the only ones armed. If someone is sleazy enough to want to break into a house, rape, murder, steal, and do whatever other illegal acts, are they really going to care that they’re breaking yet another law by owning a gun? Of course not. Also, unless there are fascist type restrictions on trade, and brutal, inhumane punishments, such as those under dictatorial regimes, there is not enough incentive for any criminal to give up their guns; nor is there any way to keep black market importers from smuggling in as many guns as criminals want for an affordable price. You can’t stop the flow of illegal drugs into free countries, and guns are no different.
Now let us explain the criminal mind a little, and how personal gun ownership can affect them. The vast majority of criminals don’t want to get shot at anymore than you or I do. Therefore, a good number of them would not consider breaking into the home of a gun owner, knowing full well that they could be shot. The few criminals who are willing to attack regardless of whether people are armed or not will be ever more inclined to attack the unarmed citizen, and there is no chance for their victim to put up any sort of defense without a gun. The Police cannot be everywhere, and generally show up after the crimes have taken place. It is little consolation to the dead victim if his murderer is caught. It doesn’t bring him back to life, but a gun in his hand when a homicidal burglar attacks could very well guarantee him that life.
To put it plainly, most criminals are cowards, and will leave you alone if they think you’ll defend yourself against them. The few who aren’t cowards, you might as well be prepared for them, because they’ll strike whether you’re armed or not; only, if you’re not armed they’ll do whatever they want to you, and you will have no chance. If you’re armed, you stand a good chance of defending yourself and seeing to it that they will not harm anyone else in the future.
Also, going back to the whole “guns are made for killing” assumption, there are various uses for guns that do not involve self-defense. There are ranges where people practice the sport of shooting. They shoot targets of various shapes and sizes in a quest for accuracy which is very enjoyable. Many people who have only recently discovered sport shooting can attest to the fact that in the sporting environment it is fun, and in some cases like discovering a part of your heritage, to fire a gun. Firearms have served for the betterment of society for hundreds of years, and there is something special about lining up the sites and taking aim at an inanimate target.
I’m sure everyone’s aware of the hunting use of firearms, as it is the most traditional use for guns (other than shooting the king’s knights off their horses). Those who oppose hunting with guns really do not understand the vital part human hunters now play in the preservation of the ecosystem. Despite any natural predators, mankind has always been there as well, harvesting meat and thinning the herds. Without man to keep the balance of nature, certain species overpopulate and cause damage to the ecosystem. They also commonly starve to death and die painful, unnecessary deaths. Instead of a healthy herd that the hunter harvests from, you have a sickly, starving horde of animals which would be better off dead. Also, there is no predator as humane as man in the killing of prey. Wolves and Coyotes commonly catch deer and rip them apart while they scream in pain. They take pleasure in torturing their prey, ripping legs off them in a hideous gore-fest. Those who support reintroduction of wolves in places where they have become extinct have no idea about their savage nature, or a clue as to why they were exterminated in the first place.
Gun Safety. Many people believe guns are sensitive and commonly go off unexpectedly. This is a totally false assumption, much of it propagated by Hollywood (some intentional, some just because the writers don’t know any better, and still others just to make things more spectacular or funny). I have been using guns since I was a small child, and I have never once had one go off unintentionally. I have never seen a loaded cartridge (that’s ammo for those of you who aren’t familiar with guns) go off outside of the chamber, though I suppose you could make one explode if you put it on an anvil and pounded on it with a hammer. You can tap and slap and drop loaded ammo and it will not blow up, and unless you have a gun which is falling apart from extremely poor maintenance, you shouldn’t have any problems there. So long as you follow a few common sense guidelines, there is no way a gun can go off “accidentally.”
These are just a few common sense points I wanted to make about gun ownership. I certainly hope it was enlightening and it helps shred some of the disinformation and superstitions out there.
This Sunday, the pastor at my local Church brought up a message which I happen to disagree with, and one which I have found becoming far too commonplace in Christian teachings these days; the idea that the physical world we reside in is inherently “evil” or is somehow the antithesis of heaven. I have heard this same message expressed by many preachers, who believe world affairs are of no consequence to Christianity, for ours is the kingdom of heaven, and since we’re going to heaven this world doesn’t matter.
I can understand the source of this manner of thinking. Sometimes, you just look out at the state of the world and can see nothing but immorality, injustice, and despicable things that are considered normal by societal standards, and it’s easy to think that for such downright evil things to be going on in the world, that the world itself must somehow be at fault. But that thinking cannot, and must not, be allowed to go unchallenged, for if this world is inherently evil, would that not mean that it is something God intended?
God is the creator of the heavens and the Earth. If so, how could the physical world be anti-God? Why would God purposely create an evil world which is the antithesis of his glory, and condemn humanity to live in a cursed, useless existence on such a world? No, I cannot believe the world itself is evil or against god. No God that I could ever imagine or have faith in would ever do something so sick and twisted.
The world God created is not naturally evil. However, inside the flesh of every man lurks the seeds of chaos, the dark instincts and corrupt desires which can lead us to do corrupt things, and shape the world in the image of our darker side. It is the free-will God granted us which gives us a choice to be good or evil, and therefore grow spiritually in either direction. The men who give in to their darkest desires for power and perversion have no reservations about spreading their sickness. They are not restricted by morals or honor, and thus their message dominates in many cases, shaping the world in their image.
