 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Thought November 7, 2004 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins Some of the recent constitutional amendments passed lately will have some interesting affects. One of the more amusing ones is the recent change in Louisiana. After the elections on Tuesday, it is now a constitutional right to hunt and fish there. This was done in an attempt to block PETA from messing with people as they try to procure food and relax at the same time. I find it to be a great answer to the federal ban on protesting outside of abortion clinics created by liberals. That made it a felony to protest at abortion clinics and let people know that what they’re doing is taking innocent lives. In many cases all that was being done in those protests was showing people pictures from “The Silent Scream” and letting people who had gotten abortions and regretted it have an opportunity to tell their side of the story. There are a lot of women who got abortions and then looked back with nothing but regrets. The "abortion on demand" clinics are in the business of ending lives, so they aren’t too inclined to tell this side of the abortion story. But I was originally talking about that Louisiana amendment, so back to that. PETA will now be stuck with a situation that is somewhat problematic. The only way they can come close to reversing this new law is to fight it based on the government's taxing of a right. By that, I mean they will have to take the government of Louisiana to task and say they have no right to tax something through the sale of licenses that is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Unfortunately, if they do that, they will have to be siding with the hunters and fishermen. I seriously doubt they will be able to bring themselves to do that initially. Those who stand behind PETA might have to work extra hard to get them to take up this new cause, But I suspect that in time they will get them to do exactly that for the following reasons: It will be possible to bring about something the leftists have tried to do for a long time. That is the taxing of constitutional rights. If they can get a Supreme Court ruling that it is okay to tax constitutional rights they will not have stopped the horrible deaths of those superior in intellect to the members of PETA (fish, deer, frightened rabbits, lemmings, etc.), but they will have gained tyrannical ground, and that is good for them. Those who pull the strings of organizations such as PETA will eventually be able to go after the Second Amendment and tax that. It is something they have been trying to do for a long time. This may well open that door. Now that hunting and fishing in Louisiana have become constitutional rights, it will be a bit difficult to get them to give up that right. It will now be virtually impossible to put that initiative back on the ballot so they can reverse it. Nobody gives up power easily. That is true of governments and people. These are things that happen slowly over a period of time. This is a battle that hasn’t even started yet, but it is only a matter of time. The point is this: It really doesn’t matter what laws you make or pass. Each and every law you pass has a loophole the other side can use against you. I have listened many times as people lecture me on how they would rewrite the Constitution so it would be impossible to reinterpret. The original is as good as it gets and it doesn’t matter to me what these people say. Anything can be reinterpreted to mean something the opposite of the intent and this law in Louisiana is just such an example on how the end runs on our rights occur each and every day. The only way to remain free is to be vigilant and educated. One might wonder if I fault the people of Louisiana for having passed this amendment. It may surprise you that I don’t fault them one bit for having done this. If they had simply passed a law making it illegal to interfere in peoples hunting and fishing expeditions at some point a radical judge somewhere would have overturned that law. What we need in this country is an end to radical judges overturning all that is good and making this country in the image of the weirdoes and idiots out to corrupt our system. There also needs to be a mechanism for removing radical judges who legislate from the bench. As a slightly off-subject final note, I sure did enjoy watching Kerry concede the race and gracefully accept his defeat. I have more respect for him than I ever could have for Gore. I was also quite unsurprised to see that the liberals still just don’t get it. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
|
No column this week. Kerry L. Marsala Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
|
