Was Whitney Houston a Hero Too?

 Democrats, Freedom, Military  No Responses »
Feb 222012
 

Whitney Houston died more than a week ago and I said nothing. There were people who knew her far better and could talk of her accomplishments more accurately than I could ever hope to do. When Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey ordered his state flags to be lowered to half-staff in honor of Ms. Houston, I said nothing, even though I felt our soldiers deserved at least the same treatment as a celebrity singer. But when a liberal says something as idiotic as “Whitney Houston was a Hero Too,” I can no longer hold my silence. I have to say something.

These liberals who put Whitney Houston on the same pedestal as our soldiers have no idea of what our military does, or else they would not make such idiotic statements. Ok…I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, hoping they would not intentionally make such an idiotic statement. But in the end, does it matter? The liberal mindset says there is no such thing as evil and there is no such thing as good since everyone is the same. The liberal mindset say that it is patriotic to denounce the US and unpatriotic to criticize those same individuals for doing so. The liberal mindset says there is no such thing as a military hero since we are all the same, but if there were, anyone who contributes to society is a real hero. The liberal mindset can not see the difference between those who protect our freedoms and those who use those same freedoms to abuse their own bodies. I guess the liberal mindset would also say that it is a tragedy that someone like Whitney Houston killed herself, but at least she did not kill anybody else like our soldiers are trained to kill and do so all the time. The liberal mindset can see no difference between those who kill for freedom and those who kill for money, or greed, or whatever. The liberal mindset has a screwed up view of the world since they see the US as the bad part of that world.

I found a post which sums up how so many liberals feel. Take a look at the last paragraph of the writer from the uber-liberal website, The Huffington Post:

The moving testimonies of those that knew her and worked with her define her as a very kind, giving person and a loving parent. How can anyone be so heartless as to disrespect Whitney by making these unfair, idiotic comparisons to how we view our military soldiers? If you really want to honor our fallen heroes, treat everyone with respect, especially one who gave so much of herself to the world through her art. (emphasis by TRS)

Ok….so Whitney Houston sang….okay, I get that. But that does not put her in the same boat as our fallen soldiers who gave their all so that those on the left could say such idiotic things. The writer made a passing reference to Lt. Michael Murphy who was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for his bravery and linked it to Whitney as if they were the same thing. The writer is wrong. The two have nothing in common at all. The first died by her own hand by abusing her body. The former died trying to save his comrades and protecting our freedoms.

We could say this post was just an isolated incident, that the writer is a lone maverick in the liberal world. Unfortunately this is not the case. The liberal mindset can see no difference between those who contribute to society and die in a drugged stupor and those who gave their lives defending our freedoms. You have to understand, our soldiers kill people and that is wrong, they say. The liberal mindset does not like our military and they do not like the United States of America as they continually show to the world.

Whitney Houston was a great singer, but she essentially killed herself with drugs. He death is a shame and a loss to the music world, but to say that she was a hero just like our soldiers is misguided, foolish and wrong. Our soldiers are the true heroes and that is something we should strive to remember.

 Posted by at 11:02 pm

Why Should We Care If the Definition of a Marriage is Changed?

 Freedom  No Responses »
Feb 102012
 

There are a lot of people who have this question: why is it the government’s role to define what constitutes a marriage. There are many sides to this issue. Those on the left espouse the belief that a marriage is what ever you want it to be. As I was told a few short days ago when I expressed the view that sometime soon a man may want to marry a ham sandwich. I was told, that as long as it was not my ham sandwich, it was none of my business. That basically characterizes the left’s view: anything goes as long as it does not expressly impinge upon someone else’s freedom. That view of course is not set in stone. If you represent the clergy or conservatives, then they do not care if it inhibits your freedom.

Those on the right believe it is in our best interest to define what constitutes a marriage. They would limit ‘marriages’ to a legal bond between a man and a woman. Anything else is up for debate as long as the ‘anything else’ is not defined as a marriage. Call it a ‘civil union’ if you wish but not a marriage.

The views expressed by Libertarians is somewhere in the middle. They claim the Constitution does not expressly allow the government to define or constrict the views on marriage. They want the government to ‘butt out!’ There is some merit to this view that the government need to butt out. Politicians try to control too many aspects of our lives now. So now what?

