Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

No, Idiot. Immigration laws make them criminals…

13 February 2019

“…because of the president’s zero-tolerance policy that has turned everyone, regardless of their record, into a criminal. For example, if you cross the border undocumented, [Trump] has now made you a criminal. If a person has a driving while under the influence violation, he is now making that, saying that’s criminal.” —Sen. Bob Menendez

Can anyone explain to me how someone who knows so little about US laws can be legislator? C’mon, Bob! Get up to speed! READ the law! When they chose to cross the border illegally (that’s what crossing the border “undocumented” is: crossing in contravention of the law), they become a criminal in no less of a manner than when you, little Bobby, steal a candy bar from the Senate commissary when no-one is looking (hypothetically speaking, of course).

And just you try going into Canada with a DUI on your record. Uh-huh. They won’t let you in.

Once again: you’ve opened your mouth and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that most five-year-olds have a better grasp of the law than do you. Thank you for being consistent in an ever-changing world.


Which Side Of The Face Said That?

11 February 2019

“We have a moral responsibility to protect God’s creation for generations to come. That is why today, we named members to the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.” —House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Hey! How about we act on our moral responsibility to protect future generations first, you disingenuous harpy?

Out of one side of your hypocritical face, you spout how we need to protect God’s creation for future generations, and out of the other you condemn those same generations to death, up to and including the moment of birth.

The democrat party is a farce, epitomized by the likes of pelosi, schumer, sanders, warren, omar, tlaib, ocasio-cortez, northam, cuomo… With platforms that force a culture of death, how can any Christian claim to be a democrat? As a party, you are disgusting enough. As individuals, you are worse…

Remember, people: they’re not our leaders. Nor are they our betters. They’re supposed to be our representatives. If they aren’t representing, vote ’em out. Recalls send an even more powerful message…


You’re Tired? YOU’RE TIRED?!

4 February 2019

“I think a lot of black folks are tired of apologies and talking,” – Wes Bellamy, a councilman in Charlottesville, Virginia, who has worked for the removal of Confederate statues in the city.

Well, Wes, old bean: we are even more tired of the race-baiting. We’re tired of the whining cries for “reparations” and the generalizations that come about when someone or other is “exposed” as a racist for some long past or imagined “crime” of having done something which is politically intolerable today.

Look, I’m no fan of Northam – but not because, as a stupid 23 year old, he chose to go to a party in blackface; but because of his stance on infanticide. Oddly, this s apparently the same reason why this photo suddenly burst on the fore – someone took offense to his stance on infanticide and decided to “take him down” using that incredibly effective tool of the left: the race card. And, frankly, I hope it’s effective, though I would prefer that his stance on infanticide would have been enough – and enough to take out
Kathy Tran as well.

Quite frankly, Wes, I see someone dressing in blackface no more offensive than someone dressing as a ninja, or an Indian or a saltine cracker. What if someone white kid idolizing, say, Harriett Tubman wants to dress as her for Halloween, just as people who idolize Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Albert Einstein, or any other famous person have for, in some cases, centuries? Would that get your racial dander up, sir? Is honoring someone through imitation enough to raise the hue and cry of racism all the time? I often quote Dr. Martin Luther King. George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. I’m white. Does that somehow make me racist? If not: how is “appropriating” someone’s intellect any different from appropriating any other facet of their being, including skin tone?

And why can’t people seem to rise above the victim-hood of generations past? No-one alive today was ever a legal slave in the United States. And no-one alive today was a legal slaveholder. Further, most of those responsible for the most egregious post-civil war civil rights violations are also dead or dying. So why do you insist on keeping this alive? Why can’t we, as a culture, just look at a decades-old photo like this one, mutter “idiot” under our breath, and THEN GET ON WITH LIFE, instead of trying to exact some form of vengeance for a perceived slight against our race?

