I wrote back in March about the Supreme Court taking up the issue of the Second Amendment. I admittedly was somewhat optimistic given the current make up of the court. Well I am happy to report that the Supreme Court goes this one right.
In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER the Court decided that the District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Nice!!!
The ruling actually went further by noting that the District of Columbia's prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense violates the 2nd Amendment as well.
This is not to say that there can't be reasonable gun laws - there can. What this does say though is that there is a true right to bear arms and we don't have to be part of a militia or any other nonsense that the Left throws out. We Americans have a right also for self defense and my general feeling (to quote John Lott) is More Guns, Less Crime.
The Court's opinion and dissent can be found here.
Now if only the Court could get decide that child rape is crime worthy of the death penalty.
OS
Sunday, June 29, 2008
John McCain is not entitled to free speech
I am reading Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" and it is instructive to get the history lesson of the Left actually advocating what can only be called fascist solutions to many of the issues that the United States has dealt with since Woodrow Wilson and WW I and carried through to present day.
Anyway, I saw this article when I was reading Yahoo News and was specifically reading the local news section for Lexington, Bedford and Concord. The local news website for towns in this area has been renamed "Wicked Local" and admittedly I don't "get" the nature of the name. Wicked Local? This isn't some stupid attempt by the web site authors to sound "hip" and appeal to the young? Not sure but I digress.
So the local news for Lexington has a story about John McCain's solution to breaking the US' dependence of foreign oil called "The Lexington Project" which apparently is irritating many of the locals of Lexington, Ma where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 4 to 1. John McCain has named the project "for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."Sounds good right? Does anyone not think we should cut the cord with respect to foreign oil - especially as it relates to our national security?
Well not the residents of Lexington. At the local Lexington news site a "consultant" who works in Lexington is quoted as saying:
I wonder how the same proposal by Obama would have been met by the residents of Lexington, MA? I can only surmise that it would be been an honor for the name of Lexington to be used in such a proposal by the leftist (liberal) candidate. But more importantly the quote that I used above also reveals an interesting fascist tendency (limit rights based on what they agree with as outlined in Goldberg's book). Now I have no idea what sort of political ideology the person quoted subscribes to. But I do find it interesting that John McCain isn't entitled to the 1st Amendment based on Chris Peaden's opinion. I assume it is because Mr. Peaden (I am assuming it is a male) does not support Mr. McCain but since when are the freedoms/rights as outlined by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution so fluid? Mr. McCain can call his energy policy whatever he wants bascially. It is instructive and revealing how some people so willingly would remove rights that are "god given" based on a personal disagreement.
Scary indeed. Let's hope Chris Peaden and his ilk never rise to political postions as who knows what right would be next on the chopping block based on their personal opinions.
I wonder what the residents of Lexington, Kentucky feel about the McCain choice of name for his energy policy?
OS
Anyway, I saw this article when I was reading Yahoo News and was specifically reading the local news section for Lexington, Bedford and Concord. The local news website for towns in this area has been renamed "Wicked Local" and admittedly I don't "get" the nature of the name. Wicked Local? This isn't some stupid attempt by the web site authors to sound "hip" and appeal to the young? Not sure but I digress.
So the local news for Lexington has a story about John McCain's solution to breaking the US' dependence of foreign oil called "The Lexington Project" which apparently is irritating many of the locals of Lexington, Ma where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 4 to 1. John McCain has named the project "for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."Sounds good right? Does anyone not think we should cut the cord with respect to foreign oil - especially as it relates to our national security?
Well not the residents of Lexington. At the local Lexington news site a "consultant" who works in Lexington is quoted as saying:
“I don’t think he should be able to do that, I don’t see the correlation. It has nothing to do with Lexington.”So let me get this straight - this person (a Chris Peaden) missed the correlation to the fight for independence and the fight we need to take to secure our national security and future by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. Secondly this person also notes that John McCain shouldn't "be able to do that" (assume that he means use the name "Lexington" in his energy policy).
I wonder how the same proposal by Obama would have been met by the residents of Lexington, MA? I can only surmise that it would be been an honor for the name of Lexington to be used in such a proposal by the leftist (liberal) candidate. But more importantly the quote that I used above also reveals an interesting fascist tendency (limit rights based on what they agree with as outlined in Goldberg's book). Now I have no idea what sort of political ideology the person quoted subscribes to. But I do find it interesting that John McCain isn't entitled to the 1st Amendment based on Chris Peaden's opinion. I assume it is because Mr. Peaden (I am assuming it is a male) does not support Mr. McCain but since when are the freedoms/rights as outlined by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution so fluid? Mr. McCain can call his energy policy whatever he wants bascially. It is instructive and revealing how some people so willingly would remove rights that are "god given" based on a personal disagreement.
