Reaganwannabe

Gun Rights and Control

2009-05-09T15:57:00.001-07:00

This here is an Essay I wrote for English class.

“An 88 year old woman was in her home, she heard a knock on the door, A stranger was outside, he asked to use her telephone, She let the man in, but instead of using the telephone, he beat her, raped her, and stole 50 dollars, she somehow managed to get a hold of her husband’s gun, and shot the attacker, he was later picked up at the hospital for gunshot wounds.”

This is a story from the Southern Sentinel a newspaper in Ripley, Mississippi. Her story and many like it are found on the first page of the National Rifle Association’s newspaper The American Rifleman these stories serve to highlight the need of firearms for home defense. However, firearms also serve other purposes, such as hunting, fighting back against a tyrannical government, and unfortunately, criminal acts. The Second Amendment to the constitution states “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” but what does this text mean? Does it mean an individual right to bear arms? Or the right of law enforcement and the Army National Guard? I believe this text refers to an Individual right to keep and bear arms by the populace.
The second amendment was written in a time when laws were based off English common law. In fact, our constitution as a whole is influenced heavily by English Common law. In 1803, St. George Tucker, a contemporary English law scholar of the time wrote: “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction”. [Sic] Most gun control advocates claim they wish to ban “assault weapons” and don’t mind “hunting weapons” or the right to hunt. However, most of the founding fathers probably didn’t care about the right to hunt; most were “city-slickers” so why would they include a right to bear arms to preserve the right to hunt? And why would they say “a well-regulated militia”? Most gun-control advocates claim the presence of the term “well-regulated militia” means that the 2nd amendment pertains to the right of the National Guard and Law enforcement only. They often cite Miller v. United States. “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense” (Miller v USA) However, it must be noted that Miller was decided not under the Second Amendment, but under the Interstate Commerce clause, Jack Miller had transported a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma, where the firearm was allowed, to Arkansas where it was not. “Misters Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully...transport in interstate commerce from...Claremore...Oklahoma to...Siloam Springs...Arkansas a certain firearm...a double barrel...shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length...at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce...not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, ...and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order...as provided by Section 1132C”As a result, the case made no significant impact on Gun rights. In July 2008 the Supreme Court decided Heller v District of Columbia. The Issue was whether or not the Handgun ban in Washington DC violated the US Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment applied to the individual, and not the State. “that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning”
Therefore the key words being “right” and “people” In addition the term “militia” as defined in 1793 meant “all males between the ages of 17 and 45 and fit for military service” The founding fathers intended a comprehensive right of the populace to be armed.
Gun control advocates also try to use emotional ploys to gain support for their political agenda, such as Michael Moore in his “documentary” Bowling for Columbine, in which he leaves a picture of a little girl killed in a school shooting in the house of the late Charlton Heston, former president of the National Rifle Association. Like ambulance chasers, they wait for a tragedy so they jump on their soap-box and preach the word of their agenda to the masses at a time when it’s considered “distasteful” to speak against them. What about the 88 year old woman in the opening of this paper? There’s no practical she could’ve fought back hand to hand, A firearm is the only way she had to defend herself. Criminals are often strong people with knowledge of street fighting and access to knives, clubs, or illegally obtained firearms. Often they have no mercy for their victims, for the average John and Jane American, they only way to even the odds against criminals is with a firearm. I don’t care how many people you’ve “shanked” if I hit you with a .38 