The Constitution is rather vague, but in my opinion this great timeless document does allow some wiggle room on the issue. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says the following:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (emphasis added by TRS)

General Welfare?! The dictionary defines the term as: health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. Now that we have the definition, we have to understand what the definition means. For that, we need to look at history. To achieve that I am not going back to the pre-Constitution days, because a going back just under a century will do the purpose.

After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in October of 1917, the Communists came to believe that under Communism everyone needed to be equal. And since marriages are inherently un-equal, the party decided to redefine marriages. What it essentially did was to outlaw marriage. Since most of Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was Orthodox Christian, and most people believed that having children out of wedlock was against the teachings of the bible, people quit having children. The low birth rate so alarmed the Politburo that they quickly reversed the decision and the birthrate went back to normal.

The United States is by-in-large a Christian country. We too do not like to have children out of wedlock, or if we do, the situation is usually rectified quickly. What would happen if marriages in this country we done away with or redefined to the point where the definition was a joke? (This is what is happening by defining marriage as any relationship whatsoever.) The very definition of marriage becomes meaningless. As a result it is very conceivable that birthrates will suffer.

Stability is also a factor. Marriage offers something concrete, a cornerstone if you will. If the definition of a marriage is watered down to the point where liberals want it, what incentive is there for couples to remain together even after they have children.

And so because of these factors, it is incumbent upon the government to define a marriage as being between one man and one woman. Without the stability of marriage, our heritage is lost and without our heritage our country is lost.

 Posted by at 6:57 pm

Eric Holder Accuses Republicans in Congress of Racism for Questioning Him About ‘Fast and Furious’

 Barak Obama, Democrats, Freedom  No Responses »
Dec 212011
 

Does Attorney General Eric Holder actually believe that Republicans do not like him or the President, just because they are both black? These people are really delusional, they are totally off their rockers. I do not like them because they are destroying our country. That is all. I could care less about the color of either one of them. They could be green and I would not care. I do care about my country and what they are doing to her.

Spending is totally out of control with no end in sight. Regulations are coming at a pace unseen since FDR. Holder and Obama are suing the states who are attempting to enforce federal laws on immigration. They are seeing selling weapons to drug dealers and gun runners. The Attorney General is even trying keep states from having fair and free elections. And it is the Democrats who are concerned about race.

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Liberals have always loved playing the race card, it is a knee-jerk reaction to any attack. They know that throwing race into the mix will usually stop debate, because it changes the subject to one which is less palatable to your enemies. The idea of playing the race card is an old trick–accuse your enemies of something so heinous and they will back off.

Unfortunately, the card has been played too much by too many people. Look the politicians who have used race for their benefit: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shelia Jackson Lee, Jeremiah Wright, Cynthia_McKinney, Crystal Mangumand (Duke Lacross accuser) many, many more. It is a tired old story, and that dog don’t hunt.

So where do we go from here? Eric Holder will continue to be a distraction for the Obama administration and so he should resign. By accusing his enemies of racism, the Attorney General has diminished both the contributions of legitament black leaders before him, but also those who have actually suffered from real racism. Either way, Attorney General Eric Holder needs to resign. It is wrong for a sitting Attorney General to falsely accuse Republicans of being racists, just because they are questioning him. By playing the race card, Holder is disgracing his office.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

 Posted by at 7:55 pm

Things Are Not Looking Good for Obama, But Don’t Count Him Out

 Barak Obama, Freedom  No Responses »
Dec 122011
 

Things are not looking good for the Obama administration. In today’s Rasmussen tracking poll, most Americans support the repeal of ObamaCare.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law passed by Congress in March 2010.

On top of that comes another Rasmussen poll in which only 20% Strongly approve of Obama’s job performance while 39% Strongly disapprove. 33% approve of his handling of the economy. The unemployment rate is still high at 8.6 percent. And a whopping 73.6% think America is on the wrong track.

There is only bad news on the horizon for the President. There are a multitude of problems–unemployment and a stagnant economy on the domestic front with Iran, Iraq, terrorism, China, Russia, and the EU on the foreign front. And yet the President is like Mohamed Ali doing the Rope-a-dope. He will bob and weave avoiding the heavy punches, taking little if no damage himself, and inflicting very little damage to his opponents. And in the end, the President will declare that he is the greatest president ever, and the media and the left will cheer.

