"Something's got to be done about the masses. They've got to be led. They don't know what's good for them. What I mean is, I can't understand why people of culture and position like us understand the great ideal of collectivism so well and are willing to sacrifice our personal advantages, while the working man who has everything to gain from it remains so stupidly indifferent. I can't understand why the workers in this country have so little sympathy with collectivism"
--- Mitchell Layton, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
What this country needs is not Political Finance Reform but Politician Reform. Are our representatives and senators in Congress so weak and so corrupt that they have to pass laws telling contributors what they can and can not donate to their own reelection campaigns? Since current contributions laws were ignored during the Clinton Administration, does anyone really think that this new law will also be obeyed? Why do members of Congress not say to contributors "My colleagues and I agreed not accept this type of contribution" ?
Real statesmen respect and uphold the constitution as the founding fathers gave us. Real statesman would roll back all the unconstitutional legislation that has been forced down our throats for almost seventy years. If the congress does that then political campaign reform fixes itself because the contributors will feel no pressure to pay off members of congress and members of congress will feel no pressure to accept the payments. The end result is smaller government, more freedoms, and more money going towards personal wealth that improves the country as a whole, not in the pockets of politicians.
We also need to abolish the 16th Amendment (to cut off pork barrel spending) and pass a term limits amendment that the founding fathers did not put in because they never dreamed that many individuals would make Congress a lifetime career. The bottom line is that political contributions are really nothing more than legal bribes for members of Congress to do or not do an action, a result of a federal government power grab.
I think that every candidate and political group, right, left, center, up, or down should just ignore the Supreme Court decision about the McCain (R-Media) Finance Law and make the government try to enforce it. The freedom of speech is not granted by the government but it is a natural right of free man.
When the Supreme Court can look at words: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech" and still uphold the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law (also unofficially known as the Incumbent protection Act) then no Right or protection in the Constitution is safe. Since the Supreme Court dropped the ball so bad on this clear issue I have fears what the Supreme Court will do when a Second Amendment or other basic Constitutional Right appeals case comes before them. The law will stand as is because the Supreme Court rarely overturns the decisions of previous Supreme Court decisions.
I doubt that Congress will repeal that bad law because it benefits them so much since they cannot be attacked 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election by their opponents or others.
It seems that the checks and balances between the three branches of government do not exist anymore; rather they seem to be working together to take away more of our freedoms and our personal wealth. Government and the two dominant political parties are now so firmly entrenched and unresponsive to the American people that there is no way to fix it. The only option left to the American people is a revolution and purge of the status-quo to return to the limited republican self government that the founding fathers gave to us.
Posted 8 March 2004
I believe that if the DemocRAT Dastards ever regain control of the presidency and a majority of congress that it would be the end of free elections in this country. By controlling the two elected branches of government then they can control the judicial branch. By using activist judges it will be easy to bypass, ignore, or overturn the Electoral College, which was the real reason why Algore lost the 2000 election, and presidential term limits (amendment 22). With that done the usually large DemocRAT controlled cities with their large illegal alien population and history of voter fraud could easily outvote "Bush Country" and set a DemocRAT as "president for life". We already have seen what lows the Democrats, their liberal whores, and the leftist national press has already reached to attempt to regain power. They simply have no shame anymore and are now openly using dirty tactics and cheating that use to be hidden away in the dark, back rooms of their nation-wide Tammany Hall political machines.
Posted 7 November 2003
Roe vs. Wade was one of the largest grabs of States Rights in history. Legal scholars on both the right and the left (when they are honest) agree that The Supreme Court decided the issue using very shaky and almost non-existent Constitutional "rights" and a future Supreme Court decision could overturn it very easily; just like "Plessy vs. Ferguson" (separate but equal is constitutional) was completely overturned by "Brown vs. Board of Education" (separate but equal not constitutional).