Humanity was placed on this world for a purpose, and it is not to find out that it is worthless and we should just let it go to hell while we let our spirits fly off to heaven when we finally pass on. We are here for far greater things than that, or else why would God waste his and our time in being in this physical realm? What would be the point in condemning us to a physical world in which we have only the choice to follow him out of it, or be damned to remain in it?
The meaning of life is something that people have sought the answer to since the dawn of existence, so I will not stray so far off this columns topic to attempt to relate my personal understanding of it (that’s best left to a future editorial). I will say, however, that the only logical and non sadistic reason God could have for sending us to this existence, on this world of his creation, would be to rule it, and show some form of devotion to his grand design. It is not to give up and throw the world away, just because there’s a more appealing life waiting for us in heaven. By giving up on the physical world, we are shirking our responsibility, and denying God’s will.
It is true that immorality has become prevalent in the world today, and it has been throughout history, but the evil is only aided and amplified by the fact that so many good people who ought to be out fighting the evil of this world have simply been disarmed by the concept that evil is the natural order of things on earth, and there’s really no way to change it. Instead of surrendering, and dreaming of a heaven, they ought to be working to help assure that those who come after them have the chance to choose the pathway to heaven.
The same good-hearted Christians who see the political affairs of the physical world to be of no consequence should be the ones out demanding accountability of their leaders, working to elect Representatives, Senators, and Presidents who best represent their values, and they should take to the polling places, unwilling to leave the world in the hands of criminals and evil men. If they would only stand up and fight for the heaven they are asking to be handed, the world would be a much better place, and the future world not look so immoral and bleak.
This is our world. It is a gift from God. It is sinful to condemn God’s creation because of the failings of man.
It has been well over a month since I have had the time to draft a column, and as much as I regret not being able to find the time to express myself weekly as I once did, I do find that whenever I find the time, and have the ambition to do it, my work is exceptional, and well worth the sometimes long wait. As the fall winds down, and the snow starts to fly, time will become more available for my writing.
Now, then, let’s get on with the article.
Firstly, I would have you peruse the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. It clearly reads: “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.” It is a fairly clear phrase, but despite that many people are still confused about its meaning, and virtually all of our federal officials ignore it altogether. For those who might not be familiar with this amendment, it simply means that rights or privileges which are not specifically guaranteed or prohibited by the Constitution are to be left up to the individual States to decide, or the people to decide for themselves. This means that anything the Constitution does not ban or guarantee is none of the Federal Government’s business!
What are the implications of this Amendment? First and foremost, it means that the Federal Government is spitting on the constitution every single day that it enforces a “Federal” law which is not based upon a Constitutional mandate. Secondly, it means that if anyone in the legal profession, who has any true desire to fight for the Constitution ever bothers to realize this, they could turn the entire Federal Government upside down.
I will elaborate. In the Constitution, there is no article or amendment governing the use of Drugs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Marijuana is illegal to citizens, or that Cocaine, Opiates, etc… are banned. Nor is there even a blanket clause, saying “The Federal government will have the right to regulate Narcotic substances.” There is no Constitutional mandate giving the Federal government any power over this matter, so all current Federal drug laws are unConstitutional.
Do not get me wrong. I am not in favor of legalizing all manner of dangerous substances. I have never used recreational drugs, and I never will. However, because I do not believe in the use of narcotics does not change the fact that the Federal government has a serious problem on its hands. At present, the Federal government is illegally enforcing drug laws. Under the current Constitutional mandates, it is the duty of the individual States to deem drugs either legal or illegal. I am surprised this has not been brought to the Supreme Court as of yet, but I would not be surprised to see the Supreme Court spit on the Constitution yet again by throwing out such a case.
To avoid throwing out the Constitution, the Federal Government must do one of two things: It must either write up a Constitutional Amendment giving the Fed power to regulate Narcotic Drugs, and submit it to the states for approval, or it must totally throw out its current drug laws, and give the individual States their right to regulate those drugs however they see fit.
There are various other laws which the Federal Government imposes against the will of the Constitution, but drug laws are the most obvious, and potentially dangerous, of them all. If something is not done soon, there is no telling what will become of our nation. Will we become a country that depends on petty bureaucrats, not the Constitution, to decide our rights, or will we become a nation of chaos, where order is broken down because it is based on a lie? It is not a hypothetical under the current circumstances. It is an inevitability. If the Federal Government does not do one of the two things I have suggested, they will be forced to make a snap decision in the near future.
Anything the Federal Government prohibits or permit, which isn’t specified in the United States Constitution, is really none of their business to decide at all. It is a State matter until the States ratify a Constitutional Amendment granting the Fed the powers written into the ratified Amendment. I’d say it’s time the Congress got off their high horses and started drafting some Amendments, and be willing to accept the decision of the States.
Our nation is a Representative Republic. That means each State is supposed to be independent to a limited extent. In today’s modern world, the line between Federal and State powers has been so blurred that one can no longer tell the difference. The only way America will continue as a free nation is if we return to the foundation and remove all that is not based upon its strict mandates. If the Constitution is followed exactly as intended, it makes for the most free and civilized society attainable by modern man. Many people don’t know that, because we have never, in our lifetimes, lived under strict Constitutional law. We have lived, and currently live, under a bureaucratic morass, which is in direct violation of the Constitution, where they should be its enforcers, for the benefit of all Americans.
| NCA Mainpage |