Today I want to discuss the differences of view that the candidates themselves displayed when answering questions during their first debate.
The first question I want to address that was asked is "When does life begin"? This was a question that showed where a candidate stood on the right to life issue. The first person asked was Obama. His reply was he has no answer to that question because it is not his decision to decide that. He was then asked to name one time when he voted against a pro-abortion issue either in the House or the Senate. Again he did not have an answer. Then the question was asked when would he ever object to an abortion being done. His answer was that if the mother's life was at stake during a "Late Term Abortion" he would then question the validity of the procedure.
( A personal sidenote concerning this question. Obama has voted in the past to legalize the policy of Post-Birth abortion. This means that if a baby was supposed to be aborted in a late term abortion but it was born before the procedure was done, then that baby would be allowed to be discarded and die)
Now McCain's answer. He immediately answered that life begins at conception. When asked about his history and policies. He answered that he has a 25 year pro-life voting history and if elected President, his policies and Presidency would reflect his pro-life stance.
The next question is "Define marriage". Obama answered that a marriage is between a man and a woman. He was then asked if he would support a constitutional amendment to make marriage a man-woman event and no other. His response was he would not support such an amendment, then went on to say that he support same sex unions.
McCain's answer. A marriage is between one man and one woman. When asked about the Constitutional amendment, he said he would not support one to the extent that the rights of the states continued to be allowed to determine the issue for individual states. IF at any time a Federal Court mandated same sex marriage be recognized throughout the country, then he would support a Constitutional Amendment to ensure that marriage remained between one man and one woman.
Next, Obama was asked if evil existed and if so can it or should it be destroyed. His answer, evil does exist and that evil has been committed in the name of good. He went on to say that we have committed great evil in the name of good. He did say that evil should be destroyed but did not comment on the could it be destroyed part of the question. (Sidenote- When he was saying we in the answer, I read that as if he feels the United States has committed great evil, referring to the war in Iraq that he has opposed since the beginning.
McCain's answer. Evil does exist and people everywhere have a responsibility to destroy evil wherever they encounter it. He went on to say that eliminating evil would not be an easy chore nor does he know if it could ever be completely defeated, but to do nothing was not an option.
Next, Obama was asked if he could have voted for the Supreme Court Justices, which ones would he not have appointed. This was answer along party lines, he named three that he would not have appointed because their views directly oppose his.
McCain's answer, He too answered along party lines, saying their were four judges he would not have appointed because they have taken from interpreting the law to instituting law. He went on to say he would appoint judges that were more in line with the constitution and would interpret the constitution, not try and rewrite it.
Next- Obama was asked to define Rich. He defined rich as anyone who makes over $250,000.00 a year. These would be the people who he would look to for the raise in taxes to pay for all the programs and initiatives he has proposed. Obama went on to say that this type of taxation would be "balanced and fair".
McCain's answer, He does not have a definition for how much is rich, he went on to say that one should not be punished because they are successful, he stated that he would not raise taxes but try and lower them because anyone who has studied economics knows that in a down economy, you lower taxes to put more money back into the consumers hands so that they can then go out and spend to stimulate the economy. (sidenote, this was the same theory with the tax rebates that President Bush recently did, and it worked).
Next, Obama was asked what was his worst 'Moral Failure" and what in his view is the county's worst moral failure. He answered his worst moral failure was that he was too selfish as a youngster, that he did not give more thought to what his parents were going through. He went on to quote Matthew, in the bible. The quote was and I am paraphrasing here " Those who help the least of us, helps me. Referring to god in the bible. His meaning was that the country's worst moral failure was that we do not do enough to help our fellow man. (sidenote- I have heard enough of Obama's speeches to know what he really means when quoting that verse of Matthew. He means that if you make more that someone else, you should be required to give that other person a part of yours so that everyone is equal. I not a biblical scholar, but I am a thinker. I believe that that verse was meant to inspire people to help one another out of love for one another, not out of government force or policy. Just saying)
I will add some more questions later. I just wanted to get some of these out here so people can see the stark differences between the two.
