Moved out of the Cold

Last Friday, October 31, we moved out of Massachusetts to a warmer climate down in North Carolina. Got out just in time for the cold snap. Today was 78 degrees and sunny.

On the politic side, the good news is that in 2010 the house and senate will return to republic control.

What the Constitution would look like if Demcrats wrote it

If one listens to what Democrats say and what they imply and what liberal justices claim the constitution says here is what I believe the Constitution would look like if Liberal Democrats wrote it.
1. Congress shall make laws protecting the people, except as designated in the in the exceptions clause below, from feeling offended by any words, written or spoken. Congress shall pass laws protecting the people, except as noted below, from having to hear any expression of a religious belief which they find offensive. Churches that do not conform their doctrine such that it is not offensive to anyone that may happen to hear the words spoken inside the sanctuary shall be penalized with double the corporate tax rate on all funds that enter the church. Members of such church will also be assess a harassment tax. Exception given for Muslim and Jewish community.
2. Congress shall pass laws restricting firearm owenership only to duely appointed law enforcement officers while they are on duty only. Military members may only have firearms issued after they are attacked. Unless there is a verifiable immediate threat, fire arms are not neccessary. Call 911. Laws shall be passed making it illegal for any individual to commit an act of self defense. That is the sole right of the government.
3. Community Activists, appointed by local politburos, may choose to stay in any private home they choose. The occupants of that home must do what ever the community acitvist demands. After all, the community activist is there to help the community. Lack of money to pay for what ever the activist demands is not an excuse. Failure to meet demands will result in forfeiture of property.
4. Congress shall make no law establishing private property rights or boundaries, as such, no one that brealks into a home may be charged with a crime. After all, we all have a duty to share our belongings with the less fortunate if we even admit that such people exist.
Police shall never be issued warrants tosearch to homes of anyone they think may have committed a crime unless that crime is offending another with words in any form.
5. Anyone charged with the crime of offending another may be put on tirial as many times as it takes to get a conviction and / or relieve the offender of all his accumulated wealth. Accumulating wealth is also a crime. For all other crimes against others, it must also be proven that the person charged did not have at least 10 other alternatives before choosing the criminal act with which they are cgharged.
6. Jurors are stupid. They are drawn from the pool of stupid people who are not inpower. All trials will be by a single judge or appointed panel of members trained in political correctness. Rules will be establuished such that no member of a protected group may be convicted of any crime the first or second time.
7. No juries for civil cases either.
8. All persons charged with a crime, not a member of a preferred protected group shall be held without bail until trial without time limit even if the offense may only have a fine.
9. Rights not specifically granted here in DO NOT EXIST. Only the government has the authority to grant or take away rights. There is no higher authority.
10. All powers are delegate to the US Government and surpercede all local rules and regulations. No local rule or regulation may be counter the demands of the US government.

*Exceptions clause exclude white heterosexual Christian males from all rights. They have live with privilege far too long. Such person may not expect any protection from any form of verbal or physical assault of harassment.

I shouls not be allowed to drive around in my Jeep

According to Obama's very public pronouncements, I should not be allowed to drive my Jeep or heat my home to a level that keeps my wife from feeling constantly cold.
This is funny coming from someone who owns multiple homes, all of which far exceed to needs of his small family. I do not begrudge him those luxuries. He and his wife can afford them.
However, as a liberal, when he says the rest of us should not be able to do something, it is always followed by attempts to make that "something" illegal or, failing that, taxing it so that only people of his wealth can afford that "something."
Onwe thing going against Obama is science and genetics. Each generation, on average, is taller than the previous. Yet each generation of cars is getting smaller. That leaves more families having to choose SUV and trucks so their children are not cramped in a back seat designed for someone 5' 4."
We own two Jeeps. A Wrangler and a Cherokee. Neither one has a spacious back seat. The Wrangler less so. My chidren are 11 and 12. My 12 year old son is 5'9" and my 11 year old daughter is 5'5". I am 6' and my wife is 5'10" with legs as long as mine.
I tried out a new Dodge Caliber. Set the seat where it was comfortable. My son could not fit behind me. It is much worse for cars that get >30MPG.
Obama says I should not be allowed to drive a vehicle in which my family is comfortable and safe. I should be forced to "sacrifice" so he and Al Gore can drive their SUV's caravans and keep multiple homes. I should not have a right to choose the vehicle I want for my family.
What will liberals do next? Forced administering of drugs to stunt growth to make sure all future generations can fit in politically correct cars? License required to grow an NBA prospect?
My littlew Jeep Wrangler destroyed onew of those correct cars. Thank God no one was in the passenger side. That seat was crushed. My children were unharmed.

