Raving Conservative


Monday, October 31, 2005

Osama Confesses

I have obtained a tape of a recent conversation Osama Bin-Laden had with his Imam. I am presenting the transcript here for your reading pleasure.

Osama: Forgive me Father for I have sinned.

Imam: Tell me your sins.

Osama: I have recently thought about Jews and the thought of slaughtering them en-masse never arose.

Imam: This is very serious. You will need to recite a hundred Hail Mohammads for Allah to forgive you.

Osama: I recently said I was getting too old to wage Jihad on the Americans, and I even forgot to call them evil.

Imam: Blasphemy! Two hundred Hail Mohammads!

Osama: I had sex with a goat yesterday.

Imam: Who hasn’t? There aren’t many women hiding out in the mountains.

Osama: Yes, but how many of us do it while getting banged from behind by a camel?

Imam: All of us do it once in a while. Like I said; no women in Jihad.

Osama: I met an infidel and didn’t kill him on sight.

Imam: What treachery is this?

Osama: But I came to my senses and killed him later in the day.

Imam: Lucky for you. Three hundred hail Mohammads and fifty Praise Allahs!

Osama: I defecated without first checking my compass. It turns out I pooped at Mecca.

Imam: Five hundred Hail Mohammads, two hundred Praise Allahs, and you must visit my tent tonight with a large jar of camel grease!

The tape gets rather confused at this point. There is a long time of static with some indecipherable chanting in the background followed by what I swear are two male voices grunting and moaning.

I guess we know why Osama likes Jihad so much, now don’t we?

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Debate of the Week 5: Area 51

It’s Halloween, and that means it’s time for a non-political, fun debate topic; Area 51, secret base full of aliens or not?

Here’s what I think:

No. Not a chance. To think that aliens from another galaxy, or even another star system could ever make it all the way here to Earth is laughable to me. Since the laws of physics make it impossible to break light speed, and the nearest star is some 65 years or more away at light speed it just isn’t feasible to go around exploring other star systems. Not to mention that the faster you go the slower time moves for you, so while a round trip from Earth to Alpha Centauri would take 130 years at light speed, the rest of the universe would have had over a million years pass. That’s plenty of time for mission control to forget about you, your nation to fall, and your entire species to go extinct. Nope, not gonna happen.

Area 51 is a super-secret military aerospace research facility. A few things that have come from it are: the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-1 Stealth Fighter, and the B-2 Stealth Bomber. Tell me, can you see how the Blackbird, the fastest, highest flying jet of its day could have been mistaken for one of those cigar-shaped UFO’s back when it was being developed in the sixties or seventies? Especially at night when EVERYONE seems to see UFO’s. How about the B-2 Bomber? Could that be mistaken for a flying saucer? What about the original Flying Wing way back in the forties and fifties?

Aliens visiting the Earth, heh, the things some people believe in.

What do you think?

My 1400's Person Type

I can think of no better result.

The Knight
You scored 21% Cardinal, 48% Monk, 38% Lady, and 72% Knight!

You are the hero. Brave and bold. You are strong and utterly selfless. You are also a pawn to your superiors and will be lucky if you live very long. If you survive the Holy wars you are thrust into you will be praised for your valor and opportunities both romantic and financial will become available to you.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 14% on Cardinal
You scored higher than 65% on Monk
You scored higher than 34% on Lady
You scored higher than 95% on Knight

Link: KnightlyKnave on The Who Would You Be in 1400 AD Test written by Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Who'da thunk it, eh?

Shameful, Hateful, Despicable

Jerk-holes, every one of them. Horrible, nasty jerk-holes.
For the full gallery click http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
You will be outraged at the ignorant, small-minded, hate spewing jerkiness of these people.
I know I am.

By the way, if anyone can tell me how to actually post pictures here I would love to know.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Porno Tax

The state of Kansas is considering imposing a sales tax on pornography. Their justification is that porno leads to crime and the money will be used for law enforcement purposes. Oddly enough, this isn’t the part of the story I care about.

Here’s the part I care about: people are opposing this tax because they claim it’s unfair to tax stuff just because you don’t like it. The people doing this appear to primarily liberal freedom of speechers who must really like their porno. This raises some very interesting points for me.

1- Do these people oppose taxes on cigarettes and alcohol?
2- Sin taxes already exist on cigarettes and alcohol, so what makes the sick exploitation of women (porno) so special that it should be exempted?

The people who oppose the tax are saying so many of the same things people who oppose anti-tobacco legislation and tobacco taxes are saying that I can’t help but laugh. If these people actually manage to win I will be outraged. Here’s my favorite on of their arguments, this should explain it all:

“You can’t put a tax on something just because you don’t like it. If you do that what’s to stop the legislature from taxing other stuff it doesn’t like?”

What indeed.

A long time ago in the USA marijuana was legal and unregulated. Attempts had been made to outlaw it, but the Supreme Court ruled that people had a right to put anything they wanted into their own bodies and the ban was declared unconstitutional. Then a government functionary had the brilliant idea that if they couldn’t outlaw it then they would tax it away. A law was passed requiring a tax stamp to be on every package of marijuana sold in the US (Sound familiar?). The catch was that only a very few tax stamps were actually issued. This made unregulated marijuana illegal without actually banning it by law while still managing to ban it in reality.

Fast forward a few years. Tobacco became regulated and a tax stamp was required on every pack of cigarettes sold in the US. Tax stamps were unlimited.

Fast forward a few more years. The anti-tobacco movement has pushed its agenda on America. Tobacco taxes are now so high in some places in the US that the cost of using it has become prohibitive and sales and use have dropped. These same taxes are constantly being reviewed for increase.

Now porno is being targeted for this same persecution. While I personally hate porno and all that it stands for, I am endlessly amused that some of the people, primarily liberals who have sought to abridge our freedom to smoke through taxation are enraged that what they have started is beginning to metastasize and encompass all manner of sins. Where will it all stop? It will stop when the precedent of sin taxes is overturned entirely. It won’t happen, but it should.

In the meantime I have this to say to the people who are losing their minds over the porno tax:

Thursday, October 27, 2005

My Platform for Election 2005

Since I will be running for President sometime between 2024 and 2032 I will be posting an annual update of my platform issues. This is the first installment. This is if I were running for President this year.

1- Balance the budget at 90% of tax revenue and pay off the national debt using the remaining 10%.

2- Install a flat income tax of 10% across the board. This is equal taxation for all with no write-offs. This will allow the near dissolution of the IRS, which will save money.

3- Find and eradicate wasteful government programs. Be aware that this will cost some government employees their jobs.

4- Invest heavily in clean, renewable energy and energy transmission research.

5- Put a $10,000,000,000 bounty on a cure for AIDS.

6- Consolidate every government agency that does the exact same thing into a single, more efficient agency. Who needs 20+ intelligence agencies anyway?

7- Banish the estate tax.

8- Make laws to make frivolous lawsuits nearly impossible or impossible to file while protecting valid ones.

9- Protect the Defense of Marriage Act.

10- Bring the Iraq war to a swift close by concentrating massive military force in Iraq, sealing the borders to prevent new terrorists from getting in, wiping out the insurgency with extreme prejudice, then bringing our brave servicemen and women back home with full honors.

11- Pull all support of any kind from Palestine and give Israel our full backing in their national defense against terrorists.

12- The UN will shape up or we will abandon it and kick it out of our country.

13- Seek the reunification of Korea under democratic rule. In other words get the North integrated into the South. This may take buying off North Korea’s leaders, or possibly imposing a trade embargo while cutting off foreign aid until they capitulate. They have been a split nation for too long.

14- I believe it is possible to remove Castro and his cronies from the country with a huge cash payout and relocation for them. We can then either consider the country bought and make it a territory or new state in the Union if the people are willing (and I think they are) or we can help them rebuild and set up a friendly democracy. This is a bloodless way to get rid of an enemy in our own hemisphere.

15- Seal off the southern border so none may cross except at manned checkpoints. Then either find and deport every illegal immigrant in our country, or follow the plan I have outlined in my previous posting “A Solution to the Border Problem”.

16- Set only two possible sentences for murderers, rapists, and child molesters: Death, or banishment to any country that will have them under the condition that they lose their American citizenship and that they will be executed without trial or appeal if they ever set foot on American soil again.

17- I will only appoint strict Constitutional Constructionists to any US court. No liberal activist judges.

18- As much as I hate regulation I hate exploiting needy children even more. That is why I propose caps on the cost of adoption. It should be easy, fair, and affordable.

19- Minimum gas mileage standards on all new vehicles.

20- Ensure that all revenue raised through gas taxes are used for road construction and maintenance only. Use no other source of tax revenue to pay for them. Adjust gas taxes accordingly, hopefully down.

21- Since PETA supports terrorists who are busy teaching people how to become terrorists right here on American soil, I will declare PETA to be a terrorist group. They should not be paying arsonists and bombers to spread their foul message.

22- Exempt the EPA from lawsuits. Currently a gigantic portion of EPA funding is being wasted fighting lawsuits from environmental activist groups. That money would be better spent protecting the environment.

23- The second amendment should not be abridged.

24- Exempt farms from taxes on revenue raised due to farming activities.

25- Offer incentives and assistance to farmers for switching from traditional farming techniques to conservation farming. It’s good for everyone.

26- Privatize all schools K-12 and switch to a voucher program so that even children from poor families and bad neighborhoods can compete with wealthier students for admission to the best schools at no cost to them, thereby leveling the playing field based on individual merit rather than financial status. I have outlined a plan for this in my previous posting “Down with Public Schools”. See also “Big Government for Public Schools”.