As always, I look forward to your responses. Earl
Friday, August 22, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
V.P. Selection
I wanted to emphasize the stark contrast between the two candidates Vice President selection criteria. I think it tell a lot about the candidate by how he chooses his Vice Presidential running mate. Let's start with Obama.
When listening to the news this morning, there were several campaign advisers for Obama who were telling how he is going about selecting his Vice Presidential running mate and let me tell you, it is telling. To a One, all of them were saying that Obama is making his selection based on the amount of votes the selectee can bring to the table. Now, I am not naive. I know that it is an important consideration when making your selection, but, I don't think it should be the primary consideration. I think there are other criteria that would be and are more important.
Now on to McCain. On the same broadcast they had campaign advisers for McCain on also. One stated that McCain was weighing the different candidates voting history when it came to important issues. Another advisor stated that McCain was weighing part of his decision on the principles and morals of the different candidates and yet another advisor was saying that McCain was looking at the experience level a candidate could bring to the office, someone who could be President if the need arose.
With the two different selection techniques just explained above, don't you think it speaks volumes as to the type of President each of the candidates are going to make by the way they are choosing their Vice Presidential running mates? I personally think that the contrasts are startling and should open voters eyes as to the type of person they are considering electing. The position of the President of the United States is the most important Job on the planet, and it should be thought of as such. The Presidency was once the most sacred position one could hold, I hope that we can put a person into it's office that can once again raise it to the heights of greatness it once held prior to the Clinton era.
Please listen to the candidates policies, not just hear their voices. Listen to the statements they are making. Forget about your party affiliation and consider what is best for the Country. Which candidate is putting the Country first. Which candidate is willing to take the tough stances on terrorism, the economy, the energy crises and so on. Think about what is best for the country when you go and place your vote. Forget all the hype about the candidates race, religion, color, etc. That also goes for the Vice Presidential selectee also. Who will be the one that puts America on the track to greatness again, I am not saying which candidate will make us liked the most. I am saying which candidate will take the steps necessary to build our military so that no country would dare challenge us. No country would dare try and use economical blackmail against us. No country would dare try and use energy blackmail against us. When you put the Country first, there is only one true candidate!!!!!!!!!!
As always, I look forward to your responses. Earl
When listening to the news this morning, there were several campaign advisers for Obama who were telling how he is going about selecting his Vice Presidential running mate and let me tell you, it is telling. To a One, all of them were saying that Obama is making his selection based on the amount of votes the selectee can bring to the table. Now, I am not naive. I know that it is an important consideration when making your selection, but, I don't think it should be the primary consideration. I think there are other criteria that would be and are more important.
Now on to McCain. On the same broadcast they had campaign advisers for McCain on also. One stated that McCain was weighing the different candidates voting history when it came to important issues. Another advisor stated that McCain was weighing part of his decision on the principles and morals of the different candidates and yet another advisor was saying that McCain was looking at the experience level a candidate could bring to the office, someone who could be President if the need arose.
With the two different selection techniques just explained above, don't you think it speaks volumes as to the type of President each of the candidates are going to make by the way they are choosing their Vice Presidential running mates? I personally think that the contrasts are startling and should open voters eyes as to the type of person they are considering electing. The position of the President of the United States is the most important Job on the planet, and it should be thought of as such. The Presidency was once the most sacred position one could hold, I hope that we can put a person into it's office that can once again raise it to the heights of greatness it once held prior to the Clinton era.
Please listen to the candidates policies, not just hear their voices. Listen to the statements they are making. Forget about your party affiliation and consider what is best for the Country. Which candidate is putting the Country first. Which candidate is willing to take the tough stances on terrorism, the economy, the energy crises and so on. Think about what is best for the country when you go and place your vote. Forget all the hype about the candidates race, religion, color, etc. That also goes for the Vice Presidential selectee also. Who will be the one that puts America on the track to greatness again, I am not saying which candidate will make us liked the most. I am saying which candidate will take the steps necessary to build our military so that no country would dare challenge us. No country would dare try and use economical blackmail against us. No country would dare try and use energy blackmail against us. When you put the Country first, there is only one true candidate!!!!!!!!!!