English Common Law is based on precedents, which are why there are so many courts of appeals. It is a "check and balance" system to insure that if any judge deviates from accepted judicial precedents or rules of procedure or evidence the parties can appeal to another or higher court to decide the issue. According to the Constitution the Supreme Court of the United States in the final court of appeals.
The rub is that now that Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land the Supreme Court decision is now a precedent for future courts. If you look closely at all the decisions of liberal Judges they almost always refer to Roe vs. Wade to support their law-making from the bench, advancing the agenda of the left.
Therefore if Roe vs. Wade is overturned then all other court decisions that were based on that decision in whole or part could also be overturned. This would set back the liberal cause literally fifty years. This is why the DemocRATs in the Senate are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the president from appointing conservative Federal judges.
From my political point of view abortion on demand really has nothing to do with abortion itself. Just like "Women's Rights" has nothing to do to advance or protect women; if that was true then why did the feminists let Clinton get away with his abuse of women? These causes and all the other hypocritical causes of the left are just vehicles to take away our freedoms, our wealth, and property and bring in a new socialist state. I am not going to call this a "vast left-wing conspiracy" because as Alexander Solzhenitsyn once wrote that when the government, the press, and the colleges think the same there is no need for a secret conspiracy.
My greatest fear is unless we either force our leaders to return to the republic our founding fathers gave us or set up some type of Autonomous Republic system that allows States to join together and rule themselves at a level just below the national level then it will be war among us and the end result will be a another world power, say China, marching in with the blessings of the UN to take over and restore order as they see fit.
Posted 7 November 2003
Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
It is dead for now because Congress put a time limit for ratification and then unconstitutionally extended the time limit by a majority vote rather the three-fourths vote for amendments as required by the Constitution. Five States also withdrew their ratifications, an issue that may end up in the Supreme Court if the ERA becomes active again picking up where it left off. Any way the Supreme Court declared it dead when advocates attempted to extend the deadline a second time so ratification may have to start from square one. I never could and still don't see the need for the ERA except as a job creation program for lawyers.
I am bringing this up because I came across a State Governor Association Website that substituted "Gender" for "Sex" in the body of the ERA amendment. I think that it may have been a typo by an editor changing the statement for sex neutral content because I have not found this modification on any website I looked at that addresses the ERA.
So what, some people might say, "gender" has replaced "sex" just about everywhere in American life especially when you fill out just about any application. It means the same thing.
Well, gender does not mean what you may think. Right and left both agree that "sex" means male and female. But the left have defined "gender" to mean straight men, straight woman, homosexual men, lesbian, and transgender. They could add more in the future such as men and woman sexually attracted to animals or children. Gender would mean what ever a court decided it means.
Therefore to make "Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of gender" a constitutional right would give homosexuals and other deviants the same protection of laws that only traditional marriage has. Gays or even polygamy marriages would be able to adapt children, get health and insurance coverage from employers, etc. Laws against bestially and sexual relations with minor children could also become unconstitutional.
It would be the end of morals and civilization in the United States.
Posted 30 October 2003
The Fountainhead was written in 1943 and the self-appointed elites are still complaining about the great unwashed masses like you and me who refuse to go along with them. The big joke is that the self-appointed elites think that they will still be in charge and keep their power and wealth, their limos, and gated estates. All through history there are examples from Caesar to Hitler to Stalin to Mao that once the scum raise to the surface of the pond the self-appointed elites, also known as "useful idiots", are no longer useful and are among first to be sent to the concentration camps.
Posted 14 July 2002
We now know that legal and illegal aliens forced those aircraft to fly into buildings. Yet the "undocumented alien" rights groups say we can't hunt down and deport illegal and other aliens that overstayed their visas and we must release all those that are being held and not tighten security on the borders.
We also know that dark skinned men from the Middle East forced those aircraft to fly into buildings. Yet if we target and hunt for men who match this description the equal rights groups call that "racial profiling" and so every one from old ladies with walkers to blue eyed, blond young teenagers must be equally searched at airline security points.