27- 26 makes a huge Department of Education Unnecessary. Reduce it to just the personnel needed to handle the standardized tests that will be used to rate schools and release annual performance reports on the schools.

Okay, that’s a pretty ambitious agenda. However, being the responsible man that I am, I am most willing to listen to the suggestions of my constituents for additions and revisions. Obviously I will not champion causes I am opposed to or are unconvinced of their value.

So, would you vote for me?

Harriet Miers Withdraws Her Nomination to SCOTUS

You may have already heard that Harriet Miers has withdrawn he nomination to the Supreme Court, basically claiming it was meeting too much opposition in the way of demanded documents. I have mixed feelings about this.

The left is celebrating their victory in preventing the confirmation of one of Bush's Supreme Court niminess without even needing to let it hit the Senate floor. Their hatred of Bush transcends reason and any wound they can inflict on his administration is hailed as a freat victory. To listen to the left it is appaerrent that they were very concerned about her religious views because your typical Evangelical Christian (like me) is very pro-life among other things the left opposes.

The right is breathing a great sigh of relief because most of us were uncertain about how conservative she is at best, and terrified of what liberalism may lurk within her at worst. While Bush has a wonderful track record on Judges so far, and has earned our trust and respect in that department he stretched us to our limits by asking us to support a former liberal with an unknown judicial philosophy.

For my part I was willing to give her a chance to at least plead her case before the Judiciary Committee. The American center for Law and Justice, whom I trust in all things judicial, gave her their endorsement the same day she was nominated. For me there is no higher endorsement than the ACLJ for judges and lawyers, so I was giving my support to Harriet Miers at least until I got to see how she conducted herself at the hearings.

At the same time I wanted, and still want Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court. I want her Circuit Court seat filled by Miguel Estrada. So I am glad to know that there is another chance for this to happen. At the same time I would get loads of laughs out of it if Bush nominated John Ashcroft, just because it would be hilarious to see the Democrats screaming and sputtering in rage at the nomination of a man they seem to think is the Devil himself.

So I am torn. I am sad to see the nomination fizzle before it really got a chance, but I am glad to know that a judge with a known conservative constructionist philosophy is likely to be nominated next (Janice Rogers Brown please!). It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

The Two Party System

There is a lot bickering among conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats. I call it bickering because it is uncivilized, dirty, and rude. If it were otherwise I would call it debate and I wouldn’t be having a problem right now. Still, this bickering is better than the other alternative.

An unchecked political group having all the power in America would be a tragedy no matter whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats. Every nation that has a one-party system has grown fully corrupt and oppressive. So while I am a staunch conservative and a Republican, I place great value on having liberals and Democrats around as well.

Allow me to explain.

Any political group that has held onto power for a long period of time becomes complacent. They may become corrupted. They may simply lose touch with the people who gave them their power. Either way, it’s bad. Having a second strong group to offer the people a realistic alternative does the nation a great service by forcing the majority party to remain clean, in touch with its constituents, and to work hard. The majority party must do this or it will become the minority party.

This was the case in the 90’s when the Republicans took over both houses of Congress and gained the majority of Governorships in America. The Democrats had grown both complacent and corrupt, and had gone so far to the left that they alienated many people. This far left swing actually created the Neocons as moderate and conservative Democrats abandoned the party to join the Republicans where they were warmly welcomed. The people spoke loud and clear, they said “We want a change!”

So we have that change now, and I for one am pleased. But the Republicans are beginning to grow complacent as the Democrats continue to sputter aimlessly in what have to be the weakest political arguments made in a long time. The Republicans are convinced nobody will vote for a party that complains constantly without offering any solutions. So they make missteps. They begin to forget why they were voted into office to begin with. They start to spend like Democrats. They start to obsess about special interest groups and alienate their base. They start to make mistakes because, like the Democrats before them, they just don’t believe that Americans want the alternative.

The problem with the logic as stated above is that the people only have so much tolerance. Once their patience is used up they vote someone else into office. In this time of war, soaring gas prices, chaos on the border, and natural disasters the people have far less tolerance for complacency and foolish pride than usual. Mistakes mean much more to a nation under duress, and we are a nation under duress.

So the Republicans are doing nothing about the border. They are moving slowly on the energy crisis. They are making tactical mistakes in Iraq. They are spending like the national budget is endless. With all of these very legitimate issues that even conservative gripe about; what do the Democrats settle on as their strategy for 2006? They are running on the theme of wild claims of corruption. How stupid can you get?

This strategy will not work as well as the Democrats hope. By failing to address the concerns of the people by offering solutions they are seen as ineffective whiners rather than go-getters. When the voters go to the polls, if they are convinced of Republican corruption they will be facing this choice: Do I vote for a corrupt person who gets things done, or do I vote for a do-nothing whiner with no ideas on how fix anything?

However, with the general dissatisfaction with the way things are going right now the Democrats do stand to gain a few seats in each house of Congress, though I doubt they will regain the majority just yet. This will serve as wake-up call to the Republicans and they will get it done because they will know that if they don’t they will be replaced in the next election.

This is why I value America’s liberals and Democrats as a political force. Without them to keep the Republicans feet to the flames the party would corrode into worthlessness, just like the Democrats did. Rest assured, the Democrats will get their acts together sooner or later, then they will be a real threat, which will force the Republicans to a greater level of excellence, or they will be replaced. This is how our government is checked and balanced by the voters.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

What Did I Tell You?

In my recent posting “Muslim Love” I wrote about how Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was an exercise in futility because it wouldn’t stop the terrorists from murdering Israelis. Sometimes I hate being right.

Terrorists have renewed their attacks against Israel. The suicide bombings have begun again. The only land concession that will end the terror attacks is the complete dissolution of Israel. This cannot, and will not happen.

The Palestinians and their terrorist allies have shown their true colors time and again. It’s time to put and end to the terror. It’s time to lend military support to our Israeli friends.

Iraq Casualty Count and the Anti-War Libs

With 2000 US soldiers now dead and 15,220 wounded the anti-war libs have been stepping up their empty rhetoric comparing Iraq to Vietnam. They are ranting on about “too much blood” and demanding our immediate withdrawal, and therefore our immediate defeat, in the Middle East. These people seriously don’t know their history, so it’s time form me to inform the world and put some perspective on this thing.

The following is a listing of US Casualties in every war in US history:

The Revolutionary War, 1775-1783: 217,000 servicemen. 4,435 killed, 6,188 wounded. That’s 2% killed, 3% wounded. 554 dead in an average year and 774 wounded per year.

The War of 1812, 1812-1815: 286,730 servicemen. 2,260 killed, 4,505 wounded. That’s 0.8% killed and 1.6% wounded. 753 dead per year and 1,502 wounded per year.

The Mexican War, 1846-1848: 78,718 servicemen. 13,283 killed, 4,152 wounded. That’s 17% killed and 5% wounded. 6,642 dead per year and 2,076 wounded per year.

The Civil War, 1861-1865: 3,263,363 servicemen (Union and Confederate). 498,332 killed, 281,881 Union wounded, unknown Confederate wounded. That’s 15% killed and at least 9% wounded. 124,583 dead per year and at least 70,470 wounded per year.

The Spanish American War, 1898-1902: 306,760 servicemen. 2,446 killed, 1,662 wounded. That’s 0.8% killed and 0.6% wounded. 612 killed per year and 416 wounded per year.

World War One, 1917-1918: 4,734,991 servicemen. 106,516 killed, 204,002 wounded. That’s 2% killed and 4% wounded. 53,258 killed per year and 102,001 wounded per year.

World War Two, 1942-1945: 16,112,566 servicemen and women. 404,399 killed, 671,846 wounded. That’s 2.5% killed and 4% wounded. 134,800 killed per year and 223,949 wounded per year.

The Korean War, 1950-1953: 5,720,000servicemembers. 36,568 killed and 103,284 wounded. That’s 0.6% killed and 1.8% wounded. 12,189 killed per year and 34,428 wounded per year.

Vietnam, 1964-1975: 8,744,000 servicemembers. 90,199 total killed, 58,119 in theater and 153,303 wounded. That’s 1% or 0.7% killed and 1.8% wounded. 8,200 or 5,284 killed per year and 13,937 wounded per year.

The Gulf War, 1990-1991 (3 days of ground combat): 2,225,000 servicemembers. 1,994 total killed, 429 killed in theater and 467 wounded. That’s 0.008% or 0.002% killed and 0.002% wounded. 997 or 215 killed per year and 234 wounded per year, or all in 3 days of ground combat.

Iraq, March 2003-Current (October 2005): 1,218,302 servicemembers. 2000 total killed and rising. 15,220 total wounded and rising. That’s 0.016% killed and 1.3% wounded. 727 killed per year and 5,535 wounded per year.

Now I’m no expert on statistics, but the percentages of wounded and dead in the Iraq war are pretty low compared to most of our wars. The number dead per year haven’t been this low since 1812 when the military was ¼ as big and the national population was over 250,000,000 people smaller (Gulf War excluded). The number wounded per year hasn’t been this low since the Spanish American War. All the stats are far below what happened in Vietnam.

Iraq is no Vietnam. Our casualties are lower by number and by percentage. Iraq is still whole, and the people are all beginning to participate in the new democracy. There is no internal split of ideology keeping the fighting going; it is only the hatred some few Iraqis and a good dose of foreign fighters have for America that keeps the violence going. We have this war thoroughly won. At this time we are more of a police force in Iraq than an Army. Fighting against guerillas and terrorists who, given the chance will split and conquer the nation. We are not giving them that chance. Victory is ours.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005


Sex is a very real part of everyday life, but that doesn’t mean it should be as casual as say . . . eating a hamburger for lunch. The one argument I hear most often from people who are opposed to teaching abstinence in our schools is “They’re going to do it anyway so let’s just teach them how to do it safely.” Am I the only who is offended by this reducing of humanity to the level of dogs and livestock?