Scary indeed. Let's hope Chris Peaden and his ilk never rise to political postions as who knows what right would be next on the chopping block based on their personal opinions.
I wonder what the residents of Lexington, Kentucky feel about the McCain choice of name for his energy policy?
OS
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Checking in
Yes I know it has been awhile since I have posted. And so much to cover - most importantly Hillary effectively removing herself from the Democratic race for the presidential nomination, giving Obama the nod (predicted here - but I also thought Giuliani would take the nomination so you see how far that got me - 50% so far). Hillary will not be the VP pick as I believe the Dems want the Clintons to just go away.
Also in the news is Gay Marriage which of course has become legal in California. In reading the blogs and news today I am struck by how trite some of the supporting ideas for gay marriage is and in fact how devious the actual deconstruction of words everyone knew 10, 20 years ago are now open for re-interpretation.
For example - marriage used to mean a man and a woman uniting as one (whether or not it was religious or before God or not). Now it means whatever a state court wants it to mean. It could mean a man and a man, why not a man and a dog? Why not two men and a woman? Who am I to apply my own sensibilities to a word such as marriage.
Having something that was moral meant measuring it against some sort of metric and judging whether it was good or bad (an action, a attitude, etc.). What was moral or "good" could be applied to all of society as natural guardrails. Now what is moral is defined by individual choice and there are no great moral truths out in the world to know. Everything is relative.
Change used to mean a difference from the norm. Now it is a slogan used by an inexperienced candidate for President to gloss over his own inexperience in pursuing the highest office in the land and his complete lack of grasping the major political issues of our time. Change is now a dodge to basically avoid answering any real questions on specifics and instead obscure the real facts that we, as citizens, have a real crappy choice in November.
Back to Gay Marriage - one thing that really stinks is that this decision also forces adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities to deal with Gay Couples who want to adopt due to these charities accepting state and federal funds. Instead of having the protection to exercise religous beliefs, adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities have decided not to offer adoption services rather than compromise on their religous beliefs. While many see this as cruel, why should a church bend on some of its core beliefs just because a secular entity such as a court makes a decision that is in opposition to it? Why can't Catholic Charities be left alone to do the Lord's work (no pun intended) and let homosexual couples pursue adoption from other venues. Maggie Gallagher has a great article on this at Townhall.com here.
Another word that used to mean something that now has a different meaning - Freedom (religous and otherwise). Now it means what the Left allows it to mean (i.e. anything that the Left agrees with).
OS
Also in the news is Gay Marriage which of course has become legal in California. In reading the blogs and news today I am struck by how trite some of the supporting ideas for gay marriage is and in fact how devious the actual deconstruction of words everyone knew 10, 20 years ago are now open for re-interpretation.
For example - marriage used to mean a man and a woman uniting as one (whether or not it was religious or before God or not). Now it means whatever a state court wants it to mean. It could mean a man and a man, why not a man and a dog? Why not two men and a woman? Who am I to apply my own sensibilities to a word such as marriage.
Having something that was moral meant measuring it against some sort of metric and judging whether it was good or bad (an action, a attitude, etc.). What was moral or "good" could be applied to all of society as natural guardrails. Now what is moral is defined by individual choice and there are no great moral truths out in the world to know. Everything is relative.
Change used to mean a difference from the norm. Now it is a slogan used by an inexperienced candidate for President to gloss over his own inexperience in pursuing the highest office in the land and his complete lack of grasping the major political issues of our time. Change is now a dodge to basically avoid answering any real questions on specifics and instead obscure the real facts that we, as citizens, have a real crappy choice in November.
Back to Gay Marriage - one thing that really stinks is that this decision also forces adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities to deal with Gay Couples who want to adopt due to these charities accepting state and federal funds. Instead of having the protection to exercise religous beliefs, adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities have decided not to offer adoption services rather than compromise on their religous beliefs. While many see this as cruel, why should a church bend on some of its core beliefs just because a secular entity such as a court makes a decision that is in opposition to it? Why can't Catholic Charities be left alone to do the Lord's work (no pun intended) and let homosexual couples pursue adoption from other venues. Maggie Gallagher has a great article on this at Townhall.com here.
Another word that used to mean something that now has a different meaning - Freedom (religous and otherwise). Now it means what the Left allows it to mean (i.e. anything that the Left agrees with).
OS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)