Prayer Case in the Indiana Statehouse Overturned

According to the Indianapolis Star, a landmark case for prayer involving government officials was recently overturned by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The original case, which was brought about in 2005 by the ACLU, challenged the Indiana House of Representatives for inviting clergymen of various faiths to deliver a prayer during the opening session, a 189-year tradition. The ACLU claimed that these sectarian prayers, mainly those mentioning "Jesus," alienated those of different faiths.

Of 53 prayers delivered in 2005, nine were given by lawmakers, forty-one by Christian clergymen, and one each from a Muslim imam and a Jewish rabbi. Since most people in Indiana classify themselves as Christians, it makes sense that most prayers were given by Christian clergymen. However, the minority religions were also represented.


Even with the religious diversity, U.S. District Judge David Hamilton sided with the ACLU, and ordered that "Jesus," or any other religious icon, may not be used in the prayers. Brian Bosma, the former Speaker of the House, began the appeal process two years ago, which has since been continued by current Speaker, Pat Bauer. This time, the Court sided with the House members with a vote of 2-1.

Conservative bloggers are celebrating the victory. Indiana Voice for the Family writes of Victory in Indiana!!!, while Death By 1000 Papercuts scores Jesus 1, ACLU 0. Personally, this decision comes as great news. I have written many papers on the subject and several letters to Congressmen trying to pass a Constitutional amendment protecting prayer by government officials, but this decision makes the process much easier.

There is, however, something being done by federal lawmakers to keep this from happening again. H.R. 2104, the Public Prayer Protection Act, is a proposed bill in the House right now that takes the courts jurisdiction away in matters of prayer by government officials. I think that this is a great idea that prevents leftist judges like David Hamilton from taking away the religious freedoms of elected officials. I wholeheartedly support this bill, and recommend that those who are with me write their Congressmen to see where they stand on such an important issue that guarantees the rights we have as Americans.

Seriously....

Seriously?!? That is really the first thing streaming though my head after reading this dailykos.com post. Thank you BarbinMD for calling Bush out on his bull! I think our country has reached a critical peak when the President is overstepping his bounds claiming executive privilege for everything and continuously trying to weasel out of legitimate questions. These are fairly simple questions George! This is a serious Senate hearing and serious issues need to be addressed. The Senate cannot be expected to confirm a nomination for attorney general for a judge who is not allowed to give his legal opinion on what constitutes torture, and whose strings are constantly being pulled by the administration during his hearing. Mukasey would be a powerful figure in American politics and government, so how could we as a nation put our faith in a man who does not have the ability to stand up for himself in a Senate hearing? I think BarbinMD put it best in saying,

"Time after time, Bush and his minions deflect the question of Mukasey's views because he hasn't been briefed. By that reasoning, Mukasey can't render a judgement on whether to draw and quarter someone is torture, because, hey, he doesn't know whether we use that technique or not."

While I understand one of the reasons for not wanting to answer- to avoid criminal prosecution of CIA officers (they were only following orders), Bush’s claim that the political storm is unfair is simply ludicrous. This is politics, Bush, everything stirs up a political storm.

HILLARY CLINTON UNCENSORED

This video is possibly the most underpublicized political news item in the history of this country. It details the largest case of election fraud ever known to exist, involving none other than presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If you are considering voting for Hillary, or have the same view of her that I do and want something to further validate your opinions, watch this:



I think this goes to show the obvious bias in the mainstream news media that we have today. What amazes me is that Rush Limbaugh, or any of her opponents for that matter, aren't bringing this up to get people to take another look at their support for her.

As for a lack of proof connecting this act of fraud to Hillary, just listen to the tapes! She was clearly aware of everything that was going on, as she was personally involved and aware of everything that was going on. What is even worse, this is really a sad testament against the legal system of the United States, as it is not able to prosecute someone just because of their power.

While I am sure there are two sides to this story, as there are with almost everything, I am really interested to hear what Hillary has to say to defend herself from these allegations. I am sure that if the matter isn't brought up in the primaries, it will certainly come up in the general election, so she had better get thinking fast on how to deal with it. This could really affect who the leader of our country will be in the next four-eight years, and I find it really sad that something like this could be a determining factor, rather than electing someone because of what they believe and will get accomplished in the future.

Honestly, I got bored of the Yamlight on the Election series, and decided to take a break. I figured this would be a good time considering the recent discussion on the blog about topics I'm highly interested in. First up, the right to Bear Arms.

Crap, I mean Bare Arms.

Oh forget it, you know what I mean, the 2nd Amendment! As a previous post pointed out, the 2nd Amendment was designed to allow the population a way to defend themselves should the government take a turn for the nasty side. England also learned the hard way that it also has it's advantages if another country decides to invade. I agree with these reasons, and I agree with my right to own a weapon so long as I follow the law. What I don't agree with is giving me the right to carry said weapon anywhere I please.

My family hunts. I've hunted. I've also shot for sport at a Sport n' Clays range, worked at said range, and made my own ammunition in my basement. I know the dangers of owning and being around a firearm. No matter how good of a shot you are or how much you are concentrating on what you are doing, mistake happen. Ask Dick Cheney, he knows. In my opinion, firearms in cities are a bad idea. A civilian should not be allowed to carry a weapon in a highly populated area. This includes places like a college campus. Police have guns, they'll protect you in a city.