The real scary part is that 40% will support Barack Obama, no matter what. Tomorrow, we could find out that the President is not an American citizen, is a closet Muslim, is a socialist, and does not really like America, yet 40% will like him. That is scary. That kind of cavalier attitude by the American people is what brought Hitler to power in Germany.

In the end the American people may well re-elect Barack Obama to another four years. Four more years of endless regulations, tax increases, partisanship, class warfare and a declining America. Four more years of bobbing and weaving with nothing of substance accomplished. When all the chanting of Obama’s name is o’re, and the clamor for a third term dwindles, when the hype starts to fade, and cheering echoes of how great Obama is begins to die away, and when the thrill of electing the first black president ebbs, and the guilt of America’s past is slowly washed away; what are we left with?

Generation upon generation have hoped to leave the next in better shape than we did. Let us hope that we leave our children with a country at all. America will eventually take stock of what they did. Like a drunken sailor’s night has to come to grips with the consequences of his night out on the town, so will we after the thrill is gone. Electing Barack Obama made us feel good about ourselves. We had finally buried the sins of our forefathers, slavery, by electing a black man to the highest office in the land. We had voted for someone totally unqualified to be president to assuage our guilt. Like Nero before us, we cheered while the US burned. But that is not the point, because….at least we feel better, right?

 Posted by at 10:54 pm

Supreme Court Takes Up Texas Redistricting, Democracy Makes a Comeback

 Democrats, Freedom, Texas  No Responses »
Dec 122011
 

Today, the march of freedom took another step as the Supreme Court decided to they needed to take a look at how a three judges in a federal court in San Antonio redrew the Congressional districts. Showing their true colors, the judges made sure the Democrats would win all the new Congressional seats.

On Friday evening, the nation’s highest court granted Texas GOP officials’ request for a stay on a court-drawn map that benefited Democrats. The court’s future decision on the map will affect the boundaries of the Lone Star State’s 36 Congressional districts, a handful of which could be crucial in deciding control of the chamber next year.

Unfortunately, the decision by the High Court will not come until after the deadline for candidates filing for their seats. Even then, the court may do any number of things–send the plan back to the Texas House for redrawing, send the plan back to the three judge panel with instructions, throw the entire thing out, or even approve the San Antonio court’s plan. But most will take a lot of time which throws the Texas march primary into chaos. Candidates are left wondering where to file, when to file, and even what district to file in.

No matter what the outcome is, democracy has won today. Which ever way the Supreme Court rules, the federal court in San Antonio has been given an embarrassing reprimand. Gerrymandering is wrong, even if it is done by a court.

 Posted by at 6:50 pm

Return of the Incompetent 12

 Freedom  No Responses »
Jul 052011
 

Our system of justice in the United States is the best in the world and so it is with that in mind that I write the following post. I am outraged by the verdict of the Incompetent 12. How can 12 people who are presented with such overwhelming evidence of Kaylee Anthony’s guilt in her daughter’s death, return a not guilty verdict on murder, but say she did lie to investigators?

It reminds me of a college basketball I watched this season, in the Road to the Final Four. I do not remember who was playing who, but as a former high school basketball coach I will remember the play. A player was dribbling the basketball to the left side of the goal and attempted a jump shot. As he left the floor, the ball slipped out of his hands. He caught the ball and landed on the floor. The player briefly looked at the referee clearly expecting a traveling call. When none came, he started dribbling the ball once again. It was then that the ref called a double dribble. The problem is this: if the player was guilty of double dribbling the ball, then he was also guilty of traveling with the ball. If he was not guilty of traveling, then he was not guilty of double dribbling either. By missing the original call, the ref set up quite a conundrum.

The same applies to Kaylee Anthony. If she is guilty for lying to investigators, then she should also be guilty of killing her daughter. If she is not guilty of lying to investigators, then she is not guilty of killing her daughter either. For the same reasons as the basketball game, the jurors set up a conundrum. Ms. Anthony can not be guilty of one without the other and vise versa.

Either way, a travesty of justice occurred today. A mother got away with murdering her young daughter for the purpose of partying. Whether the death came by accident or by premeditation is immaterial, the daughter is dead because her mother wanted to party.