One of the things that defines humanity in reference to the rest of the animal kingdom is the ability to deny ourselves both needs and wants a will. No other animal willingly fasts except to protect its young. No other animal passes up pleasure for discomfort. No other animal restrains itself sexually.

Pigs have no choice when it comes to sex. When the sow is in heat she emits pheromones that get the male all riled up. The boar breathes on the female, and pheromones in his breath cause the sow to need it and need it now. Then they mate. When a female dog is in heat not only is she uncontrollably horny, but any male that smells her is too. Among other primates the female only restrains herself long enough to pick the strongest mate, then all bets are off. The only other animal I know of that exercises any sexual restraint is wolves, and then only because the alphas will severely punish or kill anyone else who mates.

Humans on the other hand have none of these instinctual drives that completely override our senses. We refrain from sex even if we really want it for any number of reasons. We fast, sometimes for days or weeks even though we have food readily available. We refrain from consuming alcohol even though we generally like it. We restrain our violent impulses even when we are so enraged we don’t know how we are containing ourselves. No other animal in the world has such restraint.

Why then, are so many people so fatalistic when it comes to sex?

Personally, I think it’s a male-driven industry. We men are typically the aggressors in sexual circumstances. We men have a generally higher sex drive than women. Men are sexually simple, needing only an image or a thought to become aroused, while women have a whole host of thoughts and emotions mixed into their libido. If anyone stands to gain from a sexually permissive society it is men, not women.

Human beings have more emotions mixed into sex than any other creature on the planet, women even more so than men. Men are able to compartmentalize our sexualize activity from our emotions to a large degree. For women sex is so integrated with emotion that such compartmentalization is impossible unless a woman has been emotionally damaged sexually. All to often men are only too happy to do this damage.

It is said that women use sex to get love, and men use love to get sex. How many of us have heard or heard of some horny guy saying “I love you, don’t you love me?” or something to that effect to get into a woman’s panties. The man doesn’t mean it when he says it; he’s just manipulating the woman’s emotions to get what he wants. Other tactics include “It’s okay if you’re scared” which is designed to put the woman on the defensive and back her into a corner where she has no choice but to relent sexually to save face, and pouting after rejection, pulling away emotionally to punish the woman for holding back until she is so overwhelmed that she relents just to keep her man. They’re dirty tactics, but they work.

Women on the other hand have this amazing tendency to fall into this trap: If I don’t have sex with him he’ll leave for someone who will. Ladies, if this guy is so shallow and cold why would you want to keep him in the first place? Listen up, when we men decide we love a woman we go ahead and marry her so we don’t lose her. It allows us to place ownership (sexually) and keeps the object of our undying affection close to us. If your man is a shallow fiend who is only interested in sex there is nothing to stop him from cheating even you are giving it to him. On the other hand, if he respects you and loves you enough to wait odds are he will remain faithful, as long as you do not go frigid after the wedding.

Sex is a beautiful thing. It is the ultimate expression of love between two people, and as such belongs strictly within the bounds of marriage. Within the bounds of marriage sex is safe, fun, beautiful, and bonding. Outside of marriage you take your life into your hands, risk single parenthood, disease, sterilization, terrible emotional damage as the bonds you create are broken over and over again, creates distrust for men (in women), and, while drug-like in excitement level, ultimately empty.

There is no good reason for us as a society to be promoting promiscuity. Some promote it for money, after all, sex sells, and others for ideology, “I wanna get laid.” Yet, in spite of all of this we still have a choice, and the will to make it. Treating premarital sex as though it were inevitable does far more harm than good. Schools and parents need to teach abstinence until marriage, then utter sexual freedom within the marriage, not “I know you’re going to do it so have a condom/sponge/diaphragm/pill/shot and so-on.”

Yes some people will still choose to have premarital sex or commit adultery. It’s a sad fact of life that we must deal with. But if we teach our children, especially our little girls to respect their bodies, and show them how love behaves then there will be less of it, and consequently less disease, abortions, broken hearts, poverty, and deaths. This sounds like a very good reason to teach abstinence, and to chuck promiscuity with condoms out the window.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Control Vrs. Non-Control

This article was originally posted by Jamie over at Critter’s Musings (see link in my sidebar under the Honor Roll), and is reprinted here with his permission. He has also stated a desire to see this information become as widspread as possible, so please feel free to post this article on your own blogs as well. Read on, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

nedreck milhunky over at milhunky posed me an interesting question regarding the relationship between areas with strict gun control vs areas of freer control. Excellent question. There is of course a correllation, but just what is it? Well, here are some facts. I will start with Canada first. In the year 2000, the Gun Registry became law in this country. This law was in regards for long guns only(i.e. rifles and shotguns). In Canada, we have had a law for control of pistols and revolvers since 1934. In the year 2000, there was a total of 184 gun related deaths in Canada. In 2004, there was a total of 172 (source). This is a reduction of 4.3%.

Now this figure is a little mis-leading, because nowhere does Stats Canada differentiate between type of gun used. So we will just use the 4.3%.In the United States, they are a little more open with their studies and statistics that are available. They actually breakdown crime rates by type of gun used, i.e. handguns, long-guns, assault weapons. The U.S. has a different way of controling guns. They have "Right-to-Carry" laws. In 1986, nine states had this law (source). In 1998, thirty-one states comprising 50% of the U.S. population had this law. The stats are broken down into two categories using the previous 10 states, and then one state (Florida) which is representative of the remaining 21 states that have adopted this law. Between 1977 and 1982, in the 10 states that had existing right-to-carry laws, the following was found; no change in suicide rates, a .5% rise in accidental firearm deaths, a 5% decline in rapes, a 7% decline in aggravated assaults, and an 8% decline in murder. In numbers, these figures are; 1 more accidental gun death, 316 less murders, 939 less rapes, and 14,702 less aggravated assaults, in these 10 states ANNUALLY. Pretty damm impressive figures. Remember, this is with a right-to-carry law, i.e. the common citizen, after undergoing a criminal and psychological check, and taking gun use courses, can carry concealed handguns with them. From the figures, apparently this is a pretty good deterrent to thugs in the States that have this law. Now on to the specific case of Florida.

In 1987, Florida adopted it's right-to-carry law. Between 1987 and 1996, the following things happened; the firearm homocide rate DROPPED 37% and the homocide rate with handguns DROPPED 41%. This was compared to the remaining 19 States that had no right-to-carry laws. In these States for the same 9 year period, the following was found; the firearm homocide rate INCREASED 15% and the homocide rate with handguns INCREASED 24%. Now I am no rocket scientist, but comparing these 2 sets of figures tells me a startling fact. Contrary to the rhetoric of anti-gun lobby groups, anti-guns laws DO NOT control guns. In fact, in Dade county, the record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. Now just to be fair, I will include some figures for Washington, D.C. In 1976, this jurisdiction enacted a virtual ban on all handguns. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington,D.C's homicide rate from handguns INCREASED 200%, while in the rest of the States, handgun homocides INCREASED only 12%. It appears pretty obvious to me that bans on handguns produce the EXACT OPPOSITE effect from what anti-handgun lobbyists proport they do. Here's another example. On September 14, 1994, the "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted. Before 1994, LESS THAN 1% of gun related homocides involved assault weapons. In 1998, LESS THAN 1% of gun related homocides involved assault weapons. So much for bans having any effect.

The above sourced study also has facts on armor piercing(cop killer) ammunition and school killings. The same trend is noted in all cases as above. More information can also be found from another source.

There is a couple of important facts to keep in mind when going over these figures. Number one, they deal with the RIGHT-TO-CARRY arms, not bans or restrictions, which do not work. Number two, they do not have anything to do with REGISTRATION, which is what Canada attempts to do versus legal control.

From the above figures, several things jump out at me. Number one is that in Canada, we have it completely backwards on what we should be doing to rein in gun-related homocides in this country! In the States, they do not worry about criminals registering their guns, because they KNOW criminals don't obey the law. Instead, they attempt to control criminals from getting guns at all, and it is working. Of course, no one can completely control the flow of street-level, illegal guns, but at least in the States their approach is working.

Number two, allowing law-abiding, properly vetted and trained citizens to carry concealed weapons DOES NOT lead to rampant anarchy on the streets. This is just socialist gobbledy-gook voisted on an un-informed population.

Criminals ACTUALLY do fear an armed population that they know will retaliate against them when they threaten said populace.From the two above studies sourced, other facts are apparent. Accidental deaths DO NOT increase within a population that is allowed to carry legally obtained firearms. Criminals using the victims own firearms on them DOES NOT increase. Vigilanty use of firearms DOES NOT increase. In other words, all the reasons given to NOT allow a population to carry firearms only leads to an increase in one thing; criminal activity against an un-armed citizentry! This fact holds true for ALL gun-related crimes, not just homicides. I have only included deaths here, as that seems to the corner stone upon which anti-gun people state all their cases and reasons for gun bans. It appears, however, that this corner stone is in fact just sand.

Will we start getting it right in this country? Not for a long time. Canadians have had it shoved down their obliging throats for to long that the only way to stop firearm deaths is to make criminals out of ordinary citizens. They believe, as do most socialists, that the solution to any problem is to try to control it and spend more money on it. Workable solutions are vilified by lobbyists and politicians for just that reason. They know, in the case of lobbyists, that once a WORKABLE solution is put in place, they will lose their power and money flow because the problem no longer exists. This is true whether for firearms deaths, the homeless, or a host of other problems. Politicians also know that once a problem is under control, there goes their pet "cause" for gaining more votes by throwing money at said cause and appearing to be actually doing something about it, and really caring about the problem, instead of the votes.

