Language = Civil Right?

So, did you know that you have a "civil right" to force other people to speak any language you want? No, really. If you speak to someone in a language, any language at all, and they do not speak to you in that very same language, they are violating your civil rights. At least that's what immigrant advocacy groups are claiming in New York.

Among the list of slimy, scummy, bastards who are claiming this (not in small part to get free cash, of course) are:
Nisha Agarwal, a bottom-feeder lawyer.
Andrew Friedman, an executive director of "Make the Road New York (crappier)".
New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (that's "public" as in "not you").
New York Immigration Coalition (lawyers opposed to laws).

Oh, and by the way? These pharmacies already produce labels in 14 or more languages and have interpreters who speak 150 languages. But according the the slimy bastards (lawyers) that's just not good enough.

Two poster children whined that they were scared because they couldn't read the labels on medicine. Learn English you miserable S.O.B! If you can't speak English in America, I do feel sorry for you. But when you claim that everyone else in the country should adapt to YOU and spend hundreds of billions because YOU don't want to learn the language of the country, it's YOU that are the problem. YOU are the miserable, selfish bastard, not anyone else.

And any judge that lets complete BS lawsuits like this continue based on "civil rights" deserves to be disbarred and fired on the spot. I'm not holding my breath, because to do that would require some sort of freedom -- like the freedom to speak any language I want. Apparently I no longer have that freedom in America, either.

(H/T to Raven).

Fair and Balanced?

This is, reportedly, Fox News setting up a camera shoot covering a Republican conference:

Just can't let those darn Ron Paul supporters be seen. He's got dangerous ideas, so the mainstream media, even Fox News, apparently, simply cannot let people know about him.

Scared Criminals = Bad?

Did you know that, according to the LA Times, that criminals scared of breaking the law is bad? Apparently, again, according to the LA Times, criminals should not be scared to break the law. I guess the Times would prefer that criminals and law enforcement just be peaceful. Perhaps in their world, crimes would go like this:

Criminal: Hi, I'm here to rape, rob, and murder you.
Victim: Oh great. I just need to finish up mailing this letter, then I'll be right with you.
Criminal: That's fine, I can wait a couple minutes.
Victim: Okay, I'm done, you can go right ahead with your crime.
Criminal: Thanks for cooperating.

* Criminal the proceeds to rape, rob, and murder the victim. As the criminal finishes, the police show up *

Policeman: Hey, you there, are you committing a crime?
Criminal: (zipping up pants) Who, me? No, not at all. I just found this person here.
Policeman: Really? Are you sure? It sort of looks like you just killed that person. After all, you've got blood all over you, and that's her purse in your hand.
Criminal: Okay, you got me. I'm sorry. I'm the one who did this. I killed her.
Policeman: That's better. I'm glad that you admitted it. Now how do you feel about your crime?
Criminal: I feel really bad, sortof. I just don't know.
Policeman: Well let's sit down and talk about it, m'kay?

Hey LA Times, perhaps you're not aware of it, but there's bad people in the world. There's people who break the law. And there's people, who if they're not stopped, will continue to break the law and do violent and bad things to other people. I'm sorry that the LA Times cannot understand something so simple.

Social Services is Limited?

I honestly cannot believe this story. It claims that a judge actually ruled that social services employees actually have to obey the law. Well, he didn't actually rule that, instead he allowed a lawsuit to go forward that is against social services. I expect the lawsuit to fail.

In this case, social services did what social services does -- they used force of government to break various laws because "It's For The Children." They used an anonymous tip to clearly and openly violate Constitutionally protected rights. They used threats of unstoppable, unquestionable government force to bully people into doing what they wanted to. They threatened violence against people who had committed no crime -- backed up by FOUR men with guns.

Basically, social services showed up at someone's house. The people had committed no crime. NO ONE had any evidence or suspicion that anyone had committed a crime. Even after openly breaking the law, the government STILL found no evidence that any sort of crime had ever been committed by the people. But none of that matters. Social Services wanted in that house, and they were going in, or they were going to kill someone (literally).