We now know that it was followers of Islam who forced those aircraft to fly into buildings. Yet if we investigate and search mosques, even when their leaders either quietly support or call for more attacks, the radical religious Je$$ie Jack$on types say we are harming their religious freedoms and we must leave them alone.
We now know that the hijackers used primitive and impromptu weapons to seize control of those aircraft to fly into buildings. Yet if we are hearing all kinds of calls for gun control at a time when every able American should be armed to protect each other and ourselves from the terrorists who live among us.
Way before 911 I wrote in reply to another post that the next war will not only root out foreign enemies, but the domestic ones also because we are not one country anymore. Thanks to the DemocRATs and their henchmen my statement appears to be coming true.
It seems that mass destruction and death still does not shut up the hate America first crowd and these people are worst than Johnny Bin Walker. At least Walker had the guts to openly take action to undermine the United States. These cowards, who hide behind the Constitution while plotting it's destruction, want to create a hellish society where the majority becomes slaves to the elite minority and their "protected classes" stooges.
The Nazis also had "protected classes" in their society and that in turn lead to concentration camps and gas chambers for non-Aryan peoples. The advocates for the above groups are telling us to leave them alone on one hand and, on the other hand, telling us we must restrict or give up some of our freedoms for security. I do not happen to believe that security and freedom are not mutually exclusive. Just secure our borders, restrict immigration, and kick out the illegals.
I have also written in the past that a second American Revolution or War Between the States is coming within a generation or two because capitalism and socialism or freedom and tyranny cannot exist within the same place and time. One or the other has to go sooner or later and I am betting on sooner at this point in time.
Posted 14 March 2002
Another word being hijacked by the Orwellian Newspeak liberal elite is the word "gender". According to the rules of grammar, gender is a tool a writer or speaker uses when referring to an object or person such as he, she, or it. Gender is also used in the industrial world to refer to "male and female" plugs or other parts that are constructed and function, well, like female and male "parts".
When you hear the word "gender" being used outside those areas by liberals in terms such as "gender equality" it does not mean just equality between men and woman, but equality between straight men, straight women, gay men, lesbians, and transsexuals (none of the above?). The liberals say there are two sexes and five genders. There is a radio ad I hear in my area for a hospital system where a patient can pick a doctor of their choose including "race, color, and gender". Oh, Oh I want the transsexual doctor; you know, the guy who dresses like a woman.
This nonsense has made it's way into all areas of western life. Remember when we had fireman, air stewardess and stewards, mailman, etc.? Now we have fire fighters, flight attendants, and mail carriers. I really have no problem with changes like this because both titles for the same job has been around for years and either are acceptable to the rules of grammar. But I really shake my head when the liberals try to change a word such as "chairman" where there is no "genderless" equivalent and you get "chair" or "chair person". What in the hell is wrong with the words "chairman" or "chairwoman"? Same with history, mankind, manpower, and man-hours.
My main gripe is the idiots in Manpower, I mean "human resources", where I work sends out printed information and handouts in which we all know that both sexes are being refereed to but they still write out awkward conjunctions like he/she and him/her. Any well educated person familiar with the rules of grammar knows that unless explicitly stated, he/his/him is genderless and applies to BOTH sexes. This is an insult to my intelligence and education because the idiots (men and women) who write such garbage thinks I am too stupid to know that.
That politically incorrect document, the US Constitution, refers to the President and Vice President in the male gender. Aaccording to the rules of grammar, since nowhere in the constitution and amendments is there anything that states that the president has to be a man, an intelligent reader knows that the gender he/his/him means either sex. Hillary sure knows that.
George Orwell's "1984" called the redefinition of word meaning as Newspeak where words means only what the government wants them to mean. Any other use is illegal. Not only are well losing our freedoms but our language to the facist/socialists.