As if we need another reason not to vote for Obama

If Obama is elected president, we now know that his Justice Department will insist on applying constitutional protections to terrorists and prosecuting soldiers who kill terrorists for murder.
He will send out the FBI to arrest terrorist after they murder Americans rather than sending out the military to hunt down and kill terrorists before they have the chance to kill.
Obama has studied to Quran. He knows that the Islamic terrorists can not be negotiated with. He knows they won't stop until they kill us or we convert to or submit to Islamic rule. For the terrorists, there are no other options.
Obama is putting appeasing the far left ahead of national security and defense.
He says he would bring Osama back for a civilian trial in a US court with all the rights and privlidges of American citizens. That means that none of the evidence that the military has to prove, for military purposes, that Osama was responsible for planning 9/11 would be admissable in a civillian trial. Osama would walk away from such a trial. As a back up, Osama's ACLU attorney would need only sit a single Muslim to guarantee acquittal.
I fear for Obama's children. If he applies the same attitude toward defense of the nation to defense of his family, he would not lift a finger to prevent an attacker from killing them. But he should would make sure the murderer got his Miranda warning when the police capture him.
Is this the kind of person we want as president?

Only Democrats think "sportsman" is in the constitution

Once again democrats prove they are illiterate. Well at least when it comes to reading the Constitution and the bill of rights.
In Hillary's response to BO's gaff about small town dwellers and guns, she said something about democrats not coming after the guns of sportsmen. The oft use variant substitutes "hunters."
But one thing is undeniable. Democrats and some republicans (republicrats really) do not believe that where "the people" appears in the seconds amendment actual means what it says. THE PEOPLE. You, me all of us who have not violated the rights of others have the right to bear arms to defend our homes and families.
In Massachusetts, our legislators have decided that the second amendment does not exist. How do they do this? In this state, one must apply for a permit with the local police department. The criteria for approval are set by the local police chief. The chief has no limits on what restrictions he can place beyond requirements already set by the state. There are towns in which the current police chief is adamently anti-gun and set a blanket denial policy and deny all applications and renewals of permits approved prior to the new chief coming in.
It actually easier for someone from out of state to get a carry permit for Massachusetts than it is more most residents. They only have to pass a back ground check and meet the gun safety course requirement. A resident can pass all of that and still be denied based only on what zip code they live in.
Studies have prove repeatedly that when lawful gun ownership goes up, violent crime goes down. The number one beneficiaries of increased legal gun ownership is women. After all, nothing scares off a mugger faster than a nice compact 9mm semi-auto.
The converse is also true. Jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest violent crime. DC does not even allow their police officers to have a weapon off duty. Naturally, the bureaucrats in DC blame lax gun laws in neighboring states. That is not true because the law abiding citizens obey the ridiculous gun ban while the criminals still get all the guns they want to use against those who obey the law.

Do we really need more proof that Islam is not a "religion of Peace?"

There has much written about the recent very public conversion of a "moderate" Muslim man to Catholicism.
Names are not important here. It could be anybody because the reaction from the "Religion of Peace" is always the same. "Death!!!!"
Yet no matter how times the Islamic world turns violently against the rest of the world, no matter how great the number of violent participants, our elected representatives insist on trying to convince us that it is a small number of Muslims that are violent.
Every major Islamic group has advocated the death of this convert.
No other religion uses such coercion to keep people from leaving. If Islam were actually a religion of peace, it would not have to use the threat of death to force conversion to Islam or to prevent people from leaving publicly. If Islam is a religion of peace, Bibles would not be illegal, subject to the death penalty. If Islam is peaceful, why do the "religious" police in Egypt and Saudi Arabia murder with impunity anyone they decide has broken Sharia law?
Why can fathers freely murder there daughters if they become rape victims, or are merely said to have seen alone with an unrelated male?
Islam presumes that all men are pigs and all woman are sluts. It seems to preach the Fraudian notion that we are driven only by sexual desire and are incapable of control this impulse. Therefore if a woman exposes any part of her skin she is trying to seduce a man away from his "purity in Islam." Soit is always the woman's fault if she is raped. An an Imam in Australia said regarding a string of gang rapes by Muslim men, "what do you expect a cat to do when you leave the meat uncovered?"

As an aside:
One must keep in mind also that Islamic law assigns one's religion based on the father. SO Barak Obama, under Islamic law is Muslim. When Obama claims he is not Muslim, that makes him an apostate and subject to the death penalty if he ever goes to a Muslim country. Will BO merely say he was compliant with Islamic law that allows lying a deceit to advance Islam because he had to lie to get elected? Why else would he spend 20 years in such a hateful "church" that is anything but Christian and has more in common with Farahkan's cult which the truly moderate Muslims reject as Not of Islam?

Some Thought on the passing of MLK Jr and the death of what he stood for

40 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered. And along with him so too did his dreams and desires for a world where hos children would be judged not by the color of there skin but by the content of their character.
Today, nearly every "civil rights leader" ended there speeches with diatribes against white racism. Yet these same people make a living by making sure that enough people believe that white racism is a serious problem so they can continue to earn tax deductible livings from the hatred they themselves foment.
Whether is if the "Rev." Wright, "Rev. Sharpton, or "Rev. Jackson, they all sign the same tune. White people are bad. All white people are racist. And anyone who questions their actions is a racist. All black people who do not share their twisted view are Uncle Toms and "House niggers."
Just ask columnist like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Ellis Washington or the eminent professor Walter Williams about the profanity laced hate mail they receive for holding opinions that difference from the Black Victim Theology? And it is as much a religion, or cult as anything else. At its core is a belief not just in something that can not be proven, but can actually be proven false.
If Doctor King were alive today he would be receive hate mail from Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Men far wiser than myself have pointed out that even before Doctor King's death the black civil rights movement was moving far left. Those who resisted would have been rejected as "old school
There is ample evidence to support this thesis. When Malcom X came back from his turning point trip to Mecca his tune had changed. He no longer believed in black segregation as still preached by the cult known as the Nation of Islam. For that he too was assassinated. Some believe by the current head of NoI, Louis, The white, Jew and women hating, Farrakhan.
Of course, if Hillary or Barak are elected, this entire post would be a hate crime under federal law.
If you don't think that is possible one need only look north to Canada or even just to PA where 11 people faced over 4 decades in prison for reading the bible out loud at a "gay pride" festival.
Today, because I am white and believe in equal opportunity, I am called a racist. Though it would be impossible to prove with a single visit to my home. But maybe then they would just label my wife a race traitor.
Schools no longer even teach children the fact that Doctor King was a registered Republican. In the 50's and early 60's the majority of black voters were registered republican and the Democrat party was and still is the party of the KKK. It is the republican party that ended slavery. It is the republican party that passed the Civil Rights act in the 60's.
Yes, if Doctor King were alive today preaching the same message, he would be shunned. He would have Oreo cookies thrown at him at every speech. He would be called every vile name currently thrown at Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Justice Thomas.
Leaving the victim ideology plantation is just not allowed. By doing so, it increases the risk that the current crop of "leaders" will actually have to go out and get real jobs.