While I still think our system of justice is the best in the world, it still has problems: O.J. Simpson got away with murder because of the Incompetent 12 and so did Kaylee Anthony. Her name will go down is history along with O.J.’s as examples of miscarriages of justice.

 Posted by at 4:07 pm

Dude, Where’s My Country?

 Freedom  No Responses »
Jun 132011
 

Dude, where’s my country? There was a time when Americans did for themselves. We were called the ‘can do’ nation. Winston Churchill, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, once said of Americans that the difficult they do with ease, while the impossible may take a little longer. We prided ourselves with our ability to fend for ourselves. We were proud of our nation’s heritage where we overcame great odds, took on the world’s greatest superpower, wrote the world’s most incredible democracy, spread ourselves across this vast county, and built a great nation. We joined together to build the world’s greatest economic engine. We joined together to reach for the stars. And we joined together to take on those ideologies which sought to destroy our democracy: fascism and communism. Together we and our forefathers (and mothers) constructed the most powerful, generous and compassionate country the world has ever known.

What has happened to us? We no longer look to ourselves to solve our problems. We look to the government. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of our Declaration of Independence seems to have foreseen many of our problems today. Either that or he knows the route democracy takes.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Too many trees, call for the government to do something. Too many …., once again, call for the government to do something. Too many…to many…to many… We have so many laws now just to protect us against ourselves, to protect ‘endangered’ wildlife, to….you name it. (In my own business, I need a government permit saying that I am exempt from the need for a permit. How stupid is that?) Because of some people’s call for more government, we no longer really own our land. What happened to us? What happened to our freedoms? What has happened to my country?

Thomas Jefferson had a reason to be fearful of our democracy. Slowly, but surly, we are destroying democracy in our country. One last quote from Jefferson:

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Democracy is under assult. The question is, who is going to win. If we stand by and do nothing, we will lose our hold not only with democracy, but our very way of life. Our freedoms hang in the balance.

 Posted by at 1:31 pm

Will Obama Administration Employ Federal Officers to Enforce ObamaCare

 Barak Obama, Democrats, Freedom  No Responses »
Jun 082011
 

There are two seemingly unrelated stories which if tied together provide an ominous warning to the American people concerning ObamaCare. Right now wenty-six states are challenging Barack Obama’s healthcare plan in court. Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal has been arguing for the law in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That argument is at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the healthcare law and its mandate that nearly all Americans have health insurance by 2014.

…

Katyal argued that healthcare is unique and unlike purchasing other products, like vegetables in a grocery store. “You can walk out of this courtroom and be hit by a bus,” he said. And if such a person has no insurance, a hospital and the taxpayers will have to pay the costs of his emergency care, he said.

Katyal argued that Congress could reasonably decide that since everyone will likely need medical care at some time in their lives, everyone who can afford it should pay part of the cost. And he said the courts should uphold the law under Congress’ broad power to regulate commerce in this country.

Wow! To me that is indeed a stretch. Everyone needs health insurance because of what may happen. Of course if I get run over by a bus, I will probably die. In that case I will not need insurance. Or if I do, the bus company will provide it through their insurance. The fact remains that the law requires everyone to buy health insurance or face a fine or tax or whatever the administration is calling these days.

But what happens if you fail to buy health insurance and you do not pay your fine or tax or …. Then what? For that we can look at this other totally unrelated story. Stockton, California resident Kenneth Wright does not have a criminal record but he woke up at six o’clock in the morning to find 15 police officers outside his house.

As Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts, he said the officers barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn.
“He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there,” Wright said.
According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children, ages 3, 7, and 11, and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house.

“They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids,” Wright said.
As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for – Wright’s estranged wife – was not there.
…
U.S. Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. Hamilton would not say specifically why the raid took place except that it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

There was some discussion whether or not the arrest warrant was related to defaulting on student loans. The arresting agency is …a semi-independent branch of the education department that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud, embezzlement of federal aid and bribery, according to Hamilton. The agency serves 30 to 35 search warrants a year.

Taken together these two stories beg the question, will some agency or department possibly within the Commerce Dept. or maybe even Health and Human Services actually employ their own federal agents who will fine and maybe even arrest those who do not buy health insurance? If so, it will set a very dangerous precedent and our individual rights will be in jeopardy.