caliber round at 30 feet away you’re on the ground and I’m safe. Most Americans aren’t Black belt, Navy SEAL/Army Ranger professional knife fighters or hand to hand experts. But only 15 hours worth of training time with a hand gun gives you a competitive edge if, god forbid, you need to defend yourself against such people. While gun control advocates keep using the same familiar names, Columbine, Flint Michigan, Virginia Tech, ect. It must be noted that all the shootings they cite take place in “gun-free zones” what if the School Administrators had access to pistols? What if 18 year old students were allowed to have rifles in their automobiles? What if teachers with concealed carry permits had been allowed to carry on campus? It’s possible that they could’ve stopped the shootings quickly. Gun-control Advocates often point to the School Resource Officer program, while the program does improve school safety, there’s often not enough Law enforcement, often times there is only one SRO for a whole district, usually he’s uniformed, and parks a Marked Law Enforcement Vehicle in the parking lot, any criminal or school shooter can tell whether or not the cop is at school, and probably remove him from the equation while the Officer isn’t looking. It’s harder to tell when people who wear T-shirts and blue jeans have a gun on them, and just knowing that their victim or a passerby might be armed deters most petty criminals, and probably a lot of dangerous ones too. In addition, most criminal firearms are stolen, and a lot are imported from Mexico, so banning firearms will only serve to disarm the populace and leave them defensless against criminal attack, Michael Moore can stow the whining, and “this girl was killed in a shooting” Ambulance chasers are never right when they try to use emotions.
Finally, what gives government the right to decide what law-abiding citizens can keep in their homes? Most of them are never in a position where they need to defend themselves, they’re surrounded by Secret Service, or US Marshals, or State Patrol, or City Police, and in the case of the president, all of the above. Most Americans can’t afford to have a gauntlet of tough looking 6’3’’ guys wearing Smokey Bear hats or Tuxedos and ear pieces protecting them everywhere they go, and most of the places I have to go, police response time in 20 minutes or more. The sad truth is, unless you live across the street from the precinct, the cop’s only job when they get there is to take names and count bodies. In most counties in the US outside of the big cities, there is virtually no police presence, and no way for the people to protect themselves other then with firearms. Mason County In Western Washington for example, has only 46 sworn Deputies to cover 1051 square miles. Police are not likely to arrive in time for any meaningful help. So people have to fend for themselves. When faced with this argument, the gun control croud often brings up arguments about the “Wild West” and how everyone had a gun and lots of people were killed. In fact the “Wild West” as we know it never existed, the famed “Gunfight at the OK Corral” resulted in the deaths of only 3 people, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, all at the hands of US Marshals, many similar gunfights were fought through the west, but it was never anything like the giant cowboys and bandits gunfights immortalized by John Wayne and Buck Jones movies. And finally, I’ll discuss these “gun exchange” programs, basically, Gun control groups like the Million Mom March and the Brady Center sometimes offer “incentives” to give up guns, you can exchange a firearm for it’s value in cash. The only problem is, it makes gun crime worse, criminals will often pay far less for guns on the street then market value, so they’ll simply trade in their weapons, then re arm and have cash to spare. It’s not an effective means of dealing with gun crime.
So what measures should the government be allowed to take? The government should have the right to restrict fully-automatic firearms, and heavy military weapons. However, small arms (classed by having a bore .60 caliber or smaller, or any muzzleloading firearm, this definition is set by the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives (BATFE)) Felons should not be allowed to possess firearms, nor should people who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, nor those who have been involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital. I think these are reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. Firearm Ownership is a comprehensive right to law abiding citizens of this nation.