They brought a pile of armed government thugs with them (sheriffs). They continued to threaten violence against the homeowners unless the homeowners let them in to search their premises for, well, any damn thing they wanted -- they are social services, and they have guns. These government goons said that they were going to inspect the house -- and if the people refused, these thugs were going to arrest them, use violence against them AND take their children away from them by force.

Now if I were to do that to someone, I'd go to jail for a VERY long time. But these were government goons, so they're literally allowed to do anything they want because no one can stop them.

So far, the lawsuit has been allowed to proceed -- only after the government actually filed a motion claiming that since they're government, they're literally above the law! Yes, government actually filed a motion in court that says they don't have to obey the law because they're government employees. That's the position of social services departments around the world. But the lawsuit has not been won yet, it's just proceeding. I honestly hope these people do win the lawsuit to show at least a few government employees that they do have to obey the law.

In the meantime, I strongly suggest that if you have children that you have a plan to escape. I suggest a small pile of cash, a bag with clothes and supplies, and a plan of a place to head OUT OF STATE in case social services ever shows up at your doorstep. This is, in my opinion, the most evil of the government services: social services. They are not bound by any laws and they will take your children and THEN let you try and prove your innocence. Your current best defense is to flee, hide the children, and then fight them.

Blame for Fires

Well, I'm glad we've finally figured out the solution to all the fires in California. You see, while Barbara Boxer blames Bush, it appears that she was wrong all along. Instead, according to liberal, unelected bureaucrats (who are never, ever, ever, wrong), it was just lack of money. All we have to do is give up MORE money that we earn, and there will be no fires in California. Isn't that great news?

Therefore, all you liberals must immediately agree to send 80% of your earnings to California. It's for the "public good" and will "benefit everyone." And if you do, according to the bureaucrats, there will be no fires (or at least none that cause any damage). Isn't utopia wonderful?

Oh, and if, after you send them 80% of what you earn there are still fires, it only shows that you didn't give them enough money or the wrong people were in charge. A "new plan" will fix that (with a few more dollars, of course).

Liberals (Democrats/Socialists/etc) -- is there anything they can't do (with your money)?

Turkey to Iraq

And no, I'm not talking about the Turkeys in the US Congress who wanted to instigate members of the country Turkey. I'm talking about Turks who are headed to Iraq.

Can someone explain the US reaction here? I try to keep up with world affairs. I try and keep informed about what's going on (because I know it might affect me, even if it shouldn't). But I don't understand what the US is so upset about. I think they should be happy and excited!

Turkey is being attacked by terrorists from Iraq. Turkey wants to go into Iraq and kill the terrorists. How is this any different from what the US did? Why would the US want to stop them, other than just to be the only world's policeman? Turkey has soldiers that have been kidnapped by people in Iraq. I think Turkey should go get them back, post haste, no matter what the US says.

Update: Now Turkey says:

"Cease-fires is possible between states and regular forces," Babacan said. "The problem here is that we're dealing with a terrorist organization."

The PKK has called on Turkey not to attack Iraq, claiming that a unilateral rebel cease-fire declared in June was still in place although it did not halt fighting.


Hey, anyone want this guy to help our country out? He's really calling it like it is. The terrorists are actually claiming they have already stopped attacking -- despite just killing some Turkish forces! They're terrorists -- go get 'em, Babacan. Go get your soldiers back!

Philadelphia Continues Intolerance

The city of Philadelphia says "Allow man-boy anal sex or get out of our city." I don't know about you, but I'm thinking I'd choose to run from that city very quickly. But the Boy Scouts there are still fighting.

You see, the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia is an organization that serves over 64,000 children. It teaches these children, many without lots of parental support, how to be good citizens. It teaches them how to create things with their hands. It teaches the children how to learn and gives them experiences that they might never have in their life without the Scouts. The Scouts give inner city kids chances to camp in the outdoors, go fishing, identify tree, and learn about ropes and knots.

But the city council of the City of Philadelphia says that's not enough. The city says that this organization MUST allow men who like sex with boys to go camping with children unsupervised. The city demands that this organization put men who might want to have anal sex with these children in a position of authority over those children. The city does not mention if they are planning to force the Girl Scouts to allow men in unsupervised positions of authority over young girls on camping trips.