As always, I look forward to your responses. Earl
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Lone Survivor, read this book!
I just finished the book Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell for the second time, it got me to thinking that I have not addressed soldiers in particular in any of my previous postings. I would like to do so now.
Most people take soldiers for granted. They just assume that there are people out there who will be willing to lay down their lives for the good of the country. In this assessment they are correct, what they fail to realize is that these people do this without fanfare or reward.
I am a former soldier, I served for almost 11 years with the U.S. Army. I was not a Navy Seal as Marcus Lutrell is, but I served my country none the less. I believe that soldiers are born and not made. I believe there has to be something in you that makes you desire the soldiers life over anything else, for why else would someone choose to put their life in harms way on a daily basis. It has to be a higher calling. Period! Anyone who serves in the military deserves to treated with respect throughout his or her days for doing what not a lot of people would or are willing to do. With that being said, there is a difference between someone who goes into the military for the college benefits that the military offers or someone who goes into the military because it is their calling. Just as Marcus Lutrell knew that he was going to be a Seal from age 12, I knew from even a much younger age that I would be a soldier. All through my childhood and teenage years, everything I did was directed towards achieving my goal of being a soldier. I never wavered in my beliefs that I would be a soldier and would be one until I retired. Little did I know that God had other plans for me. Sure, he gave me the opportunity to serve my country and live my dream but staying in was not in the cards. after eleven years I was discharged from the military because of my knees, having blown both of them out earlier in my career and not being able to get them back to 100%.
I salute every soldier past and present. I give the final salute to all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in the name of their country. For a career soldier there can be no greater honor. Don't get me wrong, no body wants to die. But a career soldier would rather die that lose, and if he dies while fighting than he has not lost. I live everyday with the thought that I could be called back into action by my country, and by God I would go. Make no mistake about it, I would gladly go back into the thick of it if, it meant I could keep someone else's son home with his family. I have a son who has already seen combat, I hope he is able to make peace with the warrior inside him as I have. He has my undying admiration and respect for he has chose to do what most others would run from. He truly is a soldier and a warrior. His name is Jonathan Beebe.
So in parting let me say, when you see a soldier at the airport or in uniform around your town. Take the time to thank him or her, they truly deserve it. Watch their faces and their mannerisms when you do this and you will find they are very uncomfortable with the recognition. They are the true professionals. You can ask my wife, I always go out of my way to say something to a soldier in uniform. I will usually buy them a drink or dinner if I see them at the airport or in a restaurant. It is not much, but it shows my loyalty and respect for all that they do. I would challenge everyone who reads this to do something similar. I means everything to the soldier although they would never admit it.
Remember, they are doing the bidding of the country and the President of the United States. Stand by them and NEVER let someone talk down about them. It is the least you can do for them, for they give everything for your freedoms.
As always I look forward to your responses. Earl
Most people take soldiers for granted. They just assume that there are people out there who will be willing to lay down their lives for the good of the country. In this assessment they are correct, what they fail to realize is that these people do this without fanfare or reward.
I am a former soldier, I served for almost 11 years with the U.S. Army. I was not a Navy Seal as Marcus Lutrell is, but I served my country none the less. I believe that soldiers are born and not made. I believe there has to be something in you that makes you desire the soldiers life over anything else, for why else would someone choose to put their life in harms way on a daily basis. It has to be a higher calling. Period! Anyone who serves in the military deserves to treated with respect throughout his or her days for doing what not a lot of people would or are willing to do. With that being said, there is a difference between someone who goes into the military for the college benefits that the military offers or someone who goes into the military because it is their calling. Just as Marcus Lutrell knew that he was going to be a Seal from age 12, I knew from even a much younger age that I would be a soldier. All through my childhood and teenage years, everything I did was directed towards achieving my goal of being a soldier. I never wavered in my beliefs that I would be a soldier and would be one until I retired. Little did I know that God had other plans for me. Sure, he gave me the opportunity to serve my country and live my dream but staying in was not in the cards. after eleven years I was discharged from the military because of my knees, having blown both of them out earlier in my career and not being able to get them back to 100%.