It is a very serious problem. If you have a chance, read first "Animal Farm" and then "1984", both by George Orwell, and then tell me if art imitates life or life imitates art.
If the founding fathers thought that only men should participate in politics, then why did they not state that only men can be elected for Federal office and deny the woman the vote in writing? The Constitution left the qualifications of voters for national offices to the states until later voting rights Amendments took those powers away from the States in regards to sex, age, color, etc.
Remember, Hitler started with words about the Jews and he finished with the Jews in the death camps.
I do not believe in affirmative or special laws for protected classes of people that make them more equal than other persons. Nazis also had "affirmative action" and the "protected classes" were the Master Race Aryans. What this means is that I oppose same sex marriages or even heterosexual couples living together because in accordance with the norms and mores of society going back thousands of years the legal and other benefits of marriage should only go to properly married couples. This has nothing to with sexual orientation, but heritage and culture. Destroy the underpinning of culture and heritage by redefining it mores and norms and you get anarchy: society falls.
As for your comment about transsexuals I don't mean drag queens who may be straight or gay men impersonating women. As you stated they were using the men's room because they are men. I am talking about the poor confused man who thinks he is a women trapped in a man's body. In most states a man would be arrested for purposely entering a woman and doing his business there. Under gender equality, it would be legal for him to so. But that would cheapen the rights of woman who wish to keep all men out of their rest rooms, making transsexual men more equal than straight men, who can still be arrested.
When the US finally conquered the Indian tribes they took their children off the reservations and put them in boarding schools where they were prohibited form speaking their native language and practicing their culture. They taught them white trades and tried to make white men and women out of them. The damage was severe because these "civilized" Indians did not belong in either the Indian world or the white world. You can trace this well meaning destruction of culture to the problems of poverty, alcoholism, and other plagues of the American Indian today.
As I mentioned in "1984" the author goes into some detail of how defining the language defines society. The government was moving their subjects to Newspeak to displace Oldspeak, the language of their ancestors. An example given was the word "free". In Newspeak it was okay to use a phase like "The dog is FREE of fleas" but to use the word "free" in Oldspeak like "liberty and freedom for all" was forbidden. Newspeak also limited the number of words and definitions of those words available to the masses so they could not express themselves in literature, poetry, or songs. The ultimate goal was to eventually make Oldspeak completely non-understandable to their subjects so if, say, a copy of the Declaration of Independence fell into their hands they could not read it because the meaning of words would be completely unrecognizable. This subject of liberal Newspeak was the basis of my original post.
There is no hate speech laws yet in the United States because either public pressure or courts have thrown them out. Some college and schools have "speech codes" in place which are also being thrown one by one. In Congress right now is the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001 (S. 625), which states "The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or PERCEIVED race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem". It will more than likely die in conference or at the hands of the Federal Courts because it infringes on the First Amendment and the Feds can override and interfere in local and State legal manners if a jury does not give the "correct" verdict for high profile cases to appease the masses. Recall what the Feds did to the cops in the Rodney King incident after a local jury said not guilty; it was nothing more than political show trail like the USSR use to do. As I mentioned Canada has hate speech laws in effect and there already has been persons jailed and/or fined. If you do a search you can find it.
The founding fathers were a product of their times and if they truly thought that politics and office holding was a man's game then, I repeat the question: why did they not put a male only qualification for President, Vice-President, Senator, Representative, or Justice/Judge? They listed other qualifications such as age and residency requirements but not sex, they could of easily put it in but choose not to. So I am saying that woman can hold Federal office because there is no sex qualification, are you saying they can't? If we go by the new definition of gender I wrote about in my original post then woman could not hold elected Federal offices because it is just "he", not "he/she" written there.
If you refuse to heed the loss of freedoms in this country and the remaking of society in a form that some elitists think it should be then don't act surprised when one day their hellish society becomes fact.
Posted 2 November 2001
 |
|
|
|
 |
