Saturday, November 22, 2008

If New York City is asking for a bailout from the Federal government, how could they do something so stupid?

WCBSTV.com is reporting:

NEW YORK (CBS) ― City officials have ordered 22 New York churches to stop
providing beds to homeless people. With temperatures well below freezing
early Saturday, the churches must obey a city rule requiring faith-based
shelters to be open at least five days a week -- or not at all. Arnold
Cohen, president of the Partnership for the Homeless, a nonprofit that serves as
a link with the city, said he had to tell the churches they no longer qualify.He
said hundreds of people now won't have a place to sleep.The Department of
Homeless Services said the city offers other shelters with the capacity to
accept all those who have been sleeping in the churches. The city had 8,000 beds
waiting. Last year, four unsheltered homeless people died in the city
during cold weather, so three dozen emergency outreach teams were prepped to
respond to reports of homeless people outdoors or in the subways. "We really
don't want people sleeping on the streets, on grates, on church steps. We want
people sleeping in beds," said Homeless Commissioner Robert Hess.The homeless
can be coaxed indoors but not forced unless their life is in danger.


I have a dumb question: if a church only can help the homeless one or two nights a week and the city is in such dire straits as to beg for money, why would the city government tell churches not to help? It is almost as ignorant as taking private jets to a Congressional hearing to beg for money. But what do I know, I'm not a close-to-the-fort-politician

Friday, November 21, 2008

To those that are whining about the economy: STOP, you are making things worse

I know we are in tough times. I know people are hurting. BUT to a certain extent we have done this to ourselves. Whether we allowed politicians to think they know best and create smothering regulations and taxes or we have over-extended ourselves with credit that we have no way of paying back this is where we are at.

I had CNN and Fox News on today, every other story was about what to do in this economy including a no brainer about whether or not people should forgo giving gifts this year. I AM SO FED UP with garbage like this. My parents would tell us every year that my sister and I didn't get everything we wanted for Christmas. There were years we couldn't afford to do anything for vacation, including one year where a person at my folks' bank embezzled money from our family account. If you can't afford gifts, so what. Whether the economy was good or bad this year none of our family was going to do much about gifts. A couple of years ago I had less money than I have now. I gave mom a wall hanging telling her how much I love her. I just can't imagine it is such a hard thought for people to accept they don't have the money, but what do I know I've never had much money.

I know that I gripe about things, but there comes a point where we need to just accept this is where we are at and to be honest I'm a little worried about the future considering how much of the economy government is trying to take over, the threat against the 1st Amendment called the 'fairness doctrine', and a group of people that aren't willing to stand against evil are running this country. This is where we are, quit whining about it is only making things worse and it is horribly annoying.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Primer for 2nd Amendment rights for those that don't care.

After three years of writing this blog, several posts dealing with firearms, dealing with most of the factors the left is going to use to suppress law abiding citizen's civil rights when it comes to the Second Amendment I would think I wouldn't have to do this, but hearing the misinformation one of my best friends has about semi-auto rifles I guess I have to do this again.

First off there is a huge difference between full automatic and semi-automatic. This video explains the difference. I hear you don't hunt with automatic weapons, well not full-auto. I have yet to meet a person that would take $12,000 rifle into the field, but I know guys that use the semi-auto version for coyotes, prairie dogs, and other varmints. The .223/5.56 round is a good varmint round. When we talk about full-auto weapons we are talking about a 113 year old technology. With Semi-auto we are talking the 1920's with a popular Browning rifle that was used for deer hunting with a 25 round magazine. The real shame is WWII the venerable Garand rifle our troops used in WWII had a 8 round clip that couldn't be topped off. History doesn't match the concept that the founders would have never conceived of such weaponry

Frequently, our military arms have lagged behind the civilian market there were repeating arms that were used, but the government was afraid troopers would waste Ammo so they stuck with the antiquated musket and after the war developed a single shot rifle referred to as the Springfield Armory trapdoor. One of the factors that caused Custer's defeat.

Now, I do believe in gun control, but the government has no place in the process because the FBI has to great of an ability to loose firearms and computers yearly. We all have seen the video of the batf agent that doesn't pay any attention to the four rules for gun safety. I'll admit I don't want felons or crazy people to have firearms. There should have been a connection between the hospital and the NCIC with the Virgina Tech shooter, I don't have an answer how it slipped through the cracks. The thing is with 28,000 gun laws on the books how is one more going to make criminals all the sudden decide that 28,001 the are going to be good guys.