I salute every soldier past and present. I give the final salute to all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in the name of their country. For a career soldier there can be no greater honor. Don't get me wrong, no body wants to die. But a career soldier would rather die that lose, and if he dies while fighting than he has not lost. I live everyday with the thought that I could be called back into action by my country, and by God I would go. Make no mistake about it, I would gladly go back into the thick of it if, it meant I could keep someone else's son home with his family. I have a son who has already seen combat, I hope he is able to make peace with the warrior inside him as I have. He has my undying admiration and respect for he has chose to do what most others would run from. He truly is a soldier and a warrior. His name is Jonathan Beebe.
So in parting let me say, when you see a soldier at the airport or in uniform around your town. Take the time to thank him or her, they truly deserve it. Watch their faces and their mannerisms when you do this and you will find they are very uncomfortable with the recognition. They are the true professionals. You can ask my wife, I always go out of my way to say something to a soldier in uniform. I will usually buy them a drink or dinner if I see them at the airport or in a restaurant. It is not much, but it shows my loyalty and respect for all that they do. I would challenge everyone who reads this to do something similar. I means everything to the soldier although they would never admit it.
Remember, they are doing the bidding of the country and the President of the United States. Stand by them and NEVER let someone talk down about them. It is the least you can do for them, for they give everything for your freedoms.
As always I look forward to your responses. Earl
Friday, July 11, 2008
Political Experience
I would like to address an item that has been crawling under my skin in this election. The issue of a candidate having or not having enough experience to serve in a public office, I.E. President of the United States.
Unless there has been a change to the Constitution, the only requirements for a person to run for President is for that person to be at least 35 years of age and be a natural born citizen of the United States. That is it, there is nothing to say that a person has to have so many years in either a state or federal office prior to running for President.
I am one of the most anti-Obama people you will run across, and this has nothing to do with his experience. There should be an awakening in the country when you continue to hear about the lack of experience a candidate has. So what!! Sometimes I think the lack of experience can serve someone better than someone who has been in politics his or her whole adult life. I feel that the lack of experience would lead someone to listen more closely to the people.
If you want to disqualify a person from your vote, don't do it on their experience. Do it on their history and what they stand for. If a person has a history of being extremely Left of your positions, then don't vote for them. If a person has stated his agenda and it conflicts with your beliefs and agenda, don't vote for them. But, to not vote for someone just because they are new to the political scene is just being ignorant.
On the same token, when there is a person who has been in political office for a time, there is nothing to say that you shouldn't look at that persons voting history to see where that person stands politically. Many times a person will say they stand for one thing but their voting history show that they stand for the opposite. This is called due diligence and it is every voters responsibility to find out to the best they can what a candidate stands for, if they have a history to investigate. On the people that have no history, you have to listen to what they say and talk to people who have known them to get a feel for who they are and what they stand for. Under not circumstances should a person be considered unqualified just because they have not served in the public arena prior.
One other thing. Anyone who thinks these candidates know all there is to know or have all the answers for problems the country is facing should have their head examined. These candidates are just as human as you and I, they have the same faults and weaknesses as you and I. I would rather have a candidate state that they are not completely familiar with a certain subject, and then go on to say who they would recommend as a Presidential Advisor to assist them in those areas in which they find themselves weak. I would rather hear that, than to hear how this person or that person has all the answers for what ails the country. I have to tell you, there is not a candidate out there that can claim they have experience in every aspect of the country, and when they do say something like that you should be vary wary.
As always, I look forward to your responses. Earl
Unless there has been a change to the Constitution, the only requirements for a person to run for President is for that person to be at least 35 years of age and be a natural born citizen of the United States. That is it, there is nothing to say that a person has to have so many years in either a state or federal office prior to running for President.