And this statue thing, Wes: how do you think removing the history of an event will work to the betterment of anyone? What an asinine waste of people’s talent, and of our money: the destruction of art. Should they tear down the pyramids in Egypt? The Egyptians were HUGE on slavery throughout their history. How about the remaining Greek and Roman ruins? Them, too. Incan or Mayan ruins? Where should we draw the line, Wes?

I realize that this whole treatise is, frankly, a waste of my time. “Racism” will continue to be at the fore as long as someone can profit from screaming it. And profit from it, they do: whether it be through POWER in pressing the issue during elections (but doing nothing, really, relative to it while in office), or just the lucre of “reparations”, discrimination lawsuit settlements, the “preferred class” aspect of affirmative action, etc. (Frankly, I’d be more offended if someone were hiring me on the basis of “quotas” and skin color than on their expectations for my abilities….)

Ah, well. I know you’re tired of apologies, Wes, but I find I must offer you yet another. I apologize for a society that foments an attitude toward racism through which you, a person elected to office at a young age; a talented man, who can stand on his own credentials and accomplishments, still somehow feels slighted by a 36 year old photograph. Or by a 150 year old statue…


No, they shouldn’t have

30 January 2019

“I think that somebody should have required […] all those members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies [killed at Sandy Hook]. And then you vote your conscience [on gun control].” —Kamala Harris

Aside from the fact that Harris would be unmoved by looking at similar pictures of unborn babies shredded through abortion before she enthusiastically voted for a woman’s right to choose despite her child’s right to be born, this is not at all what Congress is for.

I’ve written about it in the past: you – senator or congressman, are *not* our leaders. You are *not* our betters. You are not to be locked in a room with any form of propaganda related to whatever issue in order to sway your views. You, senator or congressman, are our REPRESENTATIVES to the federal government. That means you are to REPRESENT our views – *not* your views, *not* the views of your party; but the views of your state or district.

That our government has devolved from this high ideal is troubling. That some can readily – and believably – argue that our senators and congressmen could be swayed so easily is disheartening. And that they all seem to think that THEIR conscience, beliefs, and desires should trump those of their constituents – the voting public – is reprehensible.

Personally, Kamala dear: I think that somebody should require all members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and read the Constitution, the Federalists Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers while considering the context within which they were written, and reset their understanding of what their role in government is supposed to be.

– Pateratic

The more things change, the more they stay the same…

22 January 2019

“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson

Wow. Does that strike a chord!

We see this in all of thee leftist activist groups, definitely – but how many of us are guilty of the same? I know I am…

And that was written over 210 years ago.

Wow. How some things never seem to change. This is one example. But there is another, more glaring one.

Think the press is bad now? Read comments about the press from Washington’s day. Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) was known for his disdain for the press. Watch old movies on the likes of TCM, and you’ll find disparaging comment after disparaging comment regarding the press and those who are part of it. The only thing that seems different about the press today from the press of yesteryear is its reach and immediacy. Other than that, it seems to be operating pretty much the same as it always has been.

Were there, perhaps, more principled beings peopling its offices in those days gone by? Maybe. That property of the press likely waxes and wanes, anyway – but there appear to have always been those in the profession more focused on sensation than sensibility; more keen on the rights of the press than the affect their writing may have on the people – and, worse, ready in the instant to run with innuendo and uncorroborated information rather than ensure what they have is, in fact, factual. We have only to look at the long and storied tenure of the likes of The Enquirer, The Star, and the like to see long standing evidence of that.

It’s the prevalence of the concept of the journalist as a destroyer that troubles me most. I guess, to those on the opposite side of an issue, they’re seen as heroic, but even the Hollywood image of reporters going back generations show people fearing them and what they would write about them or their situation. I think that this has been more than the fear of “exposure”, but a fear of being abused by things manufactured rather than observed.

Not having taken any journalism courses, I wonder what they are taught in terms of making ethical decisions?


Voter ID and The Left: You’re right. Nothing To See Here. Move Along…

18 January 2019

A green-card holder voted illegally 3 times in NC.  The News & Observer (NC)

So, a foreign national was allowed to vote after showing election officials at the polls a green card, social security number, and a driver’s license. After this, she voted in two more elections.