We have a long row to hoe in this country to get it back from the very people who proport to defend it, when in fact they are destroying it and slowly subjugating us to more state control.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Debate of the Week 4: Taxes on Necessities

Is it right for the government to impose taxes on items and services necessary for life? To tax items we as people cannot do without?

My stance is this: In the vast majority of cases, no.

I believe it is wrong to impose taxes of any kind on food. We don’t eat we die. To tax food is to impose a tax on life itself. Why not simply impose a life tax and kill anyone who doesn’t pay up? (If you are tax-happy person who also happens to be mentally unstable don’t get any funny ideas, I’m being facetious.)

I believe it wrong to impose taxes on needed services that we already pay for. We pay for our water, why tax it too? We pay for our electricity, phone, and heat, why tax it too? These things are needed commodities that we cannot live without at this time. No phone means no 911. No heat means freezing to death in some places. (I know, I know. What about wood burning stoves? Wood is taxed too. Sales tax. Unless you happen to have enough wood growing on your property that you can cut it yourself, but people who live in apartments don’t have that luxury do they?) No electricity means the way we preserve our food becomes useless and we are forced to return old ways that did not preserve it as well or as long and often left food tasting rather bad. I doubt anyone wants to go back to those days.

I believe it is wrong to tax drugs or medical services of any kind. Nobody should be taxed to stay healthy.

I believe it is right to tax gasoline for the purposes of road construction and maintenance, as well as the erection and maintenance of various safety signs and signals. To use this money for other purposes is wrong since the purpose of buying the gas is typically to drive on a road, not to visit some art museum in another state. Truthfully, since gasoline and roads go together like bread and butter I think gas taxes should pay for all road construction and maintenance. If gas taxes must go higher to cover the cost of keeping the roads my family must drive on safe then so be it. If not, don’t go raising them to pay for anything else. I am happy to pay for the roads I use, and people who don’t use them don’t need to pay for them for me.

This is just a small sampling, but you get the picture.

What do you think?

Sunday, October 23, 2005

The General I am Most Like

I don't care what anyone says, I like William Wallace!

William Wallace
You scored 64 Wisdom, 73 Tactics, 62 Guts, and 44 Ruthlessness!
Like William Wallace, chances are you have no problem charging a larger, better trained, better equipped, better armed and armored English army with a band of naked drunken Scotsmen. I'm not contesting that you have balls. It's your brain function I'm worried about.

Scottish soldier and national hero. The first historical record of Wallace's activities concerns the burning of Lanark by Wallace and 30 men in May, 1297, and the slaying of the English sheriff, one of those whom Edward I of England had installed in his attempt to make good his claim to overlordship of Scotland. After the burning of Lanark many joined Wallace's forces, and under his leadership a disciplined army was evolved. Wallace marched on Scone and met an English force of more than 50,000 before Stirling Castle in Sept., 1297. The English, trying to cross a narrow bridge over the Forth River, were killed as they crossed, and their army was routed. Wallace crossed the border and laid waste several counties in the North of England. In December he returned to Scotland and for a short time acted as guardian of the realm for the imprisoned king, John de Baliol . In July, 1298, Edward defeated Wallace and his army at Falkirk, and forced him to retreat northward. His prestige lost, Wallace went to France in 1299 to seek the aid of King Philip IV, and he possibly went on to Rome. He is heard of again fighting in Scotland in 1304, but there was a price on his head, and in 1305 he was captured by Sir John de Menteith. He was taken to London in Aug., 1305, declared guilty of treason, and executed. The best-known source for the life of Wallace is a long romantic poem attributed to Blind Harry, written in the 15th century.

My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 58% on Unorthodox
You scored higher than 57% on Tactics
You scored higher than 77% on Guts
You scored higher than 36% on Ruthlessness

What, compassion from a conservative? You don't say!

Friday, October 21, 2005

Muslim Love

Israel is a cancer that spread in the body of the Islamic nation; because the Jews are a virus similar to AIDS, from which the entire world is suffering. . . . The day will come when we shall rule America, Britain, we shall rule the entire world, except the Jews. . . . The stones and trees will want Muslims to finish off every Jew.
Imam Ibrahim Mudayris, Palestine

This is an excerpt from a recent sermon given at the Imam's mosque in Palestine. If this were the mad rantings of a lone radical I wouldn't bother taking note. Unfortunately, it is just one of the most recent tirades in a culture that shares this way of thinking almost universally. The Muslim nations are united in their demand for the shinkage and eventual dissolution of Israel. The people of these nations are nearly united in one voice calling for the same. Every Muslim terroist group in the world names Isreal among it's enemies, and have stated the mission to destroy that nation.

Given this state of lethal enmity toward Isreal, in my opinion America's best ally in the world, why does our government give in to terrorist demands for Israel to withdraw from its lawful territories? It makes no sense to me that we are fighting a "War on Terror" and yet demand that one of our allies in this war capitulate to the demads of terrorists, our enemies.

Israel has senselessly withdrawn it's people from most of the Gaza strip. The Jewish settlers in this lawfully controlled territory turned a barren wasteland into a green oasis in the desert through years of hard work and terror attacks, and now it has been given to the terrorists. Even this is not enough for the Palestinians and their co-conspirators because Israel is retaining the city of Ma'aleh Adumim (population 32,000), and is linking it to Jeruselem. Because of its size and location on the outskirts of Jeruselem it has been understood by all parties that Isreal would retain this city even after the rest of Gaza was cleared. Now that the plan has come to fruition it is not enough, and it will never be enough.

If Israel does not link this city to Jeruselem then it will be an island city, a Jewish city surrounded on all sides by Palestinian territory. It will be cut off from the nation it belongs to, and this cutting off would almost certainly be enforced by armed terrorists who would place a total embargo on all trade and traffic to and from the city in an effort to starve out the Jews so the Palestinians could take the city for themselves. Knowing this, why are top US officials calling this linkage anti-peace process?

I do not believe the peace process will bring peace at all. Too many people in the Arab world share the ideology of the mad Imam I quoted at the beginning of this article. The terrorists are constantly being emboldened by the steady stream of victories the world is handing them in Palestine. The violence will not stop until one of two things has occurred. Either the terrorists win and Israel is wiped off the map, or Palestine is wiped off the map and it's people relocated to real country. Did you know that Palestine isn't an actual country? It's a small island of territory in the middle of Isreal where Arab seperatists congregated and claimed it as their own. It's the equivalent of (insert ethnic group here) all migrating to Kentucky, ceeding from the Union, and engaging in terrorism against the neighboring states because they believe they should own that land too. Would we tolerate this in America? No, and it's wrong that we demand that our Jewish allies in Israel do so.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Building Problems

Here's a secondary effect of the recent hurricaines that many people don't know about. Building materials are getting scarce.

Here in anchorage Lowes and Home Depot won't let anyone buy more than two panels of sheetrock at a time. Lumber is getting scarce and the price is rising steadily. Bricks and concrete are more expensive too.

Developers are taking homes that are being built off the market because the increase in building costs will eradicate all of their profits if they sell the homes at the current market price. As it is they are already getting hit on the homes they have pre-sold so far, and with the cost to finish these homes expected to spike by as much as $40,000 they will probably take a bath on what should be a profitable endeavor. While all the billions the government is pumping into the Gulf will help the people in that part of the US, and will make the developers and contractors in that area very rich, it is starting to hurt developers and contractors in other places. How can a normal market compete with virtually unlimited building funds? Kepp an eye out, I suspect we may see massive losses in construction companies that aren't operating in the Gulf.

While I am sympathetic to the victims of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma if it hits us as hard as is being predicted, I am also concerned about the rest of the US. In a free-market economy People would rebuild in the affected areas using their insurance settlements, loans, and personal funds. This would reduce the immediate rebuilding, but would have no long-termnet effect. I can say this because the people who choose not to rebuild would sell their land to a developer and settle down elsewhere. The developer would then build on the land and sell the building at a significant profit. This would reduce the immediate desperate need for building materials to go to one place and would not drive up the price of building materials nearly so much. But with mega-billions in free government money being pumped into the Gulf we have a situation where the government is paying the bloated prices and driving them up even more as it sucks in everything it can reardless of nationwide demand.

I have said this already, but it is so serious that it bears repeating; the cost of building across the nation is rising, and it will go much higher before it setles down. The people who will feel the pinch are developers who will lose mney in the short-run, and the buyers who will pay drastically increased prices for construction for years to come. This will reduce demand for new house construction. This will reduce demand for new business construction. It will harm the national economy. However, the governemnt funded rebuilding of New Orleans will go on.

I want everything back to normal in the Gulf Coast as much as anyone, and I want the displaced people settled down at home as muchas they wantto be settled. I just wonder if we aren't sacrificing the national economy to rebuild a local one. I hope not.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Parents Starve Baby to Death

More bad child news out of Florida, again.

A vegan couple starved their baby to death by ignoring the doctor's advice and feeding their months-old infant nothing but raw vegatables. Their doctor explained to them that children that young cannot digest raw veggies. Apparently these idiots decided that they knew better and watched their baby waste away and die rather than give him milk or baby formula.

It gets better. They have more children who are visibly malnourished, emaciated even because of the raw vegan diet being forced on them in spite of what medical science has proven to be their nutritional needs. With all of this evidence in front of their eyes how can they have still thought that veganism is good for growing children? Children need plenty of fat and protein to develop properly both physically and mentally. Fruits and veggies are vital too, but they cannot be the only food consumed.

