Ron Paul Triples Support in Iowa!
Nov 21, 2007 General
The latest polls are out for the GOP contest in Iowa and they show Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney in a virtual tie for the top spot. Though touted as a surprise the real surprise is that Ron Paul has tripled his support in that state. Paul polled at 2% in the past and is now up at 6% which ties him with John McCain.
Paul supporters will no doubt be pleased that their candidate’s message is getting out and giving him better numbers as the primary approaches. If Paul keeps this pace he could be the front runner by the time the polls open in January.
Keep it up Ron-bots, your message is being heard.
Source:
Washington Post
Tags: front runner, gop, john mccain, mike huckabee, mitt romney, ron paul, supporters
Do They Really Need a Warrant?
Nov 17, 2007 General
Some groups are up in arms (pardon the pun) because the Boston police want to search homes for guns without a warrant. On the surface this sounds like a bad thing and if this were the whole truth it would be. The article goes on to describe that police want to search homes without a warrant after asking permission from the homeowner. If a police officer asks if he may search your home and you say yes he does not need a warrant. You are free to say no.
I will admit that the plan to search children’s bedrooms has flaws. The idea is that parents are so fed up and afraid of the gun violence that they will allow the searches and a warrant will not need to be obtained. In order to get a warrant the police would need probable cause, if they ask the homeowner and are allowed to search they do not need the warrant or probable cause. I would not allow the police to search my home without a warrant. I have nothing to hide but I will not give them access without probable cause and they need that to get a warrant. What will happen to the homeowner if they have other illegal items? Suppose they illegally copy DVDs and they are in the open? A warrant would specifically state what is to be searched and what they may look for. If the homeowner lets them in they can arrest for anything they find. I don’t condone illegal activity but I do not condone bypassing the rights people have. Of course, if someone is not bright enough to know his rights or to exercise them, perhaps he gets what he deserves. In any event, using fear to search a house is not a good way to conduct business.
The bigger issue here is why are there so many illegal guns in Boston and why are there so many shooting? Massachusetts has very tough gun control laws and the gun grabbers all tell us that the way to get guns off the streets by having these kinds of laws. If they are correct then there should be very few guns and very little gun violence. Perhaps there is some realization that criminals do not obey the law. As Thomas Jefferson noted in his Commonplace Book (quoting Cesare Beccaria), ‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’ [Federalist Patriot]
So how do so many guns end up in a state or a city in that state when the gun control laws are so strict that people get jail time for having BB guns? Obviously those who have little or no regard for the rule of law will not follow the law.
There are two issues here. Should the police be allowed to search without a warrant? No, unless of course the homeowner gives permission and only a fool would do that. Secondly, why is there a problem if gun control laws really work?
The founders recognized that we had an inherent right to carry arms in order to defend ourselves against invaders, the lawless and a tyrannical government. This is undeniable and clearly explained in their writings on the issue. We are also protected against unlawful search and seizure so it would be in the best interest of Boston homeowners to just say no…
Tags: boston police, gun control laws, gun grabbers, gun violence, homeowner, illegal activity, illegal guns, Second Amendment, warrant
In Saudi, Get Raped, Get Punished
Nov 15, 2007 General
As if we needed another indication of what a backwards country Saudi Arabia is, the courts there have ordered a woman who was gang raped to receive 200 lashes because she rode in a care with people to whom she was not related. A 19 year old woman was raped by six men who have all been sent to prison. She was originally ordered to get 90 lashes for her part in the crime but the court must have figured that being gang raped was not bad enough so they increased it to 200 lashes.
What kind of backward country do these people live in? How can anyone punish a rape victim regardless of who she was riding in a car with? This woman was a victim of the oppressive attitudes that Muslim men (if you can really call these sand fleas men) have for women. I think it was great that they jailed the rapists but the fact that they are punishing the woman shows they have no regard for the law and they have no regard for women.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very same law (Sharia) that the Muzzies want to bring to this country. They have stated that their goal is to make America a Muslim society and that Sharia Law will trump our Constitution. This is the kind of thing they want to bring here and impose on us and as long as liberals appease these bastards they have a shot of succeeding. Thank God there are many of us who have the means to fight against the takeover.
The Muslims in that part of the world live in the stone ages. They follow the rules of a child molesting sun worshiper and they treat human life as unimportant with women ranking below most domesticated animals.
All I can say is if my wife or daughter were gang raped (or raped at all) the rapists had better hope the police got to them before I did or there would not be enough of them left to make a DNA analysis. If I lived in a country where a judge imposed lashes on my wife or daughter after being raped I am afraid there would be one less judge in this world and any person who tried to administer those lashes would have a whip strategically placed in his rectal cavity.
This is why these people use the desert like a cat box and make few contributions to the world. Hell, they would not know what to do with all that oil if a westerner hadn’t shown them. They are too obsessed with their prehistoric culture of violence and death. They are stuck in the world developed for them by Mohammad the idiot child molesting false prophet and they continue to lead lives that are not worth much to the world as a whole.
I can only hope they kill each other off at a rate higher than their birth rate so we can be rid of them once and for all.