Election Day 2004 has come and gone, but what Jonathan David Morris had to say—and his reasons for saying it—on November 2 remains relevent. After all, Election Day will come again... I'm Throwing My Vote Away Well, Election Day is finally here, and this undecided voter has made up his mind. I’ve decided to vote. And there’s nothing you can do to stop me. Now, why would I do this? Don’t I know better? Well, yes, of course. I know that, by voting, I’m only giving permission for someone to abuse me. And if there were a way around this, I would take it. But there isn’t. So I won’t. George Bush and John Kerry are running for president this year. Like it or not, one of them will win. And like it or not, we will undoubtedly be abused. So the way I figure, it’s time to stop worrying and love the bomb. Call it peer pressure. Blame the Boss. Blame P. Diddy. Blame me for caving in. Whatever. I’m tired of ducking the “lesser of two evils” question. The lesser of two evils is still, in fact, evil. We lose no matter what. But no matter who wins, we must live with him for four years. And so, while it pains me to say this, I am voting for George Bush. I’m afraid John Kerry gives me no choice. Now, let me be clear here: Bush has been awful. I don’t know if he’s the worst president ever, as some on the Left claim. Lincoln has him beat by a civil war or two. And for all the talk of stacked courts, he hasn’t exactly pulled an FDR. Yet. But he has no respect for the Bill of Rights whatsoever. And the more he talks about freedom, the more freedom seems to mysteriously disappear. So in short, I think he stinks. And if given another four years, I suspect he may earn that worst-ever title. But as much as Bush has come to personify all I dislike in a leader, Kerry embodies all I dislike in a candidate. I don’t necessarily think he’d do worse as president. He might. He might not. Lord knows he’d have one hell of a hill to climb. But I’m not voting based on leadership here. If I was going to vote for someone I wanted in office, I would vote for the Libertarian Party’s Michael Badnarik. That’s a vote I could live with. After all, the only other offices I’ll be voting for this year are the ones with LP choices; all the rest I intend to leave blank. But in a presidential election this close, between two guys who stink this much, I’m compelled to vote for the one I find slightly less annoying. That’s Bush. Two reasons why: First, something purely superficial. I know it goes against conventional wisdom, but I have no problem voting for style over substance—or for a lack of style over an abundance of it. As boring as Bush has become, and as much as he sounds like a broken record, I would rather hear him stumble over monosyllabic sentences and talk about freedom-haters than hear Kerry “do nuance” from now until January 2009. One of these guys is going to be on my TV every day, and for me that’s the most important issue in the “most important election” of my lifetime. I find John Kerry irritating. And while I won’t claim to be voting my conscience, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I sat back and welcomed this butt-head into office. Secondly, I find it annoying how the choice between Bush and Kerry isn’t much of a choice at all. Some people say they’re two sides of the same coin, but I believe they’re one side of one coin, and if anyone ought to be held responsible for this it’s Kerry—Bush was here first, after all. Now, again, I think Bush is a terrible president. He deserves to be held accountable for the Patriot Act. He deserves to be punished for his poorly planned Iraq war. And to the extent that his reelection would validate these policies, I would hate to see him get a second term. But Kerry voted for both the Patriot Act as well as the Iraq war, and he’s had neither the guts nor the honesty to outright defend or denounce those decisions. Like Bush and his Republican Party, Kerry deserves to be punished and Democrats deserve to be punished for choosing him. They had a chance to give us a real choice in this election. They could’ve given us someone who pledged to uphold the Constitution, but they didn’t. And they could’ve given us someone who pledged to scale back our presence in 130 countries, but they didn’t do that, either. Looking back, I could’ve voted for Howard Dean. I didn’t know it when he was still running—and make no mistake, the man was imperfect—but he ended up offering the only real alternative (save for Dennis Kucinich, though that’s a real stretch of the word “alternative"). For all intents and purposes, John Kerry is George Bush without the name George Bush. And if George Bush is going to win one way or another, I figure I might as well vote for George Bush. Granted, this logic is addled. I won’t claim what I’m doing makes a whole lot of sense. George Bush is bad for this country, and I know it. He’s gone beyond mere contempt for the U.N.—which I’m all right with—and managed to make the whole world hate us. That’s so not cool. But I am so sick of P. Diddy and his patronizing “Vote or Die” shtick that I feel I have no choice but to vote for the guy I assume he despises. That’s what I’m doing. I’m voting for Bush because Eminem thinks Kerry would somehow be better. If these Hollywood-types want a Big Gov’t president, they’ve already got one, and I’m going to do whatever I can—as a swing state voter—to keep him in power on their behalf. Maybe next time they’ll give us a real choice when they tell me to “Choose or Lose.” It’s my vote and I’ll do what I damn well want with it. I will pull the Bush lever, and then I will wash my hands. They want it. They got it. God bless America. Oh, and God help us all. And now, just because Lady Liberty thought it was really, really funny, we have a special second offering this week, also having to do with the 2004 elections, from Jonathan David Morris. The
John Kerry Telethon