Emotional Hardship

2009-04-28T19:52:00.000-07:00

Well, this looks like it, i'm once again single, and I think this time is for good. I'm just dying over here, It's so not fair

But I'll be ok, I got lots of friends, sorry to readers who've been waiting, but i'm going to delay the next post, i'm in grieving, and i don't know when i'll be better.

uhhhhhh

Myths and Lies about the Medieval Crusades

2009-01-24T15:20:00.000-08:00

We now live in a system where people don't get the whole truth. Many high school students are taught bogus information in "Religous Education" classes, most of these portray Christians negatively and airbrush Muslim history with absurd claims such as "The Muslims preserved Roman knowledge" or "The Muslims lived peacefully with the Jews and Christians" and that the crusades were "wars of aggression" against "peaceful Muslims". these claims are outright wrong, so to help sort through political correctness that has infiltrated our education system, I'm starting a history series to help separate myths from reality.

MYTH: The Crusades were wars of aggresion against Islam
REALITY: The Crusades were defensive wars fought to contain Islamic aggresion and to Assist the Bynzantine Empire

After the Death of Mohammed Islam spread widely throughout the Bynzantine empire, by force. The Muslims laid waste to every thing in sight, sacked numerous citites, and made it to the Gates of Constantinople. The Seljuk Turks had burned churches in Jerusalem and killed clergy throughout the city. by 1009 AD they had conquered much of the Middle east, causing the Byzantines to put aside the Chism and request help from the West. The West's response was to launch a crusade to aid the Bynzantines, answering a cry for help, not a war of aggresion against the Muslims.

MYTH: Muslims lived peacefully with Jews and Christians until the Crusades
Truth: Not exactly....

The Berbers are a perfect example, during the conquest of Africa many Christian and Jewish berbers were attacked and slaughtered by Muslim berbers. Islam expanded by force throughout Africa as well as Persia. the Persians were destroyed by the Muslims and assimilated by force. The Sassanian empire suffered the same fate. another instance is the Tatar invasions, where muslims set out to pillage, loot, and burn down christian settlements in Eastern Europe

MYTH: ISLAM MADE MANY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS
TRUTH: ISLAM STOLE MOST OF THEM.

Perhaps the biggest lie is the idea that Islam made many scientific accomplishments and preserved the knowledge of the Roman empire, which the European Crusaders "rediscovered" during the crusades. in fact, the Byzantines preserved that knowledge. And the Muslims disregarded it until the Bynzantines began to use the Roman science to make superweapons for their defense (such as "Greek fire") Several Historians have also uncovered evidence that the books of the Library of Alexandria were used as fire fuel. This story is also told by many written accounts from the Medieval era. The Muslims made most of these "advancements" after destroying most of the Bynzantine empire, and thus taking what was left of Byzantine science and copied.

The last stand of the West

2008-12-30T22:13:00.000-08:00

UN is full of idiots. plain and simple. The United Nations has condemned Israel for launching relentless airstrikes against Gaza. The airstrikes were intended to disable the military might of Hamas, the political party in charge of Gaza, Hamas agreed last year to a truce, every single Jew in gaza was removed and the Muslims were given their own space. Well, all the moderates were killed or exiled by the extremist party Hamas, which had begun launching frequent Quassam rocket strikes against Israel. The results have been horrendus, 12 deaths and 700 wounded. including an 8-year old boy who had both his legs blown off by a falling rocket. Children play soccer on quarter size fields, they only have 15 seconds to make it to their shelters once the air-raid siren goes off. Israel conducted a large scale airstrike last saturday, killing 250 Hamas militants and destroying large amounts of critical infrastructure.

Last summer, the Republic of Georgia attempted to attack Tskhinvali to end South Ossetian separatist attacks, as a result the Russian Federation launched an invasion of Georgia that went far beyong "saving the Ossetians from genocide" in fact the Russians went far beyond protecting the Ossetians, they now occupy Ossetia and Abkhazia, with tanks sitting ready to invade again.

The cause of these conflicts may be simpler then it seems, a geuine hatred of liberal western society, does Russia honestly care about Eastern European people who hate authortiy (the ossetians) their treatement of the Chechnyans would say otherwise. Ultranationists in Russia, the abundance of unguarded nukes, Islamonazism, and Anti-America sentiment is go up in the upper circles of society in many parts of the world, while the lower classes seem intent on immigrating to the US or Europe for economic or social reasons. The dictators of the Earth strongly dislike the US and Western Europe, along with all countries that seem like them (Israel, India, South Africa, Georgia)

But despite the strong threat from Islamonazis, Russians, and the Third world in general, The West is doing nothing about it, western Europe depends upon Muslim immigrants to keep their populations up, and are leery of doing anything to upset the muslims. With the exception of UK most of Europe has reverted to a 1968 on steroids style of living and are dangerously oblivious to the danger posed to their way of life. The US now has a president who is more concerned with Saving the UAW and the Big Three in Detriot rather then Hamas or Russia. low birth rates have lead to near economic collapse in Europe, especially Italy. The US population is only expanding due to immigration. That won't last forever, and when immigration hounds on the extreme far right finally get "immigration reform" that makes it too hard to immigrate here, then our economy will have enough and likely fall, as it is already. Leaving the last Western hyperpower unable to compete in global markets with China, India, Pakistan, ect.

We need to get our act together

We need to slash spending

We need to stop punishing buisness

We need to stop pursuing social programs

we need to destroy Evil wherever it may grow

We need to slash enviornmental regulation that leaves us unable to compete economically

We need to support our Allies

We need to not be averted to warfare when nessecary

We need to pray.

simply put it, we need to get smart. Will 2009 be the beginning of the end for Western society? will Russia overtake the old republics? will Hamas be crushed? or will international pressure cause Israel to abandon Operation Cast Lead? the first die has been cast. And so begins, the last stand of the West.

Hey PETA!

2008-11-19T18:22:00.000-08:00

Hey you! yes You! Are you a liberal? are you a vegan liberal? are you a gullible hollow head who will do anything for the "movement" (aka a liberal vegan)? Do you think the head of Foster farms is a Hilteresque pig who should be put to death? will you tell children who's parents are suffering from AIDs "F*** you" and firebomb universities working on a cure? Will you rally outside animals shelters? and most importantly, do you think meat amounts to the holocaust? YOU'RE IN! JOIN PETA TODAY!

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, sounds good. right? I mean, who is really against the "Ethical" treatment of animals? The problem is that they aren't for the ethical treatment of animals. They're a extremist group that is indirectly responsible for the deaths of many and uses terrorism to achieve their ends. Sealed in their tax returns for 1994 included large sums to Rodney Coronado, a delusional nut-job who firebombs universities conducting medical research using animals. Not only has this delayed research on life-saving cures. But has caused millions in property damage. Coronado, who has the nerve to compare himself to the late great Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. has expressed no apology for his acts. And PETA has no qualms handing him cash.

PETA has also run offensive advetising using images of Hitler's concentration camps juxtposed with Industrial farming techniques, this advertising de-values human life, and is offensive to the memory of 6,000,000 Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Slavs, ect. who were wiped out by Adolf Hitler. But wait! it get's better! PETA has run a set of advertisements called "Your mommy/daddy kill animals!" Geared towards children, these ads are distributed at schools, parks, and over the internet. If the Ku Klux Klan were handing out ads saying that blacks were created by satan, they would be arrested for child-endangerment (and rightfully so) but if PETA passes out pamphlets saying "your parents kill animals" then they get a freebie. That's justice?

PETA also runs ads using thin naked women to promote a vegan diet. Now I will admit right now that I (along with most heterosexual males above the age 14) Will tune out the words and watch in utter fascination as Alecia Silverstone climbs out of a pool nude. But what about the effect on young girls? studies have shown that teenage girls are more likely to develop a negative self-image, leading to anorexia, bulimia, and a whole host of conditions that can lead to extreme weight-loss and malnutrition. While vegan diets can be healthy, alot of people who practice them don't know how to manage a vegan/vegetarian diet. if these people have children, they might try to force a child on a vegan diet. The baby can suffer everything from mental retardation, to nutritional rickets, to death.

In conclusion, PETA is public nuicance at best, a domestic terror group at worst. People like them deserve no place in modern society

John McCain's list of endorsements.

2008-10-20T20:07:00.000-07:00

Don't think John McCain should be president? These people do.

Capt. James Lovell USN (ret.), Astronaught on Apollo 13, starred in Movie "Apollo 13"

Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon

General James B. Davis, USAF (Ret.) - former Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers, Europe (NATO)

Sylvester Stallone, actor in the "Rocky Balboa" series, "Rambo"

Carly Fiorina, Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard

General Carl E. Mundy Jr. , USMC (Ret.) - former Commandant of the Marine Corps

Col. George "bud" Day USAF (ret.), Medal of Honor Recipient.

Lorenzo Lamas, actor

Chuck Norris, no questions asked.

Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay.

George Shultz, former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan.

R. James Woolsey Jr. , former head of CIA under William CIA under Bill Clinton

Debra Bartoshevich , Former Hillary Clinton delegate.

John Rich, Country singer from "Big & Rich"

compare this to Fidel Castro, Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, Ludacris, ect. and the choice shouldn't be hard, then how come so many people still support Obama, just look at the endorsement lists, who do you trust more? a medal of honor recipient or Bill Ayers? the choice is yours.

It ain't over John, the line is in sight, sprint to the finish.

2008-10-16T19:43:00.000-07:00

McCain's performance on wensdays debate was simply phenomenal. Obama was looking all around, getting nervous, McCain laid all of Obama's talking point to waste, from Joe the plumber to "I'm not George Bush" McCain performed very well. but it will have been meaningless if McCain continues to slack off on his campaign.

Senator, for all of your talk and rallies, you haven't been performing on TV and Radio ads. You got off to a good start with the "worlds biggest celebrity" and "The one" ads. But you if you don't follow through then you won't get elected. What's interesting to note is that polls usually trend liberal before elections, nearly every poll taken weeks before election day had the Democrat above at least 4 points, but even now McCain is tying in polls, polls putting McCain more the 4 points below are rare. Whenever McCain has had significant airtime (the GOP convention, for example) He ties in polls. Considering previous poll history, McCain is in a good spot right now, but good is the enemy of great.

John McCain needs to agressivley advertise in the swing states that matter most. This is it, John it's your turn to hold the keys, but you got to work for it, use your money, buy ads, it's now or never. if you don't get noticed you won't get elected, so get down from your high horse and into the fight. let's win this. and for the good of our country, you better.

Why Obama is a moron, short, sweet, and to the point

2008-10-14T19:43:00.000-07:00

1. He attended a racist church for 20 years
2. He chose Joe Biden for his running mate
3. He claims to want to provide tax breaks for 95% of the american people, but only 60% of the american people pay federal taxes, do the math.
4. he proposes another 400 billion dollars in federal programs, we've got a deficit with a 3 trillion dollar budget, only a math-blind idiot should still support him past this point
5. congradulations, did anyone teach you simple math? moving on, Obama's community orginization ACORN blackmailed banks and fradulantly registered people to vote, and Obama ACTIVELY SOUGHT THEIR ENDORSEMENT.
6. Obama received hearty campaign donations from Fannie May and Freddie Mac, hmmmm the same people who screwed us over like Obama, see any problems with this?
7. Obama has recieved donations from Chinese interests, little problem with that, I think.
8. He has never apoligized for his vote against the Born Alive Protection act. now only people who can't add and subtract AND heartless, callous, sadistic, people support past this point
9. He has no executive experience, only legislative.
10. He's has the same economic policies as Jimmy Carter, and those policies nearly killed America.

One paragraph, all true, short sweet, and to the point. from the bottom of my rock-solid heart.

Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama

2008-10-02T19:10:00.000-07:00

To: The honorable Senator Obama (D) IL

Senator Obama, I have observed your statements and actions made over the last year or so, when I first listened to one of your campiagn speeches, my first thought was "man this is a respectable guy" congradulations senator, I have no remaining respect for you whatsoever.

"Hope and Change" sounds good to any teenage pot-smoking hippie or 60s leftover, but deeper thinking reveals numerous problems, first, what are we hoping for senator? What are we changing from, and what to? Is "hope" the hateful words of your Pastor Rev. Wright? Is "Change" the radical actions of your "close friend and mentor" William Ayers? Is "hope" having lawyers disqualify another candidate so you can win a sham election? Is "change" instituting radical enviornmental regulations that kill buisnesses and don't do a lick of good? Is "hope" keeping the focus on a lame duck who will be out of office in 4 months? Is "change" stifling intelectual debate by crying racism?

You have shown little knowledge on the issues vital to so many Americans, and you appeal to plenty claming "the last 8 years of George Bush" or "the failed policies of the past". Do you even understand that YOUR platform senator is THE very failed "policies of the past", windfall profits tax is just one example. You claim that America is "no longer what it could be, what it once was". What were we once were senator? Segregation? double didget unemployment? A whole generation lost on drugs? the explosion of STDs during the 60s? Shortages at pumps across the country? Is that what we want to return to?

You have still failed to acknowledge that the troop surge has been a sucess, you still want to cut and run from Iraq despite the fact that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is falling apart the Sunnis and Shias are getting along. You LIED in a national debate about casting a vote against the war.

You still stick to your sick perverted ideals on abortion, that an infant born alive should be allowed to just die off the operating table, then instead of admitting you were wrong, made excuses about "undermining roe v. wade" Senator, with no due respect, you are a sick disgusting animal, I'm getting disgusted just hitting the keys on this piece. People like you should be sent for badly needed mental help, that's included in the your senate benifits right? Maria cantsmile Cantwell has more of a heart then you and that is sad.

You claim to be for the "little guy" and that the Republicans are for the rich millianaires, but that's standard liberal BS, that's what my social studies teacher tried to cram down my throat, and it's BS. can you honestly say you support people while at the same time, call them "bitter people clinging to their guns and their religion". is your 800 B dollar social plans for the "little guy's" best interest? You claimed that McCain is a rich elitist for owning more homes then he can count (7) in fact 4 of those properties are investments, how much do you have invested Senator? you are one of the richest elitists in the congress.

You claim that your nomination was the day that "the rise of the oceans began to slow, and the planet began to heal". Are you some kind of Diety senator? maybe your Moses, or Aaron? WHAT THE F*** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You are unfit to lead our country, we'll remember Bush very fondly when you leave office, you show no leadership qualities and no relevant knowledge to the Office, stay the hell away from it, and god help us if you get elected.

-Reaganwannabe

Protestan Church Service and new music interests

2008-09-21T15:12:00.000-07:00

Well, i'm back after a two-week break from blogger.

First off my friend (lemursinmyhead) came to my church twice, i'm a Catholic, and she's a protestant, so she came to the parish feast, and we were behind one of the priests, and she just exclaimed "I'm an un-repentant protestant" the look on everyones faces was pricesless, so I came to her church this morning, here are my impressions about the curch.

The service was longer then Catholic mass, with far more sung music, now I'll admit this now, the one thing I dislike about the church services i've been to is standing up and singing music, I just don't enjoy it. So we stand up, and sing like 5 songs in a row. The Pastor seemed very nice although i didn't meet him personally. In Catholic mass at my church, the Sermon lasts about 20 minutes at most, the sermon at this church lasted 40 minutes to an hour. while i'm very nervous, and fidgeting trying to find a comfortable position during the sermon. The Pastor was talking about what makes a "carnal" or "contagious" christian, it was a good sermon, the Pastor has a good sense of humor.

The Sancutary was smaller than the sancuary at my church, instead of pews they had chairs (although the chairs were far more comfortable then the pews) then they had a stained glass window as well. I liked the experience, overall it was pretty good.

now for the less important, i'm now obsessed with Bob Seger music. i can'y stop listening to old time rock 'n' roll

4 Big Lies about John McCain

2008-09-08T15:53:00.000-07:00

Well, now we have the election season in full swing, with only a month and a half left to go before Judgement day on November 4th, The liberal "drive-by" media (as is called by Rush Limbaugh) is cranking on the McCain Palin ticket. on my last R-CAST (go to YouTube and search for "reaganwannabe" ) I defended Sarah Palin, so now i'll defend McCain.

Lie #1 "John McCain said he wants us to stay in Iraq for a hundred years"

John McCain never made such a remark. what John McCain said was that we have bases in Germany and Japan even though the occupation of said countries is long over. He stated that the problem with the war was that American lives are being lost, and that we could stay there for a hundred years if no American lives were being lost. John McCain has two sons in the military, one in Iraq. I doubt McCain wants his children in that place for a hundred years.

Lie #2 John McCain is too old

Bullcrap, Winston Churchill led Britian during WW2. Churchill was 68 years old when he took office in 1940. at that time he was leading England through their darkest hours at the opening days of World War 2. Churchill again took office at age 76 in 1951, no one complained about him being too old. McCain is in good health, both physically and mentally.

Lie #3 John McCain is racist

The liberals have made a habit of bringing up the fact that McCain voted against the establishment of Martin Luther King Jr. day. some leftist bloggers are saying that McCain is a racist for this vote. McCain has repeatedly apoligized for this, (something the snoop dogg, ludacris, ect rapper clique will never do for their racist, sexist, and homophobic records) and has a clean record past that vote back in the 80s

CASE CLOSED

Lie #4 John McCain is George Bush's "third term"
This is so not true on many levels, John McCain and George Bush break on several issues, George Bush has favored increased federal funding for Amtrak, McCain opposed spending on Amtrak, just to name one. John McCain has favored a different handling of the war in Iraq, this strategy became "The Surge" after Bush had to have a "Bipartisan" study group. Bush could've just listened to McCain and saved himself the time and money. George Bush has taken a "what will be will be" stance on the enviornment, whereas McCain favors (unfortunatly) more enviornmental regulation. John McCain opposed oil drilling in ANWR which Bush supports. The list goes on and on.

In conclusion these lies are some favorites of the left. The informed conservative should not put up with these, if your liberal friend (or enemy) is using any of these four, it's your job to set them straight, that is if they're smart enough to be set straight.

Sarah Palin: Does she seal the deal for the election?

2008-08-29T16:30:00.000-07:00

I couldn't hold my excitement this morning, John McCain announced his running mate: Sarah Palin, the 44 year-old Republican Governor of Alaska. The choice was widely praised in many conservative talk-shows and blogs (including this one) This marks the first woman to be nominated on a Presidential ticket since the 1984 election (when Reagan was re-elected in a 49 state landslide) and the first time the Republican party has nominated a woman for national office.

But why? why would Senator McCain choose Palin? Palin is the two-year governor of a state that is the very fringe of the country. she's only served two years as Governor. What makes Palin a good choice? several things. First off, Palin is from a middle-class family, not a privelaged elite. Palin understands the frustrations and problems that worry us. Palin during her years as Mayor of Wasilla, AK and Governor of Alaska, Palin has slashed taxes and flatlined wasteful spending. for example Palin finally pulled the plug on the "bridge to nowhere" after Senator Ted crybaby Stevens was trying to push down the throats of Alaskans who wanted nothing to do with the project. Palin managed to get a Natural gas pipeline from plan to construction in one year. no small feat in today's world of eco-idiots.

Already the liberals are gearing against Palin, pointing to her "youth" and "lack of experience". as if His Holiness Barack of Obama is any better. Palin has done amazing work as Alaskan governor, much better then Barack would've done. Palin is currently the most Popular governor in the country. Some people claim that the choice is an attempt to pick up Women voters. so what? Obama has been working off trying to catch black voters ever since his campaign started in the home of William Ayers. Oh and thats another thing, neither McCain or Palin are friends with a terrorist who claim to be proud of bombing the capitol, but back to subject...

Palin has solid conservative credentials, she's pro-life, small-government, and for a strong national defense. She's an NRA member and an Avid hunter. She's for oil exploration and production. in short, she's the perfect candidate. McCains choice represents a radical departure from "the politics of the past", probably one of the best choices McCain could've made.

Kill the baby! Now thats change we can believe in!

2008-08-21T21:19:00.000-07:00

Looking at the news today, and running through the columns emailed to me from Townhall.com, and listening to the too numerous to name radio-show hosts, there has been some controversy over a vote in the Illinios State legislature made by the "Messiah" himself. the vote was over the Infant Born Alive protection act .

First off... lets look at what's in this legislation, the Infant Born Alive Protection act was a successful measure implemented by the federal government to protect the rights of babies born alive during a botched abortion. there was a another bill that went through the Illinois legislature. where was Obama? he voted "No" to the act. to my "pro-choice" friends, this isn't about abortion, this is about whether a kid born during a botched abortion is entitled to full rights under law. previous law allowed for doctors to withhold medical support to a baby "born alive" during a botched abortion

This state measure was opposed by Obama on the grounds that "it didn't offer protection in the langauge of Roe v. Wade". As it turns out the bill did offer such protection. About a week or so ago then Obama (pancake burning, flip time!) Obama now says that the bill didn't offer any protection in the language for existing Illinois state abortion codes, this also is a lie. In fact Obama voiced these concerns on the floor, the bill was amended to include the protection, but our liberal messiah voted no to the act anyway.

The Obama pancake is in burnt on both ends, it's only so long before he can't flip it anymore. Obama is getting called out on his lies and it's hurting. anyone who AT ALL believes in the sanctity of Human life, even those who think that a child isn't a human until birth, cannot support this man. He has voted against life on numerous occasions. meanwhile Obama can claim that McCain cheated on the debate that brought this up to the table. so liberals: go cast your vote for a murder-sympathizer. Thats change we can believe in!

McCain vs. Obama, painful lessons for the Obama camp

2008-08-18T17:15:00.000-07:00

That debate yesterday between Obama and McCain was AMAZING, Obama showed again for the whateverth time that he is incapable of standing on any base priciples and that he is just another liberal pancake, when one side starts buring you flip it.

One question is "which current Supreme Court Justice would you NOT nominate, Obama, despite his claims to "escape raicial politics" he selected conservative justice Clarence Thomas (a black conservative appointed by Reagan) now why woud he choose the black conservative out of 3 other possiblities? simple he's appealing to the radical left who see black conservatives as "traitors" or "uncle Toms". Obama said that "Thomas didn't have the exp...." he cut himself off from saying "Experience" and instead tried strength, well Barack, whats the matter? no teleprompter?

Obama was asked about the Abortion issue, Rev. Warren asked Obama "when do you think life begins?" "when does a child recieve rights" McCain answers shortly "at conception" Obama claims that the issue is "out of his pay grade" this answer by Obama is merely an effort to shake off his pro-abortion extremism to the point of voting for allowing abortionists to kill prematures born during botched late-terms. even "100% pro-choice" WA state idiot (senator) Maria Cantwell doesn't support this sick extension to dubious and controversial prvililage .

When asked "what was the most gut-wrenching descision you've ever made?"
McCain talks about how he refused a chance to leave the POW camp in Hanoi after being offered by his captors due to his fathers position. Obama says "opposing the Iraq war, and talking to experts, because Saddam was a bad man, but did he have WMDs" this statement is a complete lie, Obama was not in congress during the voting for the Iraq war in 2003. Obama, didn't talk to any experts, he wasn't in a position where he needed to. Obama voted for TWO packages to keep funding the war.

As of now, Obama's camp claims that McCain "cheated" and that McCain "knew the questions in advance" McCain was running 20 minutes late and his motorcade pulled in AFTER obama had recieved his pep talk about the format and types of questions, this is another absurd slander on McCain.

In conclusion, if you wach this debate, McCain is clearly a better speaker then Obama, McCain won the debate hands down, Obama can't speak when he's off the prompter, nearly all his statements that have hurt him have come when no one wrote his speech for him. maybe he doesn't have a mangled southern accent, but he has a mangled brain.

Hello

2008-08-18T15:39:00.000-07:00

My other blogspot isn't working it won't sign in, so i made a new one.

Hello, i'm "eliot" thats not my real name, but it's close enough,I'm a strong Conservative Republican, i try to respect others who differ though, unless they act like an idiot or waste my time, please keep comments appropriate, no vulgarity, no profanity, no racial slurs, I run a YouTube account called "Reaganwannabe" i will try to write a column once a week, so anyone who stumbles on this first post should check back every so often. thanks for visiting!
-R/w/b