I am one of the most anti-Obama people you will run across, and this has nothing to do with his experience. There should be an awakening in the country when you continue to hear about the lack of experience a candidate has. So what!! Sometimes I think the lack of experience can serve someone better than someone who has been in politics his or her whole adult life. I feel that the lack of experience would lead someone to listen more closely to the people.
If you want to disqualify a person from your vote, don't do it on their experience. Do it on their history and what they stand for. If a person has a history of being extremely Left of your positions, then don't vote for them. If a person has stated his agenda and it conflicts with your beliefs and agenda, don't vote for them. But, to not vote for someone just because they are new to the political scene is just being ignorant.
On the same token, when there is a person who has been in political office for a time, there is nothing to say that you shouldn't look at that persons voting history to see where that person stands politically. Many times a person will say they stand for one thing but their voting history show that they stand for the opposite. This is called due diligence and it is every voters responsibility to find out to the best they can what a candidate stands for, if they have a history to investigate. On the people that have no history, you have to listen to what they say and talk to people who have known them to get a feel for who they are and what they stand for. Under not circumstances should a person be considered unqualified just because they have not served in the public arena prior.
One other thing. Anyone who thinks these candidates know all there is to know or have all the answers for problems the country is facing should have their head examined. These candidates are just as human as you and I, they have the same faults and weaknesses as you and I. I would rather have a candidate state that they are not completely familiar with a certain subject, and then go on to say who they would recommend as a Presidential Advisor to assist them in those areas in which they find themselves weak. I would rather hear that, than to hear how this person or that person has all the answers for what ails the country. I have to tell you, there is not a candidate out there that can claim they have experience in every aspect of the country, and when they do say something like that you should be vary wary.
As always, I look forward to your responses. Earl
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Religion VS. Spirituality
I was just having a discussion with my wife about religion and the effects it has had upon the world and people as a whole. I thought it might be a good idea to put some of what we discussed into a discussion forum such as this to generate thought and discussion about a subject that is considered taboo to discuss but needs to be discussed none the less. So here it goes.
I feel that religion is the cause for most of the worlds present and past problems that have ended the lives of literally tens of millions of people. I mean just look at what what done in the name of god during the middle ages, I.E. the Crusades. The millions of people who were killed in the name of Christianity perpetrated by the Catholic Church of that time. Then lets go to the was between the Christians and the Muslims to declare whose God was the most righteous. How many millions of Christians and Muslims were killed in the name of their God. How about one more recent, how about the war between the Jews and the Muslims in the middle East, the war between Israel and Palestine. These are just a few examples of people killing in the name of God.
I propose that all religion is corrupt and that people should follow their hearts and souls, not the religious propaganda of a supposed religious leader that may or may not have an alternative motive in what he is either preaching or directing in the name of God. There has never been a religion on Earth that has not committed atrocities in the name of their God. Is there anyone out there that would honestly say that their God, a God that is supposed to be all loving, all caring and all forgiving, that their god would promote or encourage death be handed out in his name. I don't think so. I think that a God is there for the purpose of people becoming better, not worse. I think that God would want man to do well by one another, not commit acts of cruelty against one another in his name.
Now this is just my own thoughts on the subject, and I don't think that I will move anyone to quit believing what they have been taught through a lifetime of indoctrination to believe. I just hope that it causes people to take a step back and consider it before doing something in the name of God that would just go naturally against what God is supposed to stand for. I think that people will make it to heaven just fine if they live their lives according to the principles of love and forgiveness. I think that God will accept people of all faiths into his arms as long as you lived your life to benefit mankind and not destroy it. I think that people will be accepted to heaven as long as they have tried their best to live a god like existence and have asked for forgiveness when they failed. I think that God is an all forgiving god and will accept those who have really tried to live the life of a good person. I don't think it matter even a little bit what religion you are or by what name you call God, God. I do believe that as long as you believe in god and live your life accordingly, that you will be accepted into heaven.
As a parting let me say, Religions come and go, but eternal life is ETERNAL.