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, 8:08 AM: John Kerry: Hello? John Edwards: Hi John. John Edwards. Kerry: Oh, hey there. How are you? Edwards: Not bad, John. Not bad. So I guess this is it, huh? Today’s the big day. Kerry: You mean today is my birthday? Edwards: Your birthday? What? No. Election Day, John. Today is Election Day. Kerry: Election Day? I knew that. I always knew that. I’ve said so all along. Edwards: Whatever. Well, anyway, John, I’m just calling to wish you good luck this evening. I was thinking you might want to call your opponent to wish him the same. It’s the right thing to do, John. It’ll make you look dignified. Kerry: Dignified. Right. Thanks, John. Will do. Click. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, 8:21 AM: Bill Clinton: Bill Clinton speaking. Operator: This is the operator with a collect call from “John Kerry.” Do you accept the charges? Clinton: Well, hello there… don’t you sound sexy. Who’d you say this was again? Operator: This is the operator with a collect call from “John Kerry.” Do you accept the charges? Clinton: No, I don’t accept the charges. The charges are false. So what are you wearing? You know they called me “The Operator” in college. Click. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, 8:24 AM: Edwards: John Edwards speaking. Operator: This is the operator with a collect call from “John, it’s me, John Kerry.” Do you accept the charges? Edwards: The operator? What? Yeah, sure. I accept. Kerry: Hi John. John Kerry. Edwards: Hi John. What’s up? Why are you calling collect? Kerry: Well, I called Bill Clinton, but he -- Edwards: You what? Kerry: I -- Edwards: No, no, I heard you the first time. I’m just not clear on why you called Bill Clinton. Kerry: Well, you said I should call my opponent, John. Isn’t that who I’m running against? I mean, I read somewhere that the Ghost of Bill Clinton looms large over this— Edwards: That’s a metaphor, John. A metaphor. You’re running against George Bush. Kerry: Oh, right. I knew that. I’ve never said otherwise—unless you think I should have, in which case I did. I’ll talk to you later, John. I fought in Vietnam. Click. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, 8:29 AM: George Bush: Good morning, George Bush speaking. Operator: This is the operator with a collect call from “John Kerry.” Do you accept the charges? Bush: Accept the charges? And foot the bill for yet another Kerry spending spree? Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll pass. Nine-eleven. Click. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, 8:41 AM: Edwards: Hello. John Edwards. Operator: This is the operator with a collect call from “Hey, John, it’s me again, John Kerry, pick up.” Do you accept the charges? Edwards: Oh, for the love of God. Yes, operator. I accept. Kerry: John. John Kerry. George wouldn’t accept the charges. Edwards: Well, maybe you should stop calling people collect, John. You really ought to save collect calls for emergencies. Kerry: This is an emergency, John. I can’t pay for my own phone calls. The Mrs. would kill me. Don’t you remember what happened after last month‘s bill? I fought in ‘Nam, John. I’ve died a thousand deaths. Winter soldier. Middle class. Fifty-seven varieties. Edwards: All right, all right, I remember what happened. Teresa fit you with a hairnet and made you wash dishes to pay for the phone bill. But listen, John: That’s all in the past. You’re about to be president. You’ll have the whole public treasury at your disposal. Kerry: I will? Edwards: Yes, John. You will. So don’t worry about the phone bill. Kerry: Okay, John. I won’t. I already phoned Bill anyway. He didn’t pick up. All right, I have to go. Click. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, 8:47 AM: Bush: Good morning. George Bush. Kerry: Hi George. John Kerry. Bush: Uh… I’m sorry. I’m not home right now. Please leave a message after the beep. Beep. Kerry: Come on, George. I know you’re there. Pick up. Bush: Beep. Leave a message. The lights are on but no one’s home. Beep. Beep. Kerry: Damn it. All right. Well, listen, George—this is John Kerry. I’m just calling to wish you good luck at the polls this evening. I’d say, “Let the best man win,” but the best man is Hillary and she won’t be running for another four years. So anyway, that’s it. I love you. I mean, good luck. All right. I love you. Bye. Bush: If you’re finished with your message, hang up. Or press star for more options. Kerry: [Hits star.] Bush: Uh… you pressed an invalid key. If you’re finished with your message, hang up. Or press star for more options. Kerry: I want to review my message. [Hits star.] Bush: Um, okay. “Hi, this is… John Kerry, and I… uh… I am a wiener. Good luck. Etc. Etc. Vietnam. Nine-eleven. Choo-choo train.” Beep. If you’re happy with this message, say, “I’m John Kerry, and I approve this message.” If you’re a flip-flopper, say, “I’m John Kerry, and I’d like to re-record.” Kerry: Oh, I’m not falling for that trick twice. I’m John Kerry, and I approve this message. Click. Bush: Hello? Click. Bush: Hello? Kerry: George? Damn it. Why isn’t this working? Bush: If you’d like to make a call, please hang up and try again. Click. Click. Click. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2004, 8:52 AM: Kerry: John Kerry speaking. Operator: This is the operator with a collect call from “John Kerry.” Do you accept the charges? Kerry: John Kerry? Sure. Kerry: Hi John. John Kerry. Kerry: Hi John Kerry. John Kerry. Kerry: John Kerry? Darn. Wrong number. I meant to call John Edwards. Kerry: No sweat, John. Let’s call him on three-way. [Dials number.] Edwards: Hello. John Edwards. Kerry: Hi John. John Kerry. I’m here with John Kerry. Kerry: Hi John. Kerry: John, John and I just wanted to call you to—wait. Why are we calling again, John? Kerry: To wish John a happy birthday. Kerry: That’s right. I knew that. Happy birthday, John. Here’s to another four years. Click. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