Gun control only affects the law abiding citizens. Trans world news had an article from 2007 about the positive aspects of gun ownership on the non-gun owner.

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Things I would love to have liberals explain to me.

I realize that this post may sound sarcastic, which is understandable considering I have a tendency to let my frustration out with my writing. But there are things I hear liberals say coming from my set-in-stone conservative perspective doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's a lack of explaining the position or maybe I just lack the nuance to understand. And no there is no sarcastic intent.

I would love to have someone explain why liberals are for abortion, but against the death penalty. Shoot, I have yet to hear a valid reason why we shouldn't from Christians that doesn't involve the answer 'they may become Christians some day.'

I would also like to know why those that push gun control, including waiting periods up to ten days, but if a 24 hour cooling off period before an abortion is merely suggested the end of Roe is upon us. I sort of understand the argument behind not allowing parental notification, BUT not allowing it supplants the state's wisdom for parental wisdom (which I worry about the lack of both).

The modern liberals have tried to get us non-liberals to switch to the label progressive. The natural state of power is to lord it over people. The progressive movement goes back to the Magna Carte in 1623 through the English Bill of Rights to the Founding of this country. So, the question is, "If the government is to take over the economy, health care, and other industries in trouble giving the government more control over the body politic, how is that progressive? It seams more regressive to me.

Seeing how this country was founded by tax protesters how is patriotic to pay more taxes? And why is right to demand people do more for their fellow man when the populous donates more money to charity than our politicians do?

When the 25% of wage earners already pay 86% of the taxes and the bottom 30% doesn't pay any income tax. At what point does the rich pay the proverbial fair share?

If politicians (both sides of the isle) want us to pay more taxes, why don't they start with themselves?

If there is no market (ie no one listens) liberal talk shows, why should the 'fairness doctrine' be reintroduced?

With 28,000 gunlaws on the books and criminals ignoring those why is it assumed that the next law will make criminals behave?

I'm sure that there are some inconsistencies I have that I miss in myself. I realize I'm not perfect, but we have a new political reality. Some of these things should have been explained in the campaigns, but were woefully either missing or incomplete. I guess I did this to evaluate my beliefs and fall under clearly the standard I expect others to keep.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

So, what now?

I know I shouldn't have been surprised that Senator barry won, but I had a hard time imagining the American people voting for someone that HATES this country. I have yet to hear ANYTHING Senator barry does appreciates about this country. (Being elected doesn't count)

To be real honest, I am terrified what will become of the 1st Amendment since Senator barry attacked 3 of the 5 clauses of the Amendment, including silencing media outlets and seeing a private citizen's life being dug through just because he dared ask a simple question.

I am worried about what happens if there is a religious group that decides to close itself off. The clinton Administration had no problem killing two hundred Americans, what happens with a President that has more problems with Americans than he does with a terrorist state of Iran?
I already told my pastor that if my place gets raided he has to quote Charlton Heston at my funeral...I don't know if he thinks I'm joking or not. (Even though, we all hope there isn't a confiscation bill, that really doesn't match Senator barry's history with the joyce foundation).

I have a buddy that thinks the election is a sign that the Republican party has to go more liberal, maybe it's a sign that the Republicans should stand on principle more instead of being a bunch of pansies trying to buy votes like they did when they voted for the $850 billion socialism bill. The thing is no matter how much honor Senator McCain has he-has a history of subverting the 1st Amendment, he was no where near a real conservative and I realize he was pandering to the conservative base with Sarah, but it did make it enough for me to vote for him. The truth be told, the GOP this year had the weakest candidates ever. The fear of being called a racist kept Senator McCain from going after some of the strongest drawbacks of Senator barry...never mind he was going to be called a racist no matter what.

So, what now? I guess I'm just going to have to write even more letters and make more phone calls than what I was planning with what some of Senator McCain's stupid ideas. I'm sure I'll get an FeeBee file, but I'm not willing to concede my country to a marxist without standing my ground...even if it won't make a bit of difference.


Saturday, November 01, 2008