As always, l look forward to your responses. Earl
I feel that religion is the cause for most of the worlds present and past problems that have ended the lives of literally tens of millions of people. I mean just look at what what done in the name of god during the middle ages, I.E. the Crusades. The millions of people who were killed in the name of Christianity perpetrated by the Catholic Church of that time. Then lets go to the was between the Christians and the Muslims to declare whose God was the most righteous. How many millions of Christians and Muslims were killed in the name of their God. How about one more recent, how about the war between the Jews and the Muslims in the middle East, the war between Israel and Palestine. These are just a few examples of people killing in the name of God.
I propose that all religion is corrupt and that people should follow their hearts and souls, not the religious propaganda of a supposed religious leader that may or may not have an alternative motive in what he is either preaching or directing in the name of God. There has never been a religion on Earth that has not committed atrocities in the name of their God. Is there anyone out there that would honestly say that their God, a God that is supposed to be all loving, all caring and all forgiving, that their god would promote or encourage death be handed out in his name. I don't think so. I think that a God is there for the purpose of people becoming better, not worse. I think that God would want man to do well by one another, not commit acts of cruelty against one another in his name.
Now this is just my own thoughts on the subject, and I don't think that I will move anyone to quit believing what they have been taught through a lifetime of indoctrination to believe. I just hope that it causes people to take a step back and consider it before doing something in the name of God that would just go naturally against what God is supposed to stand for. I think that people will make it to heaven just fine if they live their lives according to the principles of love and forgiveness. I think that God will accept people of all faiths into his arms as long as you lived your life to benefit mankind and not destroy it. I think that people will be accepted to heaven as long as they have tried their best to live a god like existence and have asked for forgiveness when they failed. I think that God is an all forgiving god and will accept those who have really tried to live the life of a good person. I don't think it matter even a little bit what religion you are or by what name you call God, God. I do believe that as long as you believe in god and live your life accordingly, that you will be accepted into heaven.
As a parting let me say, Religions come and go, but eternal life is ETERNAL.
As always, l look forward to your responses. Earl
Thursday, June 26, 2008
U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions
The U.S. Supreme court recently made two decisions that will make a direct impact on the lives of all gun owners and parents.
The first was the 5-4 decision that made it illegal for a child rapist to face the death penalty. The decision goes further in it's explanation by stating that it does not matter how many children or for how long a child rapist rapes a child, the penalty shall never be exceeding of the crime. What this means is that because a child did not die during a rape that the rapist can not be given the death penalty. I don't know about you, but I feel that if there was ever a call for the death penalty, it is in the defense of our children. The courts routinely place people on death row for crimes of passion or momentary insanity. I can see where if someone walks in on their spouse and finds them have sexual relations with someone else can lose their judgement temporarily. I can not see where someone rapes a child has that same defense. I know, they are mentally unstable or sick or whatever other excuses you want to make for them. The truth is, there has never been a proven case of rehabilitation of a child rapist/molester. The only rehabilitation for these people is a bullet through the head. I guarantee you if someone rapes or molest a child of mine, they will not have to worry about going to court. I will take care of them before they ever have a chance for a slimy attorney to get them off on a technicality. I hope there are more people like me than people like the Supreme Court Justices.