Now for the kicker. Florida's Child Protective Services had been visiting the family, and even saw them just one week before the baby died, and left the kids with the parents. Starvation like this is neglect and abuse, and any competent agent would have had those kids placed in a home that would feed them. This agent is an accessory to murder as far as I am concerned.

This couple is guilty of child abuse and murder. They should be tried for it.

For the life of me I will never understand how people can believe that a vegan diet is good for anyone. Even adults frequently suffer from degenerative bone disease, lose extreme amounts of muscle tissue, and suffer from other debilitating diseases unless the supplement properly. How anyone can force this on children is beyond me. That people would be so much more concerned about animal rights than human health and welfare that they would propagate this myth about veganism being healthy is just plain evil. Look at what its doing. Killing babies and starving children. Damn PETA! Damn ALF! Animal rights extremists suck!

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Toledo Riot

It is time for me to speak up about the race riot in Toledo this weekend. I have held back thus far because the sensitivity of the issue required it to be handled with care and sensitivity, and I wanted to make sure I fully understood the situation before spouting off at the mouth.

What happened in Toledo was nothing if not total victory for the Neo-Nazi jerk-holes who instigated the riot. They held their rally in a peaceful neighborhood to protest a very legitimate issue, gang activity, but did so with such overt racist idiocy I wanted to smack the swastikas off them. Local thugs, apparently primarily black gang members with some white people thrown in the mix too, decided to go haywire and riot and loot.

I would not have blamed these people if they had simply kicked the crap out of the Nazis and let it go at that. But assaulting police and rescue personnel, destroying private property, looting and burning, this is all animal behavior that is beneath us as Americans, and it is exactly what the Nazis wanted.

By rioting this way these people played into the hands of the Nazis by portraying an image of themselves that the Nazis could only talk about. They lent credence to the racist assertions the Nazis were making about black violence. They legitimized these morons.

What was worse is that an equally racist group, the Nation of Islam was demonstrating in DC the same day, and no white people rioted in response to this group of people who say pretty much the same thing about white people that the Nazis are saying about black people. Admittedly, it may have something to do with the fact that DC is something like 80% black, but that doesn’t change national perception.

I am saddened by the behavior of these people, the looters in New Orleans, the LA Rioters, and every other idiot who engages in this destructive behavior that only serves to undermine the good name of Black America in the eyes of the rest of the nation. I’m an old soul; I don’t mind a couple of men duking it out with fists and feet to settle their differences. Had the Nazis simply gotten their butts kicked I would have cheered, but that’s not what happened. This escalation, this criminal behavior and victimizing of the innocent must not ever happen, no matter what idiots are spreading foul ideas and false beliefs in your neighborhood. Kick out the invaders, but don’t victimize the innocent.

Did the Nazis have the right to demonstrate peacefully? Yes they did, and that’s what they did. The Constitution guarantees their right to demonstrate just like it guarantees the right of other controversial groups to demonstrate, like the Gay Pride parades, the “Millions” More March, pro-abortionists, anti-abortionists, environmentalists, ant-war activists, and so-on and so-forth. We don’t have to like it, we don’t have to listen to them, we don’t even have to be in town that day if we don’t want to, but they do have a Constitutional right to demonstrate. Unfortunately, we cannot abridge this right just because we despise the message. We cannot decide that a bunch of criminals throwing a riot means that a certain group no longer has the right to demonstrate because of safety concerns. Instead we must punish the criminals. It’s what the Constitution requires. I have great respect for the Constitution and for the freedoms it guarantees, even if I don’t like the way those freedoms are used.

I can’t believe I just defended the rights of these scumbags to spread their message of hate and intolerance. By these scumbags I mean both the Neo-Nazis AND the Nation of Islam. I can’t change the Constitution to suit me, no matter what I think of the way it is being used. I wish certain judges and politicians would understand that. Still, if these crack-heads come to Anchorage I definitely plan on kicking some Nazi butts all the way to Canada. I consider it exercising my right to defend myself, my family, and my property. But, I will NOT riot, loot, rob, burn or anything else. I will just beat down some Nazis. Like I said before: I’m an old soul. I have no problem with men duking it out to settle their differences.


This will be a spiteful posting. If you are easily offended do not read any further.

I have recently discovered a website that is slandering Senator Rick Santorum, my favorite politician, and claiming that the word "Santorum" is defined as "the frothy brown and white mixture resulting from anal sex." Since some hateful lib wants to be so nasty, and turnabout is fair play, I have decided to offer my definitions of certain politicians and world leader's names that I'm sure this guy has loads of respect for.

Hitler: Phychotic murdering madman.
Clinton: Semen Stain.
Kennedy: Drunk who sexually harasses minors.
Stalin: A turd stain that penetrates through the underwear.
Carter: Peanut sized member.
Kerry: Jaw like a horse.
Marx: LSD permafry.
Castro: Castrated man.
Osama: Dead meat.

There you have it. Definitions for everyone I can think of this jerk-hole would like and respect. Any other ideas?

Debate of the Week #3: Sin Taxes

Is it right for the government to try to stop people from activities like drinking and smoking by raising taxes on them until the cost of such activities becomes so prohibitive people are forced to give them up?

I say this is pure crap. For example, unless this has been repealed, I hear New York is taxing cigarettes at the rate of $3 a pack in an attempt to reduce the number of smokers for public health reasons. Give me a break. If they don’t want people to smoke in their city all they need to do is pass a city ordinance banning smoking within city limits. Of course this would never pass, so the tax-happy liberals in city hall decide to boost taxes instead.

Example #2: Alcohol taxes do nothing but raise the price of alcohol. The theory is that the tax revenue will help the local community. The reality is that for every $1 raised in tax revenues $10 is spent on the secondary effects of drunkenness; from court fees for crimes committed under the influence of alcohol, enforcement of drunk driving laws, injuries, deaths, and so-on. At the current tax rate taxing alcohol is pretty pointless, and raising the taxes to be high enough to cover the expenses will just hurt businesses while creating a bunch of moon shiners and home stills that will evade the oppressive taxes.

Sin taxes are waste of time and resources.

What do you think?

Monday, October 17, 2005

Million Man March Busts Again!

Remember ten years ago? The Million Man March was being touted as one of the great demonstrations for civil rights only to come up several hundred-thousand people short of a million due to the racist policy of excluding all non-blacks, and the sexist policy of excluding all women. Am I the only one who sees the irony here? It was, and is considered to be a failure.

Today this demonstratition was commemorated with the Million More Man March, which managed to be an even bigger bust for turnout than the first despite allowing all comers this time. Tens of thousands of people showed up for the demonstration, meaning less than a hundred-thousand. Nice. I guess this really goes to show what Americans think of the Racist Nation Of Islam and its collaborators.

Sunday, October 16, 2005


I just had a crazy idea. All of this debating with people online has inspired me attempt something new. Who wants to be a part of a new monthly magaine? I'm thinking of calling it "Opposing Views". It would be a debate magazine where each story is covered by two people who stand on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and no topic would be taboo. Over the course of the month people could vote online for who they think made the most persuasive argument, and the results would be published in the following month's publication. The emphasis would be on news analysis and political commentary, much like "Hannity and Colmes" only with more people expressing their views and the interraction of the vote.
So, do you think anyody would actually read such a magazine? Would you like to be among the first pundits and reporters to debate the issues for all to see?
If this generates enough interest interest I will try to make it happen. More than likely the first incarnation would be an online publication, then it would be transformed to print when enough capital is raised to launch it through standard publication.

Socialism as it Relates to the Bible

Dan Trabue brought up my favorite book, the Bible, in an attempt to explain Socialism as a Biblical idea. This concept is not new to me. However, it may be new to many people, so I am posting this as my response.

Ancient Hebrew culture was defined by theology, the Law was divine, and it was to be strictly obeyed. What many people don’t realize is the symbolism and health benefits woven into the Law of Moses. I will not attempt to delve into all of them, just he ones mentioned as relating to socialism.

Under the Law the corners of the fields were to be left un-harvested so that the poor could glean them for food. Every seventh year the land was required to be left fallow. It is important to note that under this system the vast majority of the harvest went to the land owners. The corners of the fields were only a small bit of what was available to be harvested. This is functionally different from Socialism because it allows the accumulation of wealth, while Socialism requires that all wealth be distributed equally. The fallow years served the same function as crop rotation, and it is a practice that is carried out by farmers around the world to this day. Fields that are not allowed to go fallow once in a while loose their ability to nourish the food that is grown on them and eventually become useless. Including fallow years in the Law ensured continued food production for generations to come.

As for the seventh year being the one, numbers are very symbolic in the Bible, and the number seven is the number of rest. God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. The Sabbath was the seventh day of the week. Every seventh year was a year of rest. For more I suggest you read up on Bible Numerology. It’s fascinating stuff.

There is also the matter of the fifty year Jubilee. In ancient times land was distributed among the tribes of Israel and was declared to belong to that tribe for all time. It was then further parceled among the various families within each tribe. This was during a time when not having land meant utter destitution and homelessness. The landless were forced to be nomads wandering the wilds scraping what nourishment they could from the desert. By returning the land to its tribal and familial owners every fifty years it was ensured that no tribe would be forced out of the land (nation). The price of the land when it was sold was strongly affected by how near the Jubilee was. If it was a long way off the land would fetch a higher price. If it was very near the land would go for less. Private ownership of land was very highly respected. In Socialism there is no private ownership of land as it belongs to everyone equally. No land purchases could be made because it would allow the purchaser to rise above his neighbors.