The culture war is real and is a struggle to the death. Civilization hangs by a thread, that has just been frayed - by a judicial majority - bent on the eradication of all traditional morality. By striking down a ban on gay sex and invalidating a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex," it has validated the road to perdition. If any diehards had any doubts about the sorry state of the law in the new American millennium, all qualms should be put to rest. Total depravity is the supreme law of the land. Fellow citizens, this decision is not about sex, it’s about the abandonment of every canon of responsible moral behavior. A despotism of the judiciary, is the worst kind of tyranny, because it cloaks its oppression under the protection of the law. This nation can no longer survive under the dictums of a federal bench. This continent was settled by people who sought to worship freely and organize communities of like minded residents. The moral foundations that underpinned their legal and social institutions, formed the basis of their governmental structures. Individual states possessed their own sovereignty. Inhabitants were free to move if practices of civil government conflicted with the conscience of any citizen. The most profound values and right to govern is now prohibited upon the torso of vile pretension, by a degenerate court. Texas, or any other state, is wholly within their rights to legislate and adjudicate their own rules for decent behavior. States Rights are legitimate, especially within the context of community standards. Ineffective attempts to force an official perverted version of moral conduct, that panders to lost souls, only invigorates the remaining moral remnants. Decent Americans will not accept any more authoritarian assaults upon traditional values. The legitimacy of “federalism” has been betrayed one time too often. This union under a central dictatorship deserves to wither, as willful consent is withheld from any federal authority. If the intent of the relative law is supreme, respect for principled criterion of civilized values and social coexistence is impossible. Our form of government was never envisioned to be perfect. But it was intended to allow people to govern themselves in ways that conform to their most precious beliefs, values and expectation. Living in a moral cesspool is not an option. But willingly accepting the pronouncement of a sick court is sheer insanity. Our counsel has consistently advocated civil disobedience. How many more insults to your own dignity will you tolerate before you rebel? Is there anyone left to fight, or has the vast plurality of that old “moral majority” died decades ago? Unless states take back real power from the federal monster, no citizen is free to select their own way of living. If Sodom and Gomorrah is your thing, dwell in your own misery away from normal families. Turning the entire country into a celebration of porn, is not acceptable. The time has come to separate these lifestyles permanently. “The court” is a pimp of totalitarianism. While they pronounce on every form of moral decay with approving eyes, proper people are left with dismay as to the decline of their society. Maybe most folks no longer care about a worthwhile future! Surely, very few do anything to challenge the lunacy of this “PC” degradation that passes for the popular culture. Individual freedoms are wishful fantasies, when a conservative community is coerced into tolerating the methodical destruction of their society. The absence of protest from organized religions will be deafening - they need to protect their tax exempt status. What is the next heresy that they will accede to in order to preach their artificial message? Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority: The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons,” cuts to the core of the ruin of our nation. Where is the outrage for their demeaning of us? What happened to that cherished public welfare clause and where is that equitable action from this court? Do they really believe that abandoning the man woman relationship can be a substitute for the traditional family? What history did this justice learn? Justice Scalia said the Texas law was "well within the range of traditional democratic action" and should not have been overturned. Justice Scalia added the ruling was "the product of a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and reflected a decision by the Supreme Court to "take sides in the culture war." "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions," Justice Scalia concluded. The significance of this ruling is that sane Americans no longer can give lip service to federal legitimacy. No, it has been replaced with fellatio of a retrograde coitus, pushed down our throats. The rogue majority on the Supreme Court reflects the carnality that their lust for total domination desires. They want to make you submissive to their every whim. Expanding a “living law” is no eternal standard. Common to any pervert is the passion for control. The federal monster is a rapist and you have just been violated, again... I will not be the next sacrifice to the Marquis de Sade culture. The Quill that was used to form this nation was never intended to be used to destroy the family. What will it take for you to revolt
|
||||||||||
©2004 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, November 14, 2004 5:53 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2004 site design by |
||||||||||