The decision that was released today is concerning the Washington D.C. gun ban. The Supreme Court came back with a decision of 5-4 again, but this time they ruled in favor of the second amendment. The court decided that the Washington D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional. On the surface this is a win for gun owner not only in Washington D.C. but throughout the country. What concerns me is that the Second Amendment was even being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. The constitution is very clear in it's meaning of the second amendment. Every citizen shall have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. There is nothing to be decided on this issue, yet the government continues to try and challenge the interpretation of the amendment. This amendment was put in the Constitution for the purpose of the people of the country to defend themselves against a government who is corrupt, not so you would have a gun to hunt with. It is the responsibility of the citizens to stand up and defend the Constitution of the United States when it comes under attack as it did in the Supreme Court. I don't think people understand what could have happened if the court ruled in the other direction. Let me enlighten you. If the decision would have come back in favor of the City of Washington D.C. it would have opened the door for challenges to the second amendment in every city in the United States. Your right to keep and bear arms would have disappeared overnight. The local municipalities would have been able to dictate if and when a person would be allowed to own or possess a gun. That this issue was even being debated should scare the living snot out of every citizen in this country. The reason I say this is because today it was the second amendment. Tomorrow it could very well be the first amendment of the fifth amendment. Where does it stop? The people of the United States have been sleeping for far too long, it is time for them to wake up and make their voices heard. Our country is under attack, but it is not from a foreign army. It is from the extreme left of the Democratic Party. The section of the party that is controlled by George Soros. The basic democrat is just as much an American as you or I, it is the ones on the extreme edge that has hijacked their party and moved it into a Socialist Party. The Democratic Party of our fathers and grandfathers no longer exist. It is now the Socialist Party and if you need any more confirmation of what I am saying just listen to their own words. They want to take away guns for the good of the masses. That's funny, that is what Hitler said right before he confiscated all the guns in Germany. They want to socialize big oil, by socialize they use the words "government run", but it is still Socialism. They want to take windfall profits from big business and redistribute it to those who do not have as much. Socialism 1o1. I could keep going but I think you get the point. The country is indeed under attack and if people do not start standing up and demanding their rights, their rights shall surly be taken from them. I fear for my children and my grandchildren, they are in for some seriously hard times unless we start taking back our country and our government. By the way, do not think for a moment that the gun issue is dead. It will come back, it always does!
One final thought, in the beginning of each decision I gave the count of for and against in the decision. I did that for a reason. Did you catch that there were Five Judges that were for the Rapist and there were Four Judges that voted against the second amendment. That should wake you up.
As always, your comments are welcome. Earl
The first was the 5-4 decision that made it illegal for a child rapist to face the death penalty. The decision goes further in it's explanation by stating that it does not matter how many children or for how long a child rapist rapes a child, the penalty shall never be exceeding of the crime. What this means is that because a child did not die during a rape that the rapist can not be given the death penalty. I don't know about you, but I feel that if there was ever a call for the death penalty, it is in the defense of our children. The courts routinely place people on death row for crimes of passion or momentary insanity. I can see where if someone walks in on their spouse and finds them have sexual relations with someone else can lose their judgement temporarily. I can not see where someone rapes a child has that same defense. I know, they are mentally unstable or sick or whatever other excuses you want to make for them. The truth is, there has never been a proven case of rehabilitation of a child rapist/molester. The only rehabilitation for these people is a bullet through the head. I guarantee you if someone rapes or molest a child of mine, they will not have to worry about going to court. I will take care of them before they ever have a chance for a slimy attorney to get them off on a technicality. I hope there are more people like me than people like the Supreme Court Justices.
The decision that was released today is concerning the Washington D.C. gun ban. The Supreme Court came back with a decision of 5-4 again, but this time they ruled in favor of the second amendment. The court decided that the Washington D.C. gun ban is unconstitutional. On the surface this is a win for gun owner not only in Washington D.C. but throughout the country. What concerns me is that the Second Amendment was even being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court. The constitution is very clear in it's meaning of the second amendment. Every citizen shall have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. There is nothing to be decided on this issue, yet the government continues to try and challenge the interpretation of the amendment. This amendment was put in the Constitution for the purpose of the people of the country to defend themselves against a government who is corrupt, not so you would have a gun to hunt with. It is the responsibility of the citizens to stand up and defend the Constitution of the United States when it comes under attack as it did in the Supreme Court. I don't think people understand what could have happened if the court ruled in the other direction. Let me enlighten you. If the decision would have come back in favor of the City of Washington D.C. it would have opened the door for challenges to the second amendment in every city in the United States. Your right to keep and bear arms would have disappeared overnight. The local municipalities would have been able to dictate if and when a person would be allowed to own or possess a gun. That this issue was even being debated should scare the living snot out of every citizen in this country. The reason I say this is because today it was the second amendment. Tomorrow it could very well be the first amendment of the fifth amendment. Where does it stop? The people of the United States have been sleeping for far too long, it is time for them to wake up and make their voices heard. Our country is under attack, but it is not from a foreign army. It is from the extreme left of the Democratic Party. The section of the party that is controlled by George Soros. The basic democrat is just as much an American as you or I, it is the ones on the extreme edge that has hijacked their party and moved it into a Socialist Party. The Democratic Party of our fathers and grandfathers no longer exist. It is now the Socialist Party and if you need any more confirmation of what I am saying just listen to their own words. They want to take away guns for the good of the masses. That's funny, that is what Hitler said right before he confiscated all the guns in Germany. They want to socialize big oil, by socialize they use the words "government run", but it is still Socialism. They want to take windfall profits from big business and redistribute it to those who do not have as much. Socialism 1o1. I could keep going but I think you get the point. The country is indeed under attack and if people do not start standing up and demanding their rights, their rights shall surly be taken from them. I fear for my children and my grandchildren, they are in for some seriously hard times unless we start taking back our country and our government. By the way, do not think for a moment that the gun issue is dead. It will come back, it always does!