Fortunately the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seems to be leaning against ObamaCare being constitutional.

And in an ominous sign for the administration, the judges opened the arguments by saying they knew of no case in American history where the courts had upheld the government’s power to force someone to buy a product.

That argument is at the heart of the constitutional challenge to the healthcare law and its mandate that nearly all Americans have health insurance by 2014.

“I can’t find any case like this,” said Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. “If we uphold this, are there any limits” on the power of the federal government? he asked.

Indeed, there would be no limits at all to the power of the federal government if ObamaCare is not overturned. In over 220 years Congress has never seen fit to force people to engage in commerce. The very definition of FREEDOM being allowed the opportunity to be responsible for your own actions. Unlimited government power takes away the people’s power to live their lives the way they want.
Hat Tip: Outside the Beltway
Michele Malkin

 Posted by at 6:08 pm

UN Wants to Take Our Guns; Obama and Clinton Support This Action

 Barak Obama, Freedom  1 Response »
Jun 072011
 

I have never been a big defender of the United Nations. The organization has done nothing to protect nations or individuals. They stand by and let people die right in front of them. The UN has become an organization where petty tyrants while denying rights to their own people have used it as a forum to denounce the United States for any and all perceived injustices. The organization has become a test bed for liberal policies as it supports free abortions on demand and disavows Christianity in all forms. It has become a place where successful countries like the United States is expected to conform to flawed treaties like Kyoto while smaller and developing countries (like China) are allowed a free pass. And now the UN wants to take your guns as well.

A new treaty supported by the UN, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would call for the US to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Called the U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution, the treaty has firm support in the Obama administration who has a rabid anti-gun political history while in the Senate and even as president. He even voted against a law in Illinois which was modeled after the Texas Castle law allowing someone to defend themselves and their ‘castle’ if they have reason to believe someone is attempting to break into their domicile or have reason to believe they are in danger. Interestingly the then Senator Obama voted against this law.

Liberal will say that no one needs to carry a weapon except for the police since it is law enforcements’ job to protect people. This is a complete fallacy. Not only does law enforcement not always defend you, they have no obligation to do so. Under an 1856 Supreme Court ruling and upheld in 1982 and 2005, the courts ruled that “We held that the so-called “substantive” component of the Due Process Clause does not “requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.”

In 1982 the In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals said that

“…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against criminals or madmen. The Constitution does not require Federal or State government to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.”

So, what does all this mean. It means that people can not expect law enforcement to protect them. They must depend on themselves. Without weapons people are incapable of defending themselves either from criminals or from a corrupt government.

Much is made of Adolf Hitler and his war against the Jews. Some historians will say that the German leader actually loosened laws allowing gun ownership. This is just partially correct. Hitler made it easier for everyone to own guns, except Jews.

The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been “disarmed” with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment.

And how did Hitler find out who owned guns? That was easy.

Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.

And now the UN wants to ban weapons in the United States. Finding out who currently owns guns will not be hard either as guns are registered. If you think Barack Obama will stand up to the United Nations taking of your weapons, guess again. He wants to take our weapons, he wants the American people to be un-armed. Our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution for a reason: people without weapons can not defend themselves, their property or their country. Hitler knew this and so does our President. Makes you wonder what the Barack Obama has in mind.

Hat Tip: Forbes

 Posted by at 5:20 pm

Gun and Privacy Rights Under Fire in Illinois

 Freedom  No Responses »
Mar 032011
 

This is scary.

In a showdown over the privacy rights of gun owners, the Illinois State Police are refusing to release a list identifying all firearm permit holders in the state after Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan determined that the information “must” be made public.

Ordering the Illinois State Police to release the names of those who have gun permits is a slippery slope.  So many violations to civil liberty are taking place: privacy, the 2nd Amendment, …  Bad news and this is just the start.  And this begs the question, if the Illinois State Police are required to turn over this obviously private list, when what else is not private.  Doctor visits, psychiatric visits, or even when you buy an unhealthy burger.  And then having a list of gun owners will give anyone a list who wants them taken away.

 Posted by at 11:19 am
 Older Entries
© 2011 The Right State Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha