As I lie here

Today I lie here
Thinking of the life I lived
Of the choices I made

I think of my friends
And of my enemies
Who made me who I am

I think of lovers past
Paramours I knew
Who made life worth living

Mostly I think of you
Keeper of the flame in my heart
My queen in life’s game of chess

I think of the laughs we shared
And the tears we shed
Even the many fights we had

As I lie here today
My breath becoming shallow
A smile forms on my face

Today I go into the great unknown
But fear is nonexistent
Memories of you keeping me strong

My eyes glazing over
I see your face one last time
As you lean in to give me one last kiss

My last breath escaping I whisper
The words that brought meaning to my life
“I love you”

——————————————————

I wrote this sometime last year and posted it on a couple other sites with little or no feedback. Let me know what you thnk.

Conservative? In Hollywood?

When will the conservatives in Hollywood stand up and offer an opposing voice to the likes of Sean Penn, Whoopi Goldberg, and others?

There are a few I know of, such as Kelsey Grammar, Angie Harmon, Gary Sinise, and Chuck Norris. There have been a few on Beck recently, like John Rich (formerly of Lonestar & Big and Rich), Jeff Foxworthy, Craig T. Nelson (that’s right, Coach is a conservative), and a few others. Is this everybody? Are the others afraid of voicing their opinions for fear of being black-balled?

If the media is going to take conservative-ism seriously again, these people need to stand up. Listen to what Mr. Incredible himself had to say about the taxation w/out representation:

Is there anyone else in Hollywood who has the guts to stand up for their conservative beliefs? If so, stand up and be counted.

Affirmative Action

Do we really need it? Is it fair? Is it legal? No, no, and no!

Let’s see, we have the first black president in U.S. history. Was it affirmative action that got him there? Nope. It was his rhetoric, not skin color, that got him elected.

Is it fair to hire someone based on the color of their skin or their ethnic background instead of their qualifications? Um, that, too, is a no. Let me tell ya, if I owned a business and had one position open with three candidates: one white, one hispanic, and one black, who do you think I’ll hire? It depends on who the most qualified person is. That’s the way the majority of companies operate. Face it, they’re in the business of making money. Sure fifty, even twenty years ago they might’ve hired based on race. But profits are so important now, they’re going to hire the most qualified.

All affirmative action is is government-sponsored discrimination. Plain and simple. Anybody that thinks they deserve a job because they’re black, brown, red, yellow, whatever, needs a reality check. The fact of the matter is that sometimes a white guy will be more qualified that a hispanic, and vice versa. So can we please do away with the politically correct anti-discrimination discrimination and get some common sense back in our lives?

ACORN 8

These people I like. What? You haven’t heard of them? You should really go to www.acorn-8.net and find out more about them.

I don’t have much to say about this, other than these are good people who want to bring the organization back to its roots. Current and former board members who have taken up the fight to open ACORN’s books to bring the corruption into the light so it can be dealt with and taxpayer money is no longer sent to a corrupt organization. They do this with no regard to their personal safety. They are threatened daily (I don’t know by whom). Please keep these people in your prayers and support them any way you can.

Beginning of the KKK

Been doing a little research lately. Not too long ago I heard someone talking about the link between the KKK and Democrats, so I figured I’d check into that when I had time.

Turns out they were right, sort of. According to the TN Encyclopedia, the Klan was first organized by six Confederate veterans as a fraternity-style social club in late May early June in 1866. They got the name from the Greek kuklos (meaning band or circle) and the English clan. The KKK was a mock fraternity.

However, in 1867, as Republicans were recruiting newly freed black men, conservative Democrats saw this as a rallying point to protect the white conservative confederate way of life. They sought to drive Republicans, freed men, and their allies from the polls. Thus the KKK became a de facto arm of the southern Democratic party.

I know everyone knows the name Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was not, as popular opinion would have you believe, a founder of the KKK. He was, however, the first Grand Wizard. What they don’t tell you is that in 1869, he called for the disbandment of the Klan believing they had served their purpose.

It wasn’t until 1915 that the Klan was revived. In the aftermath of WWI, Scopes, the Red Scare, etc, many viewed the Klan as the protectors of traditional American values. This is the Klan we have operating today. This is a very short summation of the history of the KKK. If you want to know more, you should go to the link above.

So while many believe that the KKK is a right-wing extremist group, it would be more apropos to say it is and always has been a left-wing, but conservative, extremist group.

Leave the man alone

They say he flip-flopped. You say he caved. I say he listened.
Republicans are saying that even though Obama made the right decision in the end, he did it for the wrong reasons. Democrats are saying that we should have more transparency (which I agree with, but not in this instance).
I say he listened to his national security advisors and military leaders.

They don’t want the photos released. You do. I say don’t do it.
Republicans don’t want the photos released because they would be used as recruitment tools for terrorists and fuel hatred towards America.
Democrats say their civil liberties were violated so therefor the photos should be released.
I agree with the Republican argument, but I’ll also add that those responsible for the actions in those pictures have been investigated and punished accordingly so releasing the photos would accomplish nothing.

Why is this even an issue? When Obama’s own national security advisers say releasing the photos will put Americans in harms way and military leaders say it will put our troops in even more danger, what is there to argue about? Why am I stuck defending Obama, from the left and right? This is an awkward position for me. This is like the third or fourth time since his inauguration I’ve had to defend him, and I don’t even like him!

I believe he made the right call (you have no idea how hard it is for me to say that). If put in his shoes, seeing the intelligence he sees daily, what call would you make? That, unfortunately, is a question we can’t answer because we don’t  see the intelligence he does. This is a call I’m going to trust him to make. Hopefully he’ll classify the images so they won’t be leaked. And if they’re leaked before they’re classified, I hope the guilty parties pay a huge fine.

New gun laws

Usually I’m opposed to new firearm legislation, but I like these laws going through in Utah, Montana, and Texas. Hopefully the rest of the country will follow suit. Basically what the law says is that, in Montana for example, any gun and ammo made in Montana which is kept in Montana, never crosses state lines, is exempt from federal regulations. The guns and ammo would be stamped “Made in Montana”.

This is just the small picture. The big picture is that these laws are sure to be tested in court. And if the courts uphold these laws, the states will start getting their intrastate commerce rights back. Rights which were taken away in 1942 in the Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.

In that case, a farmer set aside one acre of his wheat crop (which was in excess of the marketing quota for his farm) for personal use. He set aside some which he fed to his livestock, and the rest of that one acre was for he and his family. I can’t explain it that well because I’m just learning about it, but you can read about it if you go here.

My point is that these laws aren’t just about guns. They’re about something I like to call states rights. If something is made in your state and never leaves your state, why should the federal government have any say-so in how it’s regulated? Then people will argue that we’ll have to stop receiving federal money for schools, roads, etc. Fine. Let the states handle it. Look at the state of our education system. It’s appalling and the government (state and federal) fund it. In a 2006 study, eighth grade private school average reading scores were 18.1 points higher than the average public school reading scores. Average private school math scores were 12.3 points higher. Sure wish I could’ve gone to a private school. I mean, I’m already smart. Just imagine how much smarter I could be.

Colin Powell said Americans want more government. I vehemently disagree with that and recent news stories (if you know where to look) will prove his wrongness (see, if I had gone to private school I would know that “wrongness” isn’t a word). From the number of tea parties to state rights laws, it appears that Americans want less government.

(I hope the guys at teapartyus.com don’t mind me using their pic at the top of this post)

Should a Supreme Court Justice be empathetic?

No. Absolutely not. It’s the job of the Supreme Court to uphold the law. Period. But not according to Obama.  “I said earlier that I thought empathy was an important quality, and I continue to believe that. You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you, but you have to be able to stand in somebody’s else shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living.”

It doesn’t matter how the law affects an individual. It’s not the job of the court to make laws. It’s their job to make sure the law is applied equally. Just read the Supreme Court Oath of Office: “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” I will administer justice without respect to persons… Now if a law is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court decides that, they can base their decision based on the Constitution. Then Congress can decide what to do about that law.

Empathy is fine. Empathy is essential for when we go about deciding how we deal with people we interact with. But empathy has no place in the courts. Empathy should be left for the legislators. It should be they who empathize when writing a law (as well as making sure it’s Constitutional).

But now we have an empathetic nominee to replace Justice Souter, Sonia Sotomayor. Is it any wonder why I’m not excited? I did some research on her (it took all of about 5 minutes) and I really don’t like what I see. Let’s start with her record on controversial issues, which I got from CNN.com. First, and my biggest problem with her voting record, has to do with the New Haven firefighter case. “Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city’s fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam”. So instead of promoting a white firefighter or the lone hispanic firefighter who qualified based on the exam, they just threw all the exams out and didn’t promote anyone. And she was okay with that. Are you? This case is currently in front of the Supreme Court.

“In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch’s argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor’s ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to “wasteful, duplicative litigation.” Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)” Would you want your state courts tied up with these “wasteful, duplicative” lawsuits? Apparently she does.

What about this statement she made at UCBerkeley in 2001: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”. Doesn’t that seem somewhat racist and sexist? I am more apt to agree with Justice O’Connor, who said: “…a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases”.

And thus the point of this rant. It’s wisdom, not empathy, that our Judiciary Branch needs.