One final thought, in the beginning of each decision I gave the count of for and against in the decision. I did that for a reason. Did you catch that there were Five Judges that were for the Rapist and there were Four Judges that voted against the second amendment. That should wake you up.
As always, your comments are welcome. Earl
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Update on Iraq.
I have a serious problem with the country of Iraq. Our country has given over four thousand men and women in the pursuit of their freedom. Our country has given an enormous amount of money for the freedom they are starting to enjoy. Now anyone who has read my blog for any amount of time knows that I have always supported the War in Iraq. With that being said, how about a little reciprocation.
I am talking about the oil bids that were just accepted by the newly elected democratic government. The government of Iraq just gave seven oil contracts to countries other than the United States. These countries have been awarded contracts to explore and extract oil from both discovered and still undiscovered oil fields located with the country. I am seriously disappointed in that government in it's blatant lack of appreciation of the United States. I would think that the government would be bending over backward to try and thank our country for the liberation of its country.
If the government of Iraq has decided that the United States is not deserving of at the very least an oil contract, that we should withdraw our troops from the country. That goes against the views I have expressed in the past but I feel at this time the subject has changed. The American people has spilled blood for Iraq's freedom, we have given to the tune of Trillions of dollars for their opportunity to enjoy freedom for the first time. I would think that the Iraqi government would be very appreciative of what the American people have sacrificed and given for their freedom. I would think that they would have given the U.S. companies automatic contracts for a period of time as a sign of appreciation. I feel betrayed by the Iraqi government. I feel as if all that was given for their freedom has been given in vain. I only hope that the Government of Iraq will reconsider what they have done and show the the American people their gratitude for their freedom.
As always, your views and comments are welcome. Earl
I am talking about the oil bids that were just accepted by the newly elected democratic government. The government of Iraq just gave seven oil contracts to countries other than the United States. These countries have been awarded contracts to explore and extract oil from both discovered and still undiscovered oil fields located with the country. I am seriously disappointed in that government in it's blatant lack of appreciation of the United States. I would think that the government would be bending over backward to try and thank our country for the liberation of its country.
If the government of Iraq has decided that the United States is not deserving of at the very least an oil contract, that we should withdraw our troops from the country. That goes against the views I have expressed in the past but I feel at this time the subject has changed. The American people has spilled blood for Iraq's freedom, we have given to the tune of Trillions of dollars for their opportunity to enjoy freedom for the first time. I would think that the Iraqi government would be very appreciative of what the American people have sacrificed and given for their freedom. I would think that they would have given the U.S. companies automatic contracts for a period of time as a sign of appreciation. I feel betrayed by the Iraqi government. I feel as if all that was given for their freedom has been given in vain. I only hope that the Government of Iraq will reconsider what they have done and show the the American people their gratitude for their freedom.
As always, your views and comments are welcome. Earl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