Let that sink in for a bit…

She provided a green card, a social security number, and a driver’s license…


So, yeah: I agree with the left on this one. Voter ID laws will have no impact – not because there is no illegal voting going on, but because it doesn’t matter: those that check ID at the polls are either too stupid to know what ID a legal citizen would have, vs. that of a foreign national – or they…

…Just. Don’t. Care.

Voter ID laws will make little difference when it is the EXPRESS INTENT of those managing the polls to circumvent the law by allowing anyone and everyone to vote. The judge, in this case, should not have “scolded” the election officials involved; he should have jailed them for contempt.


A Strange Parallel Universe, Perhaps?

17 January 2019

“Conservatives are thrilled a woman with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed a 19-year-old would-be mugger. That’s not how justice works. The penalty for theft is not death, nor do we want it to be.” —Think Progress editor Zack Ford

What strange universe does Ford live in where one should subjugate oneself to thugs? What strange dimension does he call home, where a criminal is valued equal to those s/he would victimize?

Look: I don’t like seeing people – any people – killed. However, if a person’s life is taken, I prefer that it be taken while they are demonstrating their explicit unfitness for society by, for instance: committing a crime. I find this highly superior to someone being killed for the act of being victimized by a criminal.

I wonder how Ford protects himself. Is there a guard at his place of work? An armed guard, perhaps? Since he’s so outspoken and in the public eye, does he have a body guard?

And what would Ford prefer if he found himself in a similar situation? Would he choose to simply let the event play out in the hopes that no-one got hurt? Or would he protect himself by any means available to him. (Side note: it is human nature to do the latter.)

Just curious…


The Hills (And The Nazis) Are Alive…

21 December 2018

“I firmly believe the [Constitution] permits indicting a sitting president, but if DOJ disagrees, indicting his children, the Trump Org & Foundation for their roles in wrongdoing is a great alternative — or addition.” —Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks

I see SOMEONE was paying attention to how the Nazis controlled their officers!


The right of the people… are at the whim of the president.

21 December 2018

I have a question for all those constitutional lawyers wandering the country: how is it that the federal government has been able to modify the 2nd amendment through executive and legislative fiat? Since it is a constitutional amendment, aren’t the same hurdles to amendment in place for the second amendment as for all others?

Article. V of the constitution says

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Show me in Article V where any tie-in to taxation gives the federal government authority to modify parts of the constitution (the mode by which the NFA of 1934 was made “law”)? Do you see some mention of interstate commerce giving the federal government the power modify the constitution (the vehicle by which the GCA of 1968 was foisted on we, the people)? How about executive fiat (the methods for the “Assault” Weapon Ban of 1994 and Trump’s new Bump Stock Ban)? Doesn’t the second amendment very succinctly state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed? Seems to be a whole lot of extra-constitutional infringement going on.

I, for one, am sick and tired of these creative abuses of law. I’m sick and tired of elected REPRESENTATIVES believing they are our RULERS. Any true constitutional scholar would see through these acts on their face – but the government, instead, looks to other facets of the constitution to justify their acts, and wrap the state’s tentacles over ever more of your life while further limiting any ability to defend yourself against it. Remember all the warnings from our forefathers regarding standing armies. Who has and controls those armies now?

I fear for future generations, especially since they have been molded by the apparatchik of the public schools. We’re already seeing the fruits of their labors in today’s young adults – second or third generation products of the modern public schools system.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So much for well-meaning intentions vs. the machinations of a body addicted to power and bent on dominating others…


Where not to go for legal advice…

18 December 2018

“To all the trump supporters who follow me who I have no desire to spend my time blocking, indictments are not fake news. They are proof of criminal activity. These are facts. Everyone is the presidents circle is a criminal because they all work for one.” —Chelsea Handler

Origin: North America
formally accuse of or charge with a serious crime.

They’re not proof, genius. They’re accusations.