Source:
Breitbart
Tags: child molesting, gang raped, muslim men, muslim society, rape victim, sand fleas, Sharia Law, sun worshiper
Catholic Bishops Set Political Agenda
Nov 14, 2007 General
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops developed guidelines for voting in the next elections stating that open discussion was needed and that decisions have an impact on the whole. This is certainly very true. If Catholics (or members of any other religion) ignore a candidate’s pro abortion stance in favor of other attributes then they should not be surprised when the candidate, if elected, pushes for abortion rights and will not listen to those asking for it to be abolished. They should not be surprised when the candidate, if elected, nominates judges who are pro abortion and these adherents to religion should not cry because their acts allowed it to happen. Does this mean people from a religion should march in lock step and vote in one particular way? Certainly not, but it does mean that the choices we make have repercussions and as a group, the people should be willing to accept those if they vote for a certain person. The Catholic Bishops did not mention any candidate by name and did not endorse anyone. They merely decided upon a platform. This is no different than any other group (like the teacher’s union or the young college Democrats) deciding upon a platform. They do not force their members to vote a certain way but they put out a platform they believe is best for them.
There are those who would look at the Catholic Bishops and what they are doing and condemn them. The uniformed or under educated would say that the country was set up based on separation of church and state for a reason and that the Catholic Bishops are violating that. The problem with this line of thinking is that it is wrong on many levels.
First of all, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. I defy anyone to find those words in the Constitution. The Constitution states that the government may not establish a religion and they may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. It does not say that the two should be separated, only that government may not establish a national religion. That is why the display of the Koran, the Ten Commandments, a Crucifix, or the Star of David in federal buildings does not violate the Constitution. Government is not establishing any religion but it is allowing the free expression (or exercise) thereof. Those are the people’s buildings, after all. If the government allowed only the display of one religion’s items, then there would be a problem.
The words separation of church and state were taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists when they expressed concerns that in their state religion was seen as a privilege or favor granted by the state. Jefferson did not address the state issue but addressed establishment on the national level when he wrote; ‘I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.’ He meant that the words of the Constitution provided a wall that protects religion from government. His words have been misused to push the secularist agenda as advanced by the Communist organization, the ACLU.
The second issue is that the Catholic Bishops violated no rules even if we accept that there is such a thing as separation of church and state. The First Amendment is designed to keep government out of religion not the other way around. Religious groups are free to discuss politics, support positions or candidates and they are free to push for those items that they believe to be in the best interest of their beliefs. The church is not restricted by the Constitution, the government is. The church has freedom under the First Amendment while the government does not. Therefore, the various religions around the country are FREE to decide how what agenda they want to push. Their members do not have to follow those guidelines and are free to vote as they wish, just as with the teacher’s unions or young Democrats mentioned above. Even if the Church told its members that they had to vote a certain way it would not violate the Constitution. Once again, it prohibits the government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Church is not the government and is free to tell its members how they should vote and what they may be involved in and still remain a member of the church.
This is no different than the right to free speech. The government is not allowed to restrict your free speech but others may. Your work can tell you what you are and are not allowed to discuss and it can fire you for using profanity or discussing what you have been told not to. You can be told not to say certain things in a church, a school, a store or anywhere else because it is not the government keeping you from speaking. In the case of the church, it is they and not the government that is making the decisions so nothing is violated.
People belong to various religions for a number of reasons. Those religions are free to tell their people the best way to vote. Jews overwhelmingly support Democrats (even though the Democrats screw them and ignore Israel) and there is nothing wrong with it. If all the Muslims decided they wanted to vote for Hillary then that would be their right and it does not violate the Constitution.
I know this was lengthy but it is important to combat ignorance if we want to have a better society.
Source:
My Way News
Tags: abortion rights, abortion stance, conference of catholic bishops, free exercise, pro abortion, religion, repercussions, separation of church and state
Warren Buffet Should Heed Own Advice
Nov 14, 2007 General
Billionaire Warren Buffet said that he favors the estate tax and that it should be higher to tax the wealthy on the amount of their estates. The estate tax currently sits at 45% (and will increase to 55% without reform), which means that 45 out of every 100 dollars someone leave to an heir goes to the government. This is a tax on money that was already taxed at least once in the lifetime of the person and probably more than once, in all reality. The government taxes the money when it is earned, taxes any interest on investment and then gets nearly half of it when a person dies. This is why estate planners make a lot of money, to figure ways to pass wealth without paying taxes AGAIN.
Buffet though, does not live by this philosophy of taxing estates. He has ensured that his estate will be given away so that he avoids any taxes. His fortune is well over 40 billion dollars so his heirs would have to pay around 20 billion in taxes when he dies. This would help with the burden he says that the middle class bears but it is not what is good for him. He is giving a lot of his money to five foundations, most notably the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There will be no taxes when he gives this so he avoided paying an estate tax. He has set up one billion dollar foundations for each of his children and they are to do philanthropic work with the money, no doubt after they draw hefty management fees from the foundations. This will avoid estate taxes and allow him to pass a great deal of money to his children.
Buffet is another do as I say liberal who thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the government to take money it did not earn from the pockets of people who received it from a loved one. He feels that it is OK so long as he (or technically, his estate) is not the one paying the taxes. Buffet cries about the plight of the middle class but he could make 1000 people millionaires for every billion dollars he has. If he is so concerned about people why does he not take 20 billion and make 20,000 people millionaires?
That would probably do more good than giving money to foundations that already have billions of dollars. But Buffet would rather see the wealthy taxed to death and since he has figured out how to avoid the estate tax he really does not care.
Of course, he assumes that other rich people are not as bright as he and therefore cannot avoid paying estate taxes.
Tax schemes created by the government lead people to think of creative ways to avoid paying those very taxes and the richer people are, the more creative they become. Besides, if Buffet is really concerned about the government, he can donate money to the treasury and they will be happy to take it.
I wonder why, if he really cares, he didn’t send his money there instead?
Source:
al Reuters
Tags: bill and melinda gates foundation, billion dollars, government taxes, management fees, millionaires, philanthropic work, warren buffet