C12H22O11

Has Domino Sugar lost their minds? C12H22O11 is the chemical makeup of sugar (the C12 stands for 12 atoms of carbon) yet they want to label their products as being carbon free?

Have we so demonized the carbon atom that we don’t even want it in our sugar? BTW, it’s impossible to have sugar without the carbon. Otherwise you have 11 molecules of water (H2O times 11 = H22O11).

And what about our bodies? We’re carbon-based life forms. Should we regulate ourselves? Should we pay higher taxes the fatter we are, since our bodies would have more carbon than a thinner person? Or what about asthmatics? Should we pay higher taxes because when we have an asthma attack we breath out more CO2 than the average person?

And those damn plants! How dare they release CO2 into the atmosphere? Of course, they also use it to survive. Maybe we should exterminate those plants who put our more CO2 than the average plant. Or just give them a certain amount of “carbon credits” and if they don’t use them all they can sell them to other plants who are in danger of exceeding their carbon credits.

Can we please stop the idiocy!? Yes, man has contributed to global warming (the whole .74 degrees of it over the last 150 years). The extent of that contribution, however, has yet to be determined. There are, so far, no definitive answers as to how we go about minimizing that contribution. Face it, we can’t eliminate our CO2 output completely, otherwise all the plants would die off, and that would be even worse for the environment than what we’re doing now.

Oh, and Domino? Their sugar products aren’t carbon free. It’s an advertising gimmick trying to capitalize on the “green” movement. Like I said, if sugare were carbon free, all you’d have is water.

It’s common sense, people

I’ve recently finished reading Common Sense and for the life of me I can’t see how anyone can support the current (and previous) administrations “ambitious” spending. Take this quote from Paine: “…security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears more likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.” Least expense and greatest benefit…

Oh, how about this quote which can be used to argue against the recent stimulus, omnibus, and FY 2010 budget, among others: “the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered.” Well, Mr. Paine thought simplicity was best. Too bad our congressmen and women have forgotten this common sense argument. Take the recent 900+ page bill where Chairman Waxman hired a speed reader to read the bill. The highway act in the ’50′s, in comparison, which transformed the country, was just over 20 pages.

Perhaps these politicians should pay close attention to these next two quotes: “Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.” Honesty, what a concept. There are no honest politicians anymore. Just politicians. I really like this one: “…he will not put off the true charcter of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.” Look past the now and into the future…present actions have future consequences.

How about this: “Is the power which is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says no to this question is an independent, for independency means no more than whether we shall make our own laws, or, whether the king, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us, ‘there shall be no laws but such as I like.’”

Another favorite: “He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.” This goes for all Democrats (Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Obama, etc) and Republicans (Limbaugh, Hannity, W., Cheney, etc.) who pit one party against the other. Here’s an idea: instead of pointing the finger at the other guy, why not actually try to fix the problems facing this country? “The science of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages, who should discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of individual happiness with the least national expense.”

“The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is capable of reflection.” “Our present condidtion is, legislation without law, wisdom without a plan, a constitution without a name, and…perfect independence contending for dependence.” Never were truer words spoken. We have an intrusive, or progressive, government who acts like they want to dictate our every move, from what kind of car we drive to what job we have to what kind of healthcare we have. Let the private sector do what it does best, and that is take care of itself.

These are just a few quotes from a masterpiece written by Thomas Paine, Common Sense. Every argument against what our government is doing, and has been since Teddy Roosevelt, is in this book. The reason our ancestors left England was to escape power hungry rulers whose only interest was ruling over their subjects, not ensuring their happiness. What we have now, and have had since Teddy, is that kind of government, with a few exceptions along the way.

Of the three unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, two have been violated by the current and previous administrations, Bush and Obama. Our right to liberty no longer exists. The government spends our money @ an alarming rate without our consent. They’re also spending our childrens and grandchildrens money. California woke up the other day and told the state “Hell no, you’re not taking any more of our money. As a matter of fact, you’re not getting a raise.” I never thought I’d hear myself say this, but we should follow California’s example.

Our right to pursue happiness is gone as well. Because of the massive spending by the government, meant to save jobs, I’ll be unemployed by August or September. The government has added over 70,000 jobs. Just so you know, our tax dollars pay for those jobs. I have some questions: How will they pay for those jobs when unemployment tops 10%? With the government adding jobs while the private sector sheds jobs, how are they going to pay for those extra programs and workers? You don’t think they’ll raise taxes do you? How am I free to pursue my own happiness when I’m paying for others to pursue theirs?

I’ll leave you with this: How can you solve problems caused by too much borrowing and spending with more borrowing and spending? “…by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise we use them meanly and pitifully.”