The Jubilee also affected slavery. As you undoubtedly know slavery is the ownership of another human being. In ancient times sometimes people couldn’t pay their debts or feed their families so they were forced by circumstance to sell themselves or their children into slavery. This would be unnecessary in a socialist society since everyone gets an equal share of everything, so, in theory, there should be no one so destitute that they need to sell themselves into slavery. By freeing the slaves every fifty years it ensured that no family would be continually born into slavery, as happened in the US pre-Civil War. This guaranteed freedom and the opportunity to grow wealthy, much like we have here today.

Ancient Hebrew society had its very wealthy, and its’ miserably poor, as allowed by law. This is the opposite of Socialism, it is capitalism, but with a certain amount of charity enforced under the law, just like we have in the US today! (Welfare is legally enforced charity)

Since the Old Testament doesn’t follow Socialism let’s take a look at the New Testament.

The very early Church was marked by nothing if not love and generosity. Members made a habit of selling everything and sharing among each other as was needed. This was not mandated by law or by Church decree. It was a voluntary system, and it should be noted that not everyone did this, and one couple is recorded as only half doing it, which is a different story altogether. Either way, it makes me wonder just how close the Jubilee was at this time, but that’s beside the point. This does follow the Socialist ideal, and it does so under the circumstances I have previously stated it actually does work under; a small community of like-minded people engaging willingly in the practice. However, it must be noted that during this a rule was put in place by the Apostle Paul that “He who does not work should not eat” which is contrary to the socialist ideal.

One could argue that the Jews were always very generous with tithing and with the giving of alms to the poor, and that that is indicative of Socialism. It is not. God Himself promised that “If you do these things I will pour out their treasures of Heaven upon you.” (Referring not only to donations but to obedience to the entire Law) They gave so they could get way more back from God. In ancient Hebrew society Rich men were seen as the most righteous because they were the most blessed. Once again, this is contrary to Socialism.

This is my take on how the Bible deals with Socialism. It is very capitalist, but demands a certain amount generosity, which is just plain the loving thing to do. So, Bible = Capitalist + Generous.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

The Right Gun for the Job

There are many different types of guns in the world, and each one has its’ strong points and its' weak points. The following is a list of what I believe are the best guns for specific jobs.

Home Defense: For protecting your home nothing beats a 12-gauge pump shotgun with the shortest legal barrel loaded with buckshot. The sound of chambering a shell alone is enough to make most intruders pee-pee in their pants. If you do need to fire on anyone the shot spread should be wide enough that you will not miss as long as the gun pointed in the same general direction as the bad guy. Buckshot is large enough to have the stopping power to kill a human on the first shot.

Bird Hunting: An over-and-under shotgun of the gauge of your choice can’t be beat. Some people prefer semi-autos, but I think that over-and-under shotguns are more accurate, less likely to jam, and you never have to worry about the game warden interrupting your hunt to inspect you gun to ensure it can’t hold more than 2 rounds.

Personal Defense: I suggest a snub-nosed .45 ACP revolver. The snubbed nose makes for a lighter, more easily concealed and drawn weapon. I say ACP instead of magnum because the snubbed nose will make the gun deafeningly loud, literally. People have burst their eardrums firing high caliber snub-nosed magnum pistols. Revolvers are superior to semi-autos for self defense because they never need to be pre-cocked with two hands. A simple thumb-cock or just squeezing the trigger will do. People are large animals, and you need significant stopping power to guarantee your safety when you shoot someone. This means big bullets that transfer a lot of energy. Therefore go with a .45.

Varminting: A .22 cal rifle provides all the power you could need for varmints without turning them into pudding. My personal favorite now that the assault weapons ban has expired is a Walther G-22 rifle with laser sight and scope, loaded with Stingers. This has to be the MANLIEST .22 in the world. Stingers are by far my favorite .22 LR bullet. I tested them against all lead .22 LR and magnums as well as the same bullets with copper jackets. I took a rifle and a box of 20 of each bullet out to a place where people do some illegal dumping. I chose an old stove as my target, and shot it up, checking the penetration and expansion of each type of bullet I used. The Stingers penetrated deeper and expanded more than every other bullet I tested. These bullets rock!

Big Game: I use a .338 magnum bolt action rifle. At this size you can shoot anything from pronghorn to elephants and get a kill without ruining too much meat. It has a long range so you can really reach out and touch someone with it. A bolt action rifle is both more accurate and more reliable than a semi-auto. Sure you can only expect to get one shot off before your target runs away, but if you hit with this rifle you won’t need a second shot anyway.

Fun: Can you say machine gun?
If Civil War Breaks Out: Again, can you say machine gun? Barring that get your hands on a .45 ACP semi-auto pistol or bigger so you have stopping power and a large clip size with fast reloading capability. Get at least a 30-06 semi-automatic rifle, but it would be better to stick with a .308. Now that riot shotguns are available a 12-gauge riot shotgun would definitely come in handy. Having trouble getting a machine gun? Buy any semi-automatic model of a fully automatic weapon. Go online and buy a trigger modification kit for that particular gun. Install the trigger mod. You can also take your gun to a local gunsmith. Some of them will modify triggers into full-autos. Now the world of real MP-5’s, Tommy Guns, CAWS, AK-47s, and the like is open to you. With all of these semi-autos and fully-autos there is one other you need to know. Do not waste your time with a gas operated gun. They jam easily. Stick with mechanically operated guns.

Have I missed anything?

Baby Stealing Murderer

A woman attacked a pregnant lady and cut her open to steal her unborn child. I cannot begin to describe how horrifyingly sickening this is.

The really disturbing thing is that this case is not unique. It’s rare, but the fact that it happens at all is just too much. The idea that anyone can be so evil as to murder a pregnant woman, rip her belly open, and then take off with the baby is just . . . revolting is too weak a word, demonic.

I call for the death penalty for very specific types of criminals. This case is exactly the reason why I do it. I cannot in good conscience support the idea of this woman ever being among us again, whether she is released, or if she manages to escape. It is inhuman beasts like her that MUST be put down like the rabid dogs they are for the health and safety of the innocent. I have no interest in vengeance, and justice can take many forms, but sometimes there are people who are so evil we must be merciful to the rest of the country, the rest of the world, by putting them down.

The good news is that a teenage boy saw what was happening, told his parents, and they called the cops. The cops and the paramedics arrived in time to save both the baby and the mother. The baby is doing well, and the mother is in critical condition, but is awake and aware of her surroundings. I ask you to pray to whatever God you worship for the health and safety of these two innocent victims. Take care, and be careful out there.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Down With Planned Parenthood!

Planned Parenthood makes me sick! There is no greater enemy to children and the unborn than Planned Parenthood. The shameless manner in which they spread murderous lies is an outrage!

Be warned, I just forced myself to sit through some their propaganda videos and am feeling particularly nasty right now.

Who do these schmucks think they are to self-righteously proclaim to be the champions of life and freedom? How can baby-murdering monsters even pretend to care about children? What makes them so damn special that they get to mock and slander their opponents while attacking anyone who speaks the truth about them?

Damning evidence against Planned Parenthood:

1: Since the Roe V. Wade decision science, through genetics, advances in ultrasound technology, and various experiments on live fetuses has proven beyond all doubt that A-the unborn are fully human, B-the unborn are aware, and C-that the unborn are truly alive and distinct from their mothers.

2: Sure women can do what they want to themselves, but since an unborn baby is a separate human life that is dependent on the mother this argument is invalid!

3: Human life is just as valuable whether it is wanted, or unwanted. Crusading to make sure that every baby that gets born is “wanted” by providing abortions devalues all human life.

4: Providing health care? Give me a break! Since when is it caring for someone’s health to promote the performance of procedures that cause an average of 1-2 nasty physical side-effects, and 6-7 severely damaging psychological side-effects? This what an abortion does to a woman. This is anti-health care!

5: Safe sex? Thanks to these jerk-holes we now know beyond all doubt that safe sex programs have the opposite effect that they are intended to have. Everywhere that Planned Parenthood style safe sex programs have been implemented have seen a rise in the instances of STDs, unwed and teenage pregnancy, and their bread-and-butter – ABORTION! African nations that were getting AIDS under control using abstinence programs have become victims, decimated by nearly instantaneous rises in the HIV infection rate to mirror the rest of Africa after Planned Parenthood style safe sex programs were forcibly implemented by politicians who succumbed to pressure from Planned parenthood and their affiliates. Hmmm, safe sex = more of everything it supposedly prevents? I guess that means it doesn’t work, now doesn’t it? This is also the opposite of health care!

6: Since when do these thugs care about free speech? Aren’t these the same Nazis who are suing people who protest outside their clinics, claiming these protesters are actually part of organized crime and should be thrown in prison? They ARE! Can you think of anyone else who has people thrown in prison for disagreeing with them? I dunno, maybe Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao, need I continue? And they talk about free speech. Bunch of commie crack-heads!

7: They actually believe they are saving the government money by preventing babies from being born into welfare families? THESE IDIOTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HALF OF THE WELFARE FAMILIES IN AMERICA! It’s their constant promotion of having promiscuous sex and thinking some flimsy piece of latex that no teenager, or even adult for that matter, reliably uses that is responsible for the lion’s share of teenage pregnancies in America. And, as the informed know, the number one contributing factor to poverty in the US is single parenthood. The younger it happens, the poorer you stay for life!

8: They are the most powerful champions of teaching YOUR children to be homosexuals.

9: No matter what Planned Parenthood says, adopted children actually have a better chance at being happy and successful in life as ones born into their family. Not much better mind you, but better, NOT worse!

10: Abstinence programs work. Planned Parenthood says they don’t despite every scientific study done in the last thirty years. Can you say liars?

11: I have recently heard that Planned Parenthood first embraced abortion as a means to wipe out black people and poor people. I have not confirmed this yet personally, but I find it to be a disturbing idea.

12: Personally, I’m offended by the way the slander religious people as being ignorant bigots who want to destroy the world. Religious people built Europe before it abandoned faith, and religious people built America. Deny it if you want to, it’s true.

I’ll stop here since I have typed out my rage for the moment. Expect me to blast these inhuman monsters plenty more in the future.

One last note; If you are considering getting an abortion, I urge you to visit your local Crisis Pregnancy Center. They will help you and they will tell you the truth. No, they do not perform abortions, and they do not recommend doctors who do.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Getting Tired of the Race Card

Farrakhan and Shabazz are still at it. Spouting off this ridiculousness about the US government blowing up the levees in New Orleans. Mr Shabazz is threatening to sue Sean Hannity for slander and defamation for telling people he said nasty things about Jews and 9/11, all of which Sean Hannity can prove he said since he has the whole thing on tape.

Why does anyone listen to these (expletive deleted) racist, anti-semitic (expletive deleted)s? These fools are symbolic of the sickness that has infected the left in America. It is people like these who are driving more and more people to the right, so for that I thank them, and attracting masses of equally bigoted and small-minded drones to their cause and giving them a public face and lobbyist voice, which is just plain sad. These fools are doing their best to polarize America along racial lines, which, as anyone who pays attention to world events knows, always leads to civil war and genocide. Look at the Balkan Nations, the Sudan, and Sierra Leonne as proof of this in the modern world, and any number of such divided nations throughout history.

Racial harmony is important, as is cultural harmony and tolerance. It is one thing to fight against the wrongdoings of people, it is another to fight race wars. Conservatives fight against wrongdoing. Wack-jobs like these two (expletive deleted)s want to incite a race war. Just listen to the rhetoric.

New Link Section for Dissidents

This blog, while strictly conservative, is open to all, and everyone's opinion is welcome and valued. This includes those who'se views do not agree with my own. Dissent is important because it inspires debate, provokes thought, and often makes good points that must be addressed. Actually, my favorite comments are ones that do NOT fall into lockstep behind me. It is good to know what others think.

Therefore, I am opening a new links section in my sidebar for my most articulate opponents. You will find that they are niether conservative, nor are they "evil" liberals, though they are all liberals. I will not dignify such crazies as the ACLU, MoveOn.org,Al Franken, and the like by giving them a link. Links here are strictly reserved for decent people who'se views are mostly opposed to my own. While I may believe they are misguided, these are intelligent and (mostly) respectful people.

Socialism, Good Idea Gone Bad, or Just Plain Bad?

I once did a biography of Lenin, the one who brought communism to Russia and set the stage for for too mant crimes against humanity to name, and was really set to thinking. Is socialism/Communism bad because of the people in charge, or because the system itself is evil.

The idea of Socialism is utopian. A society where evryone selflessly does his or her job for the common good and expects no more in return than anyone else gets so everyone gets taken care of. In small communities of like-minded people this has even worked, and worked well. There are two problems with this system though. Not everyoone thinks alike regardless of the amount of indoctrination they receve, and every society eventually grows large to need full time leaders. Let's examine these two problems.

Since not everyone will think alike, and since mankind is inherrently greedy and selfish it will not take long for somebody to decide that what he or she does for the community is worth more than what some or all of the other people do. Once this happens others will follow suit, there will be hoarding, and the system breaks down.

Socialism places a lot of power in leadership to maintan the staus quo, so much so in fact that leaders tend to move the Socialist community to Communism. Communism is a totalitarian system that places godlike powers in the hands of the government. Since power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely you wind with people like Stalin, Mao, Castro et al running the show. Even leaders who entered office pure soon become intoxicated with the total power and become corupt despots. While this now allows the forced equality of reciept . . . or else, it does not motivate people to produce anything to share with the community in the first place. It also is the direct cause of millions of murders of dissidents, students, artists, innocents whose identities are mixed up, loyal people the leader grows suspicious of, and the list goes on.

Based on the way the system develops naturally I must conclude that it the system of Socialism/Communism that is inherrently bad, if not outright evil. If the nature of man were more pure and innocent it could work, but that is not the case and it doesn't. It is foolishness to promote such a society, and it is a cause of the ignorant who either don't know history, or actually believe they can do it better. These people need to be educated so they will shut up and realize just how great a system we have in America.

A Solution to the Drug Problem

Drugs have plagued society for centuries. Profiteering men of little or no conscience have preyed upon the ignorant and the desperate. Well-meaning people have unwittingly unleashed great chemical scourges upon the world. It may seem hopeless, but drugs are a problem that can be solved, we just need to radically change the way we deal with them.

America has misguided its efforts to curtail drug use, assaulting drug users and addicts with oppressive penalties that ruin people’s lives just for polluting their bodies. These people need help, not prison.

The only people the law needs to focus on are the people providing the drugs to the population. If the drug supply is cut off there will be very little need to deal with problems of addiction since there will be few if any addicts remaining. The question is how to deal with the dealers.

Death is an appropriate penalty for deliberately murdering people by illegally selling them substances that can be lethal in a single dose. Heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and other hard drugs kill millions of people worldwide from a single overdose. They kill even more people from accidents involving the use of the drugs. They kill even more people in crimes committed to acquire the drugs. What could possibly be more appropriate for such mass-murder than death?

If everyone convicted of dealing, trafficking, or the illegal manufacture of drugs gets executed after a highly expedited appeals process we can rest assured that the swarms of young people lining up to make a quick buck selling drugs without fear of the consequences will swiftly evaporate. Without street dealers the drug lords will be forced to get more personally involved, and as has been proven by history; the more involved the boss gets, the easier it is to bust him/her. Permanently removing these scumbag drug dealers from the streets will choke the supply of illegal drugs and reduce the number of users as they have no choice but to quit or get help to quit, and nearly eradicate new addicts since they will not be able to get the drugs so easily

There are three drugs however, that people should not be killed over. They are alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs with a long history and socially acceptable traditions going back hundreds to thousands of years in multiple cultures worldwide. Marijuana has been conclusively proven to be non-addictive (biologically) and has potential medical use if proper research is done. It is no more destructive than alcohol, and while I do not advocate legalizing it for any reason, I am not convinced it is one of the great evils of the drug world.

Rehab should be mandated for anyone caught using illegal drugs, not prison. Drugs are easier to get and more tempting to use in prison than they are in society, therefore imprisoning drug users is a mistake both socially and financially.

By installing this as U.S. law we can clear out a tremendous segment of the current prisoner population as they are either released into rehab (users) or executed (dealers). This will relieve some of the burden not only on the taxpayers, but on the people who are imprisoned themselves by providing compassion and mercy for the most beleaguered victims of the drug dealers, the addicts. While death for drug dealers sounds brutal it is guaranteed to save the lives of countless innocents who have died as a result of drugs or drug related crime. I will trade the life of a drug dealer for the life of an honest citizen any day of the week. It will also preserve the futures of countless American children by keeping them both away from drug use and the drug trade. If we focus on catching and killing drug dealers instead of all of the extra nonsense in the War on Drugs that doesn’t help anything we can win this war.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Cheap, Cheap Guns

I came across the crappiest pistol ever. For legal purposes I will withhold the name since I am about to blast everything about it.

This handgun was the most hideous, clunky thing I have ever seen. It was an absolute disgrace to handgun design with oversized everything that looked slapped together from mismatched parts.

This handgun was so badly constructed that a brand-new, never been used one rattles when it is shaken. Not the magazine rattles, although it does, the insides of the pistol itself rattle as though a single shot could separate them.

This handgun is cheap. How cheap? How does around $140 in a market where guns cost 30-50% above the national average sound? It’s so cheap that I just had to ask about it, and soon regretted doing so.

There is only one reason I can think of why such a piece of crap would be made and sold. The company must be targeting thugs and criminals as its customer base. Who else would want a cheap throw-away gun that couldn’t possibly last through years of proper use? A thug planning a small-time job can go to the gun shop, buy this POS, use it in the crime, then destroy it or throw it away without really losing anything.

I have evidence that this is true! There is a guy locally who buys three or four of these things every year. Now if he’s not reselling them to felons and desperate men or using them in crimes I will eat my hat. Nobody who can afford to spend $400 a year on the same POS pistol would buy this thing for himself. He would buy something nice that will last and perform well.

I love guns, but that doesn’t mean there should be a company making guns specifically for the criminal element. Make nice guns. Slap a slightly higher price tag on them so that at least if some crook buys it and uses it in a crime he’ll think twice before throwing his investment away.

Medicinal Marijuana

Medicinal marijuana has been a hot topic for debate in recent years with many intelligent and valid points made by both sides. After listening to the arguments for years, engaging both supporters and opponents of the practice, and a lot of thought I have reached a decision on where I stand on this issue. I am not for medical marijuana, but I am for medicine derived from marijuana.

Two questions must now be answered: Why do I support medicine derived from marijuana? And why, if I support this medicine, do I oppose simply using the marijuana itself?
First my support for medicine derived from marijuana. Our best pain medications are all powerful and highly addictive opiates and narcotics. These drugs are so addictive that many people who are prescribed them become addicted, and sometimes this addiction is alarmingly fast. They have also produced a black market for prescription drugs that in some areas surpasses the market for banned substances. Morphine, Oxycontin, Percoset, and Vicodin are just a few popular drugs that addict their users and have a thriving black market. Studies show that the active ingredients in marijuana are at least much less addictive, and possibly non-addictive.

Also, current prescription medications have a laundry list of side effects that amount to one thing . . . bad news for longtime users. The main drawbacks to extended use of prescription painkillers are organ damage, an altered mental state, and other health problems. The active ingredients in marijuana are physically less damaging than existing painkillers in adults, developing bodies and minds are adversely affected by marijuana, even pro-marijuana groups admit to this. As for the altered metal state produced by marijuana, well, the other painkillers do the same thing. Nobody on any of these drugs should operate a car, gun, or heavy machinery.

Finally, studies on drugs have shown that the older, simpler drugs are significantly safer for the human body. THC is an old and simple drug with a long history and well known and documented effects, and reportedly kills pain better than the legal drugs. These new designer painkillers frequently have unexpected tragic consequences on the users and do get pulled from the market because the newfound risks are just too great, resulting in multibillion dollar lawsuits. It just seems safer to use such a well known drug than a chancy new one.

Now for my opposition to the use of marijuana itself as a drug. Put simply, the active ingredients can be extracted from the plant and administered in regulated doses the same way penicillin was once extracted from a kind of mold. All the benefits are available without the need to smoke it up and do as much lung damage as a cigarette if not more. Also, since marijuana plants are so easily grown then having the plant itself or traditional forms of use legalized in any way would strengthen the black market for the drug.

Admittedly, a pill, syrup, or spray that contains THC would be used as a party drug in exactly the same manner as the plant itself currently is. That’s the bad news. The good news is that it would be exactly the same people already using the drug who would be doing it. At least they would be using a safer drug than some mystery plant they buy off the street corner with God-only-knows what else may be mixed into the plant. People have been killed by street marijuana that was beefed up with other drugs without their knowledge. I am against the improper or illegal use of any drug in any form, but when I consider the black market for existing prescription drugs and for marijuana I see THC medicine as a better, if still undesirable alternative.

I have come across existing prescription medications that are basically THC, some derived from the plant, some synthetic. The almost universal consensus from the users of the medicines is that the drugs derived from the plant itself work much better than the synthetics. Throughout this essay I have mostly referred to “the active ingredients in marijuana” with a few references directly to THC. I have done this because the superiority of the plant derivatives to the synthetics suggests that the THC works in tandem with one or more other substances in marijuana to produce the medicinal effects. This suggests further study should be encouraged into exactly what in the marijuana plant acts as a painkiller.

In short, I am against the illegal use of any drug. I am also bothered by the addiction rate and nasty side effects of current prescription painkillers. The data suggests marijuana is a safer and cheaper alternative. The plant itself should not be used because of the real impossibility of regulating it. The downfall is that the legally produced drug would be used as a party drug, but the plant already is anyway so I see not net change in recreational use, with the possibility of wrecking the current black market for marijuana by introducing a safer alternative. I will not go into the possible economic benefit for farmers, who would need to be properly licensed and inspected, or the other products derived from the hemp plant. The drugs already exist and are being safely used in some other countries. Let’s try a test run here in the United States and see if the benefit truly does outweigh the risks.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Politics Test Results

So I'm not fascist after all. Go Figure. (Sarcasm)

You are a

Social Conservative
(30% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(60% permissive)

You are best described as a:


Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

GOP Dream Team

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the early front-runners for the GOP nomination for president, with McCain being the most likely victor. At this point the most likely move for McCain is to name Giuliani as his VP. This is an unbeatable Republican team for President. Nothing the Democrats have could even com close to competing. I predict no les than 55% of the vote going GOP with victory in 40 states with this team.

While this is good news for Republicans who simply want to retain power in Washington it is bad news for conservatives. Both of these men, while strong leaders and fine men, are social liberals and would support liberal social policies as well as being likely to appoint liberal judges to the courts, or at best, people they believe will their definition of “fair”, which means a whole lot of Sandra Day O’Connor clones. This would be a tragedy for all Americans. The courts must be reformed to be dominated by true conservative constructionist judges.

A better and almost as electable GOP team would be any combination of Condoleezza Rice, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. The least electable combination of these in the general election is either one with Gingrich as President rather than Vice-President due to his leadership in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, but even he could pull off a victory with strong effort and good voter turnout. The most electable combination is Mitt Romney with Condi as his running mate. Romney has great appeal among both conservatives and liberals while remaining a staunch conservative. He is extremely charismatic, and was even able to give Ted Kennedy the closest race of his life in a prior Senate election. This team would do almost as well in the general election as a McCain/Giuliani ticket.

Any of these three people are conservative candidates who will protect and promote the values we all hold so dear. Truthfully, I don’t expect Rice to run for President, but a smart GOP nominee will name this woman as his running mate. Not only will she bring in votes, she will prove to be a most capable Vice-President, and eventually an excellent President.

Debate of the Week 2: Stem Cell Research

Do you think stem research is ethical? If yes why? If no why? If the answer is more complicated than that then how?

Here’s my stance. No human life should ever be created for the sole purpose of being destroyed. To create human embryos just to kill them for research is absolutely monstrous. However, what about the embryos that are being discarded by parents who went through in-vitro and decided they had enough kids so they are getting rid of the leftovers? Would it not be better to allow these people to decide if the embryos they are killing anyway should be used for potentially life saving research and treatments? I think it would. While I personally would opt for embryo adoption rather than killing my kids, not everybody would want to let someone else birth and raise their unwanted children. While this is selfish in my view it is within the law. So I say ban the creation of embryos for research and medicine, but allow parents a choice for the embryos they intend to discard.

What do you think?

Police Brutality in New Orleans

There is a case of police Brutality coming out of New Orleans on the news. Like all such videos it shows only a tiny clip, and probably the most inflammatory one at that. As per usual none of the context of the violence is being shown, and this is always a problem, but this time it may not matter, for once.

I am fully behind the police in their efforts to stop crime and keep the population safe. I understand that sometimes they must get rough in the process of keeping honest citizens safe. I am usually disgusted when people allege police brutality because the person making the accusation is usually someone who’s lucky he or she wasn’t killed in the process of being apprehended thanks to how violent he or she was being to the police. These are throw-away cases where the violent means the police used to secure the felon are justified.

Not so in this case.

Bear in mind that I have limited information, but from what I can see the man who was beaten wasn’t being overly aggressive. And while the New Orleans police are justifiably on edge after the violence and looting that followed in the wake of Katrina they do appear to have overreacted. This unarmed man was beaten badly enough to get covered in his own blood and be left laying a puddle of blood. This is wrong. This is excessive.

Rodney King wasn’t beaten this bad and he was high on Angel Dust (PCP) which made him far more dangerous than some graying drunk. Police deal with drunks all the time and are trained to subdue them with a minimum of violence. It really isn’t that hard to subdue a drunk. So why would four or five police need pound on this guy until he was bleeding profusely? It makes no sense. It should never have happened.

It is possible that in a few days information come out that the man pulled a knife or a gun, or some other weapon on the police, and that makes the beating he got fully deserved. But barring any such bombshells I expect the justice to do the right and punish these cops for brutalizing a harmless drunk.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Abortion Clinic Bombers

I saw a disturbing thing recently. On a list of terrorist threats were religious anti-abortion activists. This is disturbing for two reasons. One – I am religious. Two – I am anti-abortion, and am only not an activist because I think working with a crisis pregnancy center is a far better way to go.

First, let me express disgust at the people who put religious anti-abortion activists on this list . . . the people who bomb abortion clinics in the name of God. I have one thing to say to these people. You are not serving God by murdering people. You are not Christians. I and all other true Christians denounce you and call upon you to repent and come to the truth.
Now that that’s out of the way let me get into the nitty-gritty. I make no secret that I think abortion is murder. The key word here is murder. This is also why I am also against anyone who murders abortion doctors, nurses, or patients by any means. Human life is sacred, be it unborn or a hundred years out of the womb. No sane person can make the leap of logic that puts the life of abortionists at less value than the life of an unborn child. Both are equally valuable.

People who murder in the name of God do nothing but hurt their own cause. Jesus Himself taught against such actions. Not only does God frown upon this, but people frown upon God because of it. Nothing does more to convince people that a religion is false than hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy of the highest order to murder someone because you consider that person to be a murderer.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that abortion is murder and that everyone involved in the abortion industry is guilty of mass murder and possibly even genocide. However, it is for the courts to decide whether or not these people should be punished. At this time the courts say abortion is a legally protected right. Therefore there is no legal basis to take any action to try to punish these baby killing monsters. I for one am content to be a good law-abiding citizen like God commands me to be, and to let God decide what punishment is appropriate in the afterlife.
Just so nobody thinks I’m one of these “God will smite you” loonies I need to make a special note. Not everybody involved with abortion or who has an abortion will be punished in the afterlife. Some of these people will repent of their sins and be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. These people will not receive the justice that is due to them, they will receive grace. I for one am ecstatic about this. God’s grace is sufficient for all sinners, and that includes me.

There are few things in this world I would like to see more than an end to abortion, but violence is not the key. The key is in the legal and legislative systems. The only two things that will change this plague on our nation are a Supreme Court decision or a Constitutional, amendment. With the right judges in place a Supreme Court decision is possible. The way our legislature and the population at large are split on this issue a Constitutional amendment banning abortion will not be possible. This is why the liberal Democrats are so opposed to confirming any Judge who is pro-life.

One thing is still illegal at least, and that is bombing abortion clinics. To anyone who does such a thing I want you know that I will celebrate when you get what’s coming to you.

Listed on BlogShares