Line ‘em up!

Now that yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision has lovingly pistol-whipped the city of Washington, DC….other gunowners are LINING UP to go after their respective cities. Uh…I have one word to say about that: Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

Emboldened by Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of individuals to own handguns, advocates said they would immediately challenge a San Francisco law that prohibits guns in public housing and sue other cities nationwide to overturn gun restrictions.

The California lawsuit, which the National Rifle Assn. said it would file in federal court in San Francisco today, was one of several legal challenges that gun rights groups said they would pursue in the wake of the court decision.

Hours after the Supreme Court ruling came down, two groups sued Chicago over its handgun ban, which is similar to the District of Columbia law the high court struck down. In addition, the NRA said it would file a lawsuit against Chicago today and would also sue surrounding cities that ban handguns.

In the rainbow city of San Francisco, where the only people with guns are bad guys, this is especially sweet. Just ask Inspector Harry Callahan.

I know what you’re thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? ….

Well, do ya…punk?

The Supreme Court decided yesterday that the Monsters of Muslim get to challenge their custody in an American civil court.

In a stinging rebuke to President Bush’s anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces - the administration’s justification for the detentions - but he declared, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

Justice Scalia would be absolutely correct. In fact, the proof is in the pudding (isn’t it always!)…a former detainee was a suicide bomber in Mosul….a little over a month ago. He successfully killed 6 innocent Iraqis. Go figure.

Now it’s only a matter of time before these murdering psychopaths head back to Iraq to finish what they started.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was on 60 Minutes last night. Unfortunately, there is only ONE Justice Scalia. I wish there were 8 more.

At 72, Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as “orginalism,” which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago. Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution- like a right to abortion -by interpreting the Constitution as a “living document” that adapts to changing values.

He’s on a mission as an evangelist for originalism, at home and around the world. For example, he visited the Oxford Union in England. “Sometimes people come up to me and inquire, ‘Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?’ As though it’s some weird affliction, you know, ‘When did you start eating human flesh?’” Scalia told students, who replied with laughter.

After listening to Scalia….I need to take a fresh approach in my enmity- my animus towards liberals.

“I attack ideas. I don’t attack people. And some very good people have some very bad ideas,” Scalia says. “And if you can’t separate the two, you gotta get another day job. You don’t want to be a judge. At least not a judge on a multi-member panel.”

I’ve got to remember that: there are ’some very good people’ who have ’some very bad ideas’. Now, could I apply that pragmatic goodwill to a John Kerry or a Howard Dean or an Al Gore?

Um…..on second thought, Justice Scalia is a better man than me.

Back in the day (and that might just be yesterday), businesses could refuse to provide services to customers for a variety of reasons. For example, the often displayed: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. A prominent message seen everywhere.

Well apparently, religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to refuse service.

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled on Wednesday that an evangelical Christian photographer discriminated against a lesbian couple by refusing a job to photograph the couple’s same-sex commitment ceremony.

The commission ordered Elaine and Jon Huenins, owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, N.M., to pay the lesbian couple $6,600 in attorney fees.”It is just a stunning disregard for the First Amendment,” said Jordan Lorence, a senior legal counsel for the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the photographer couple in court.

This is the insanity of living in America these days. They have FORCED this Christian couple to pony up $6,600 dollars for not photographing them. Hmmm….I can’t wait to see what happens when I go into a restaurant in San Francisco next time-not wearing shoes or a shirt.

I hope it’s a Lesbian owned establishment.

…I endorse John McCain for President.

(This endorsement, and $1.85 will get you a cup of coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts.)

I don’t really have a choice, now do I?

In the end, I always ask myself:

Who would Al-Qaeda pull the lever for in November?

Of the three possibilities, the one least likely to get Al-Qaeda’s vote is John McCain.

I don’t speak for Craig or Matt. They have to post their own opinions.

But now that the battle for the White House is truly joined, you’ll hear no more disparaging remarks from me about Mr. McCain. Is he the best choice? Nope. But, he’s the only choice now.

It never stops…..I mean….NEVER. The attack on Christianity is relentless- NOW you can’t read.

Amber Mangum was a frequent reader during lunch breaks at her Prince George’s County middle school, silently soaking up the adventures of Harry Potter and other tales in the spare minutes before afternoon classes.

The habit was never viewed as a problem- not, a lawsuit alleges, until the book she was reading was the Bible.

A vice principal at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School in Laurel last month ordered Amber, then 12, to stop reading the Bible or face punishment, according to a lawsuit filed Friday by Amber’s mother. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, alleges that the vice principal’s actions violated the girl’s civil rights.

She was reading on her own time….in her own space- and not during class. Minding her own business…not bothering ANYONE! So what’s the problem? What in the name of JESUS is going on?

Why do civil liberties only apply to Muslims and Secularists? You can bet if the girl had been reading the Koran….the ACLU, CAIR, and half the Arab world would be THREATENING the school.

And the Vice Principal would’ve been fired, and living in fear.

I get in debates all the time with people who are less security inclined, and who cry first amendment over every behavior.
The discussion that I invariably find myself in is “What’s wrong with saying things, even exaggerating the ‘truth’ in order to get your point across? Isn’t it covered by the first amendment? Shouldn’t I be free to criticize my government?”

The problem of course in never simple criticism, or speaking up. The problem lies in not taking responsibility for one’s actions, and overly blaming the government for your problems. When this happens and then the situation is overly exaggerated for political gain, it leads to other problems. Knee jerk reactions meant simply to eliminate the possibility of such a situation ever arising again. It’s the “If I’m gonna get blamed, I’d better have control” mentality. Which leads to things just like this.

Governors Bristle at Guard Proposal

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) - The nation’s governors are closing ranks in opposition to a proposal in Congress that would let the president take control of the National Guard in emergencies without consent of governors.
The idea, spurred by the destruction and chaos that followed Hurricane Katrina’s landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi, is part of a House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act. It has not yet been agreed to by the Senate.
The measure would remove the currently required consent of governors for the federalization of the Guard, which is shared between the individual states and the federal government.
“Federalization just for the sake of federalization makes no sense,” said Gov. Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, a Democrat who had rough relations with the Bush administration after the disaster last year. “You don’t need federalization to get federal troops. … Just making quick decisions can make things happen.”
Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a Republican, said “a whole bunch of governors” were opposed to the idea after the proposed change was brought up in a private lunch meeting.

One of he several things that our nation was founded on, and allowed it to be the shining star it is, is the decentralized government. More of the power was distributed lower in order to allow people to govern themselves. As opposed to a strong heavy handed central government that makes each one of us a mumbling number. And now because one locality could not take care of itself because it was too corrupt, the rest of us are going to suffer the effects. If the federal government gets this power, it will not stop there. The slow march to a central government authority will continue, and accelerate as long as we continue to cry loudly like children to be taken care of. We are on the march, first to Socialism, then to communism, and I suspect that was the point all along. America is taking itself for granted and getting exactly what it is asking for. When you cry loud enough to be taken care of, the government will listen, in this country it has to, and it will start treating you like the child you are acting like. But nothing is free and everything has a price. The price for this one? Freedom.

The National Guard has a duel purpose that is very important, serving the interests of the State and the interests of the nation. Thus you find them filling sand bags one day, and deploying in desert camouflage the next. Giving the Federal government over-ride authority demolishes one of these purposes. The National Guard is there not only to serve the Nation, but also the state. If a dispute over the powers of the state versus the nation ever arises, the National Guard ensures that states interests are served. The feds getting over-ride means that the states no longer have that bargaining chip. States rights then become secondary, and the roles will eventually become reversed. The states will exist to serve the Feds, not the other way around as it should be.

…by the latest Media inspired story? Here’s how the latest firestorm began:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

“Using the data to analyze calling patterns.”

Another way of saying that is…oh I hate this over used phrase so much…

Connecting the dots.
There.
I said it.

Isn’t that what the NSA is SUPPOSED to do?

Now, one more thing.

Does anyone, find it coincidental that the current chief of the NSA was nominated to head the CIA yesterday, and this story comes out today?

I haven’t done one of these in a long time, and today is a special day.
Happy Birthday Jay.

Today I turn 29 years old, and Stop the ACLU turns one. We started out on blogsnot. Here is our first post. Enough about that…on with the blogburst.

Top Ten Myths of the ACLU:

10. The ACLU is non-partisan:

The Truth: Not only were they founded on Communism, they are about as liberal an organization in existence. The public saw first hand in 1988 how the ACLU was involved in politics. “The portrayal of the ACLU as a radical liberal lobby reached its climax in the 1988 presidential campaign when George Bush used ACLU membership as a black mark against his opponent Michael Dukakis. The perception had taken root that the ACLU of 1988 has about as much to do with civil liberties as the AT&T of 1988 has to do with telegraphs.”

“Social reform, in a liberal direction, is the sine qua non of the ACLU. Its record, far from showing a momentary wavering from impartiality, is replete with attempts to reform American society according to the wisdom of liberalism. The truth of the matter is that the ACLU has always been a highly politicized organization.”William Donahue

They may take a token case here and there for the other side to bolster its non-partisan claims, but those cases are far outweighed by their numerous other cases that are clearly intended to further its partisan agenda. They even keep scorecards on Congressmen and Representatives. Their claim of non-partisanship is what gives them their tax-exempt status, and nothing is further from the truth. They have split their organization into two in order to lobby their causes to the legislative branch.

9. The ACLU Cares About Your Privacy Rights:

The Truth: Despite all the rhetoric over the current NSA program, where the ACLU opposes the U.S. listening to traitor’s having conversations with terrorists, the ACLU has no room to talk when it comes to violating privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders’ commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization’s frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Daniel S. Lowman, vice president for analytical services at Grenzebach Glier & Associates, the data firm hired by the A.C.L.U., said the software the organization is using, Prospect Explorer, combs a broad range of publicly available data to compile a file with information like an individual’s wealth, holdings in public corporations, other assets and philanthropic interests.

The issue has attracted the attention of the New York attorney general, who is looking into whether the group violated its promises to protect the privacy of its donors and members. NY Times

Read the rest of this entry »