What a complete and total cesspool the city of Philadelphia has become. It IS Sodom all over again. The city openly hates Boy Scouts. They openly despite and jail Christians. What a disgusting place. And they continue all their hatred while claiming to be "tolerant."

LawSuit Lottery Entrant: VA Tech

More greedy, selfish, miserable bums are out for free cash. This time it's the victims of the VA Tech shooting spree. And they want your money. Yes, YOU reading this. They've now filed an intent to file a lawsuit. No, they haven't filed it yet, but they're either going to get a "settlement" or they will file it.

Once again, this is about nothing but piles of free cash. That's it, absolutely nothing more. Anything else you read about these lawsuits is just lies. There's NOTHING to be gained by the people filing these lawsuits other than piles of cash -- preferably (to them) large piles.

Oh, they might claim they want to "punish those responsible." Yes, they know the evil person who did this is dead. And they might even believe that they can "punish" the government. But that's total crap, too.

You see, in a lawsuit against a person, you can punish them financially. Against a corporation, that only works a little bit, because the corporation just raises their prices to offset the loss. However, against government, it has absolutely ZERO effect. You see, members of government DO NOT CARE how much money they pay out! If they have to pay out $1 million in lawsuits, they'll just get another million from the taxpayers! They're NOT CAPABLE OF BEING FINANCIALLY PUNISHED.

But hey, these miserable, selfish, greedy people are so shallow and self-centered that if you give them enough money, they'll just forget about their loved ones who were shot that day. They'll just claim it's "punishment" so people won't call them greedy bastards.

The Noose

noose.jpgAre you offended? Are you insulted? Should I be jailed, right now, for a long period of time because I posted this picture? Perhaps I should be fined and you should get the money because I posted this picture. Maybe you need to file a lawsuit against me and get a restraining order and piles of cash from me because I posted this picture. Welcome to America today.

In New York, they appear to think I should be jailed. What a total load of irresponsible crap. Let's analyze, shall we?

The New York City Police Department hate crimes task force tried to determine...

They have a "hate crimes" task force. That's just unreal. Instead of focusing on useful things, like illegal immigrant violence, they're more concerned with thought crimes.
An NYPD spokesman told FOXNews.com that the matter was being treated as a hate crime

Of course it is. You see, if your skin happens to be the right color, you get more protection, more rights, and more free stuff from this government. I'd prefer a government that was color-blind and treated everyone equally, no matter what color their skin happens to be. But those who are getting more protection and rights simply will not have that. They WILL be treated different because the color of their skin. It used to be we called people who did that racists.
A police official told The Associated Press that investigators were looking at whether a fellow faculty member at Teachers College with whom Constantine had a dispute or an unhappy student might have been responsible.

Well gee, do you think so? Who else would be in the halls of the wonderful fantasy land that is Columbia University. It's not like there's illegal aliens or terrorist heads of state wandering the halls there...
Meanwhile, Columbia University students and faculty held a rally protesting the incident

Well, you've got to have a rally. I mean, you've got to gather people in groups to oppose anyone who disagrees with them, right? And if they didn't have that rally, suddenly blacks would be enslaved and we'd have to fight that whole "Civil War" thing again -- because no one would ever oppose slavery unless they had a rally, right?
Many said they weren't shocked that such a racially-motivated gesture happened at the Ivy League school.
The prestigious university, according to rally attendees, struggles with racial tension and prejudice in spite of its status as an elite institution with top-notch academics and a commitment to diversity.

Well that's pretty clear, since all these people who attended the rally only did so because they view people primarily by the color of their skin (and what terrorist organizations they might associate with). But hey, they SAY they're committed to diversity, so that should be good enough, right?
Demonstrators with signs declaring "Intolerance Is Intolerable" and "Not on Our Campus" protested Wednesday afternoon outside Teachers College, and Constantine spoke publicly to condemn the "heinous and highly upsetting incident" of which she apparently was the victim.

Well good thing! After all, they were photographed and appeared in the news. So I'm sure whoever did this watched them. And their message got out -- you see now, after they held up signs, no one is intolerant any more. Well, except for them, of course.
"Hanging the noose on my office door reeks of cowardice and fear on many levels."

Oh, so you're feeling good about yourself because you managed to call other people names. It appears you're saying that the person who did this was a coward and was scared of you. So what's the point? Do you like belittling people, Madonna Constantine? Is that how you teach your students to deal with conflict? Can't you tolerate another person's viewpoint?
"It's definitely painful," the doctoral student at the rally said of the incident. "I'm from the South, where there are blatant forms of racism. Hidden forms are always worse."

Okay, what part was the painful part? Did you tear a fingernail on the doorjamb when you removed the noose from the door? Or did you stub your toe when you were running from the door to the phone to call the press and call for a rally? And you're complaining about hidden racism being worse, but I'm not sure how you can call this hidden -- the damn national news is printing this. I'm not sure how it could be more out in the open!
She said she often feels isolated as a black woman on campus, and many of her fellow students frequently turn their backs on her instead of speaking to her.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Someone turned their back on her! Oh, POOR BABY! You should be compensated. We should throw money at you until you feel better. We should arrest and throw in jail anyone who DARES to turn their back on you because you're so damn important. Maybe they turned their backs on you because you're a mean person and they didn't want to talk to you. What a horrible, self-centered person.
"It's horrifying obviously," said Cris Beam, who teaches creative writing. "We're in a culture right now of escalating racism, in an increasingly conservative (environment). We all live in this country, so it seeps in."

Hey look, another person suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)! Did you see that blatant connection between conservative and racist? He honestly believes that if you support a smaller government, then you're a racist. There's a reason people find it so easy to make fun of those in the academic world -- because they have no clue what planet they live on! Apparently Mr. Beam didn't notice that Democrats (who are NOT conservative) have been ruling the country and control Congress. And it's incredibly intolerant and bigoted to claim that anyone who is conservative is a racist. But then again, this is New York City, so I'd expect no less.
"Really obnoxious and blatant racism should be exposed in order to bring to light the larger systemic problems," said Brian Kelly, 20, who is studying politics at Pace.

Future Democrat politician there. Apparently the noose didn't expose anything. And the rally did. You see, Brian also thinks everyone is racist. Well, everyone except for him, of course. Oh, and people with dark-colored skin (even when they are).
"This is an assault on African Americans and therefore it is an assault on every one of us," university President Lee C. Bollinger said in a statement.

Oh, so it's an "assault" on me, too? And I guess it's an assault on even the poor person who put the noose up there, too. And still with the "African Americans." Why can't you just be an American? Why do you hate people who have a different color skin than you do, Mr. Bollinger?

What a total load. Is there anyone left today that isn't a "victim?" I feel sorry for these people. Apparently their lives have so little meaning that they have to look for things like this to give them meaning. Someone who had some self-worth would have just tossed the darn thing aside and gone on with their life. I would submit that none of these people have ever seen a person hanging in a noose, much less even know someone who was hung in the south for being black.

Perhaps people should grow up. Why not focus on doing something productive instead of complaining all day. I'm sure I'll be branded as "insensitive" and "racist" myself for even saying all this -- but it's the truth. Hey Miss Constantine, get over it and get a life.

SCHIP Veto

So Bush vetoed the SCHIP legislation. Hooray! And no, I don't hate children.

You see, while the supporters of this legislation talk about how great it is, and how many children it will "save," they leave out parts. You only hear the "good" parts of the law, without hearing ALL the details. It's "nice" for all children to have health insurance without having to pay for it (even those whose parents earn up to $80,000 a year -- those "poor" people need help). It's "nice" to get "poor" children to the doctor.

But freedom isn't nice. It isn't evil, either. But freedom IS free. Freedom implies responsiblity. And true freedom is incapable of so-called "compassion."

If you support SCHIP, here is what you support:

You support people with guns, backed by the government, showing up to people's houses. You support midnight raids by the FBI and ATF breaking down people's doors and attacking them in the dead of night. You support people who do an honest day's work only getting paid 1/2 of what their work is worth. You support throwing people in jail and ruining their lives financially -- all so that YOU can feel better about thinking that you're helping poor children.

Government CANNOT "help" anyone without taking from someone else. In a free country, people could help people, but government would not be able to do so. Government produces nothing -- the ONLY way government can provide insurance for children is to break down people's doors and take things away from people who earned it. That's wrong, plain and simple.

Worse, government is SO bad at managing their money, after they break down your door and possibly shoot your or your dog or your family to get that $100 YOU earned, they will end up spending only about $30 of it on the actual insurance for the children.

Here's how it would work in a truly free country:

Anyone would be free to help any child, any where, any time. And no one would be forced at gunpoint to pay to help any other child. I am willing to bet MORE children would be helped in that situation than will ever be helped with this government program.

Death is Cruel

So logically, it's not allowed, right? Well, that's what some people think. When they argue, repeatedly, that the state shouldn't put people to death by a certain procedure because it's "cruel and unusual," they're insane. Judge Roy Moore points out that it's not supposed to be.

People who get on death row aren't nice folks. These aren't people you know in your neighborhood. Most of the people who find their way to death row are horrible, evil people who have done incredibly evil things. When someone rapes, molests, and tortures a young girl, why should we care if he feels pain?

I'm not saying that he should be killed for vengeance or retribution, but for justice. Someone who has done these acts is evil. They're not going to suddenly be cured and never do it again. Many who oppose the death penalty say he should be jailed for life. To those who support that action, why do you support taking lots of money from people who work to pay for food, housing, and entertainment for scum of the earth?

It would be one thing if you were going to jail these scum in a small hole and toss them some bread and water on occasion. But these people live in practical luxury. They get meals all the time -- they never miss a meal. They get exercise equipment that others work hard to pay for. They get free access to libraries of information that some people will never see in their lifetimes. And they get continuous access to as much cable television as they can watch. How is this punishment?

Justice demands that these people feel pain. Instead of trying to find a way to kill them that causes less pain, we need to stop wasting time and millions of dollars of money that I worked hard to earn and just put them out of my misery. I really wish the judges would follow the law instead of making up any law they like. Feeling a slight bit of discomfort is NOT cruel and unusual -- raping, torturing, and murdering is.

Hugs = Go To Jail

Well, you know how bad hugs are, right? You know how evil they are and how many people are injured and killed with hugs? Finally a school in Oak Park, IL has had the guts to ban those evil things. That's right, according to the government in Oak Park, if you're in a government school building and hug someone, you're in BIG trouble.

I'm so happy they've banned these things. Now if only more governments would see this progressive attitude and ban more of them. After all, I'm so offended when I see someone hugging someone else. I'm often late because I have to walk all the way around those people. And they waste so much time. See, students were late for classes because they were hugging and now that it's been banned, no one will be late any more. Isn't that wonderful? If only we had more government banning more things, utopia truly would exist here on earth.

North Korean Nukes
North Korea agreed to provide a "complete and correct declaration" of its nuclear programs and will disable its facilities at its main reactor complex by Dec. 31 under an agreement reached by North Korea and five other countries released Wednesday.
Oh wow, isn't this wonderful? Doesn't this just prove that diplomacy works? Oh, the world can live in peace now, can't it? Details? What details?
...will disable its facilities at its main reactor
In other words, they'll shut down the main one that we know about.
The disablement of the five megawatt experimental reactor at Yongbyon, the reprocessing plant at Yongbyon and the nuclear fuel rod fabrication facility at Yongbyon will be completed
But any other facilities that have been moved underground to avoid satellite detection will NOT be disabled. Any nuclear fuel rods that have already been moved from those above listed facilities will remain in place.
North Korea is required to disable its sole functioning reactor at Yongbyon in exchange for economic aid and political concessions
That should read, "sole KNOWN functioning reactor."

Are there people who actually believe that the lunatic who rules North Korea with an iron fist (not unlike Democrats in North Carolina) would actually surrender all his nuclear material? Are there people who think he really will just hand over his nuclear bombs to America for cash? I don't. Sure, this is a nice start, but I don't trust this fellow as far as I can throw him.

Catholicism, Christianity Banned in America

Seriously. The time has come. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that these religions will simply not be permitted in America. I know, there's supposed to be some rule that allows people to practice whatever religion they like:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Sorry, but the Supreme Court, kings of the world, have simply decided that they don't like that portion of the US Constitution, so it just doesn't apply any more.

Sure, you're allowed to SAY you're Catholic or Christian. Heck, you can even think you're Catholic or Christian. But according to the Supreme Court, if you attempt to practice either of those religions, you shall be jailed. The state of New York has passed a law that very clearly says that you cannot practice certain aspects of those religions. And the Supreme Court says that those laws are perfectly okay.

I wish the religious groups involved in this case had the guts and tenacity to actually practice their religion in violation of the law. It would indeed be eye-opening to many people in this country when the government showed up to arrest Christians for practicing their religion. Unfortunately, most large-scale religious groups like this just instead bow down to their worldly masters and will obey the law.

This particular case is in regards to being forced to provide and pay for birth control. For example, if I want to practice my religion and NOT use MY money to pay for someone else's birth control, the state of New York says I'm breaking the law. Instead, the state of New York has determined that my right to practice my religion is somehow less important than someone else's new-found "right" to force me to pay for their pills. How screwed up does one have to be to actually argue that? What sort of view of freedom do you have to have in order to actually believe that forcing one person to PAY for the convenience of another is superior to religious freedom?

I just wonder how soon it will be before I am arrested, jailed, or killed right here in America for having Christian religious beliefs. I'm thinking that it won't be long now.

Religious? You're Fired.

I have an idea for a law. I know, I hardly ever propose a new law. We really do have enough laws. We have way too many laws that serve no purpose or are not used. We have so many laws, many are enforced only when someone wants to enforce them. But sometimes there's a real need for a law. I think I'd word this new law something like this:

Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What do you think? Think that would make a good law? Think that would make us different from all those other countries that have state-sponsored religions? I think allowing people freedom to have a religion would be a good idea. Unfortunately, that's not currently the case in America.

If you're a government employee and happen to go to church, that simple fact might get you fired. No, really. A government employee was actually told to stop going to church or he would be fired. He continued going to church and yes, he was fired. You see, the current government-enforced religion IS atheism. You're simply not permitted to have any other religious beliefs if you have any association with government.

Of course, an even better solution would be to get government out of anything associated with this sort of thing. There's no need for government to be doing billions of things they're doing now. But so many people have become so dependent on my money being given to them via government that I don't hold much hope on that happening. It might, though, in the Free State.

FCC Fines for Fake News

This news is rather interesting. The FCC has proposed a fine aginst a network for running a commercial that looks like a news program and forgot to tell people watching it that it was a commercial. That part isn't really news. The interesting part is that this is the first time the FCC has tried to fine a cable network.

I'm wondering -- if the FCC is claiming power to regulate and monitor cable television networks, what else will the claim jurisdiction over? If the data that is transmitted over a television cable line can be directly regulated by the FCC for content, how soon before the FCC claims jurisdiction over the internet and all information transmitted over the internet?

Of course, in the real world, I understand the internet -- I know that the FCC will never be able to actually regulate it. Heck, they can't stop child porn and illegal gambling on the internet now. But if they claim jurisdiction, I know it will be just a matter of time before they start wasting time trying to shut down or fine various internet sites.

Keep in mind this is an organization that YOU, personally, have to pay for, whether you like it or not. Perhaps the FCC is yet another government organization that has outlived it's usefulness. Have you ever noticed that no government programs EVER end, even when they have no purpose any more? Wouldn't it be great to have the option to elect people who would get rid of such programs? If you know of anyone running for election that would actually reduce useless parts of government, let me know. The only person I know of running for election at any level that would actually reduce government is Ron Paul.

Marriage and The Law

What is marriage? More importantly, who cares? And most importantly, should government use it's monopoly on force to "care?"

First, in support of a US Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman -- Does the state have a vested interest in marriages? I believe they do. They state cannot exist without people. If people stop procreating, there will be no state. So in that manner, the state does have a vested interest in promoting marriage? Absolutely. And in this case, the state clearly has an interest in promoting only marriage as between a man and a woman.

Does this mean that I'm claiming that no one will have babies if gays get married? Don't be silly. I'm saying that the state has a clear vested interest in supporting marriages that result in more citizens for the state.

In addition, there is no question that children raised in two-parent families (with a mother and father) are better citizens. There will be less criminals, plain and simple. There will be fewer drunks and drug abusers. There will be fewer suicides. Society will be better off if all children were raised by a mother and a father. In the name of general health and crime prevention, clearly the state has an interest in marriages between a male and a female.

But on the other side of the coin -- what business is it of the government? Does the government exist to promote itself? If people did stop procreating and government ceased to exist, why would that be a bad thing? If there are fewer suicides, certainly that is "better" for the state, but it is really a "health" issue? If you accept that it is, be prepared to head back to prohibition because of that whole "health" issue.

When this country was organized, it was a grand experiment. Part of that experiment was creating 50 unique, different "states" that could do whatever they wanted. The union of the states was for economic trade and defensive protection. Each state was supposed to be different -- that way if a person didn't like the society and laws in one state, they could go to another. But a federal marriage amendment would make the states more the same -- which is simply wrong.

When Ron Paul was recently asked at a debate whether he supported a Constitutional Amendment declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman, I really liked his answer. He said that shouldn't marriage be determined by religion? Wouldn't it be better if the church could decide marriage issues and the state simply had nothing to do with it?

Two people in Pennsylvania are claiming that now. They want to be married, but they don't belong to a church. So the state is denying them permission to be married. Who is the government to be the final arbitrator of who shall marry whom?

Legally, the only difference it makes to the state is for taxes and property. The state wants to charge different tax rates based on whether someone is legally married or not. That's easy to fix -- change the tax code so there's no information or anything related to marital status. Gee, the fair tax would do that nicely, wouldn't it?

The other issue where the state is concerned is related to property -- transfer of ownership, survivor rights, parental rights, etc. Currently, however, even marriage doesn't appear to be affecting this area today. How many children are born out of wedlock? Don't these children have parents? Doesn't the legal system have a clear way of identifying them and giving them access to the children at places like schools? And with inheritance, aren't there already massive issues and lawsuits regarding who gets what, even when there is a clear marriage and children? It seems like ANY laws regarding marriage today are already worthless -- so why is the state in the business of giving permission for people to be married?

It's not that I'm against marriage -- I absolutely think that marriage is between a man and a woman. Personally, I'll never acknowledge any other sort of marriage. But I'm not so sure the state should be in the business of making those rules.

Kathy Griffin and God

So, had you read about Kathy Griffin's "Jesus Comment" at the Emmy awards program? In case you missed it and want to read exactly what was said, here you go:

I guess hell froze over. A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this. He had nothing to do with this. ... Suck it, Jesus! This award is my god now.

Some people complained that the networks refused to air the comment and instead censored it. They wrongly claimed that it was a violation of the first amendment for a company to decide what they would broadcast. Others complained that it was incredibly offensive (yet no one burned anything).

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League rightly said:

It is [a] sure bet that if Griffin had said, 'Suck it, Muhammad,' there would have been a very different reaction from the crowd and from the media who covered this event. To say nothing of the Muslim reaction."

Just imagine that one, if you will. There is a double standard, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. And no, unlike Mel Gibson, Imus, and various others who have "offended" other religions, no apology has been offered or appears to be forthcoming -- from her or the academy. Clearly it is indeed politically correct to attack and insult Christians today.

Some have responded with comments, advertising, and petitions. Various Christian entertainers are standing up to tell Hollywood that they've simply had enough with Christian bashing. They're angry and they're not taking this lying down.

But the emotion I feel most from this is pity. Did you really read what she said? She actually said that the award she received was her god. I cannot imagine how empty her life must actually be. And yes, I believe that she was completely honest and was not trying to be funny -- that award really is her god.

Now I don't know if she's put it up on her mantle where she faces it five times a day to pray -- but from her words, it appears that she has dedicated her life to earning that award. But now that she's got her god, what's left for her in her life? Think about it -- if you dedicate your life to the pursuit of some physical item like an award and you spend every waking moment working to earn it, what do you do when you finally get it? There's nothing left.

I don't know much about this Kathy Griffin. In fact, I don't even know what she does for a living, honestly. But I do know that anyone who puts their life and faith in inanimate objects really has got an empty spot in their life. They've got to really be hurting and needing something more. Christians already know how to fill that hole in their life. I just hope Ms. Griffin finds out how good Jesus really is.

The Jenna Six?

Okay, after watching the reports of yesterday in Jenna, LA, here's what apparently was going on according to the people who attended:

It was a great day

Great!
it was also a lot of fun. I met great people and made some good friends.

Sounds like a good time.
It was a big event for us

That's good.
We got matching T-shirts and drove all night. It's exciting

Can't be fun without a T-shirt!
We want to make sure everyone has a good time and is safe.

A safe, good time, was had by all.
It's been a very peaceful and happy crowd. Really these are very, very nice people

Excellent. Happy people is good.

So, does anyone else think this sounded like a calm Woodstock celebration? Sounds like everyone gathered together and hung out for a day. Everyone had a good time. Great.

Once again, I ask, what in the world is all this about? Oh, this was supposed to be a "protest?" Wow.

The Jenna Six

Can anyone explain what the heck is going on in Jena today? Here's the facts as I have been able to find them:

1. Some kids put up a few tiny nooses on a tree.

No crime was committed, according to the law, and the students who put up the nooses were punished and suspended for two days.

2. "Racial" tensions flared and there were fights and burnings (wait, was Mohammed offended?).

One student punched another student and was charged with battery and was suspended.

3. In apparent "retaliation," a group of 6 kids ganged up on, beat up, and stomped on another kid. Those 6 were charged with battery. One of those 6 had a prior criminal record and was charged as an adult.

I'm really not quite sure what everyone's complaining about.

Who's Your Daddy?

Russ Mittermeier is feeling bad. You see, according to him, his closest relatives are dying, and he wants your help. Send cash, please. Oh, and it's okay with Russ if you point guns at people and take their cash to give to him. He really wants to help his relatives.

What's happening to his relatives? Oh, the Ebola virus is killing them. How is he going to save them? Well, he doesn't know, but he appears quite sure that if you send enough money (just keep giving him cash, he'll tell you when he's got enough), that he'll be able to save them. After all, how could you sit there and do nothing while his very family dies all around him?

Who are Russ' closest family and relatives? Oh, they're apes. Not people, apes. Gorillas. That's who Russ wants to save with your money. I'm guessing that Russ had a rough childhood if he honestly believes that his closest relatives are gorillas. Hey Russ, how about you use any money YOU earn to save the animals and leave me alone!

Designated Driver?

You cannot drive drunk, right? There's few left today that would argue that you can drive drunk (I'm not saying there aren't those who are doing it still). However, this is pretty much the worst crime possible. If you're convicted of DUI, there is nothing worse you can do. You will be punished worse than just about anything else. You get massive fines (more than for just about any crime). You will get hundreds of hours (or more) of "community service." And you'll be fired from your job. You'll be looked down on by your community forever. Not for drinking, but for getting caught with a DUI.

People mostly fear this action because of the punishments, NOT because of the fact it's wrong. Therefore, people will do just about anything to avoid getting caught -- including getting underage designated drivers. This man learned well from government -- instead of risking the serious penalties for DUI, instead he took the risk of "reckless endangerment" -- a MUCH less serious crime! He still got 15 days in jail for letting his 11-year old drive, but that's a LOT less than if he had been driving.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this?

Can anyone explain any real crime here? Who was endangered? Who was hurt? Who was at risk of being hurt? I'm sorry, but I can't find a victim here. The only thing close to a "crime" was that a driver with THREE YEARS of experience driving made a wrong turn. And that's 15 days in jail. Have YOU ever made a wrong turn while driving? Do you think you should go to jail for 15 days for it?

It's not dangerous for an 11-year old to drive a car in Alaska -- especially when he's got three years of experience! Anyone want to bet if he can pass the driving test? Why should there be an arbitrary age for children driving?