On the subject of guns on campus, that is just asking for trouble. If there is one thing I don't trust, it is an emotional person. People occasionally get very emotional and very upset, which leads them to do things that they'll regret. An environment where the most dangerous thing within reach is a pencil or Ti-86 calculator ensures that no one will get seriously hurt. Instances such as Virgina Tech could be stopped earlier if half the class had a gun on them, but I'm afraid that such things would happen more often. Ifsomeone is so upset and they decide to kill someone, but have to spend a few hours to get their hands on a gun, chances are they will have chilled out enough to realize they are making a huge mistake. If your boyfriend dumped you and you have a .45 strapped to your leg, you might just shoot him in a fit of rage instead of slapping him in the face. Because of this, I'd rather not have students walk around on my campus armed.

Overall, I support my right to own a weapon, a right that I observe and take advantage of. However, I don't thing people should be allowed to carry their weapons into highly populated areas. If you want to own a gun, move to the country and go hunting. Otherwise, buy a tazer or some mace. Perhaps we could allow non-lethal ammunition in low calibur weapons in cities? It could work, assuming we enforce it. Oh, and I think I finally got the picture problem taken care of. Oh ya.

Homosexuality

Although I never got around to posting last week that didn’t mean that I wasn’t on top of recent news (my home page is cnn). That being said I saw an article on a catholic priest who was accused of being a homosexual after being caught on Italian TV making advances towards another man. Although I myself am catholic my views on homosexuality differ from those of the church and probably from the views that most people have on the subject. My position is in simplest form that homosexuality is not the way people should be but at the same time it is not something to be considered horribly wrong. To arrive at such a conclusion I start out with the concept that all human actions result from some sort of impulse from the brain and all of these impulses fall within an acceptable range. When I say acceptable I don’t mean morally I mean practically, take for instance the fact that if we were all homosexual there would be no humans on this planet, this clearly puts such an impulse outside the acceptable range of brain activity.

The next question we have to ask ourselves is, Why are people gay? No one knows the answer to this question, it could be anything from a form of population control inherently put in our genetic sequence in order to keep numbers to a minimal range to any variety of other reasons. The why people are this way is however not as important as the, What causes them to be this way?

To answer this I will throw out a few options:

Genetic In their genes
Psychological Caused by some life time experience
Choice Actively made life style decision
Pathogen Highly unlikely, barely worth mentioning

Regardless of the reason that people are gay at some point in time in the future the answer will be known and this issue solved with some kind of option for these people. Whether it be genetic reengineering, therapy, or something else their will be an option available if people want to change.

This leads me to my next point, what should be done in regards to homosexuality currently, nothing. No persecutions, no anti-gay laws, no gay marriage, quite simply the issue will be resolved in the next hundred years with advances in the understanding of the human brain and this will all just be considered nothing more than a side note in the history books.

The 2nd Amendment

In regards to the issue of the second amendment I have put some thought into the topic and realized that on the issue of security we should not make possession of all weapons illegal. Personally I am somewhat of a history buff and this being so I recall the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence;

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


In these two paragraphs one of the messages that stands out to me with regards to firearm control is the concept that when a government strays from its duties to the people to such a degree that it cannot be corrected it must be dissolved. If this is ever the case an unarmed populace would have no hope to fight back against an armed dictatorship and all hopes of liberty and the freedoms we hold dear would fade away into history.

While we may now live in a democracy there is no way to ensure that this country will always be that way. This country has been in existence for about half that of the Roman Republic and I think we all know what the outcome of that was. Contrary to popular belief Caesar did not simply change the political landscape of Rome instantaneously, rather there was a long road leading to it. Originally Rome was ruled by kings until much like us they threw off the yolk of tyranny and established a republic. Overtime however things changed, agrarian reforms, civil war, social reforms, military reforms, all of which were done “in the name of the people”. Truth be told looking back it seems that the only reason such things occurred was due to the fact that some men wanted power and they needed to be elected, to do so they made promises to the people, got elected, fulfilled those promises and at the same time satisfied their own ends. Much like today politicians are always promising reforms and yet congressional and presidential approval are at an all time low. The way I see it the only difference between democrats, republicans, and every other politician are not the issues but rather those who vote for them.

Even Caesar’s grab at power was “to restore the republic”. When it comes down to it democracies walk a very fine line between dictatorships and anarchy. A prudent man would do well to prepare for the possible slip that leads to a fall.

Follow Up on Abortion

In regards to the post I made a week ago, I never said we should "force a woman to have a child". Rape notwithstanding if someone makes a choice to have sex then they are by the act of consent acknowledging the risks of pregnancy and weighing it against the pleasure of having sex. A good analogy would be a drag racer acknowledging the risks of accidental vehicular homicide and weighing them against the pleasure of racing. The choice to have sex is the choice to risk pregnancy and there for no one is forcing the woman to have the child she has arrived in such circumstances by her own accord. As a man I must say that anyone who impregnates a woman and then leaves her is despicable and a coward, this is not something any true man would do and is quite despicable. The fact of the matter is this; We, as individuals, are responsible for all of our actions, all of the time. In regards to rape, as I said in my post allow the use of the morning after pill, if it is to late then allow the baby to be carried to term and then put it up for adoption. Some cities have already adopted measures in which you can give a child to any civil servant (police, fire, mail) no questions asked and they will bring it to the right place. As far as emotional trauma, an equally convincing case could be made about the emotional trauma a woman faces for killing her child regardless of how it was conceived. As far as I am concerned the whole “pro choice” terminology is nothing more than a way to twist the issue of killing human children into an argument for women’s rights. I am pro-choice for women to choose if they wish to engage in sexual intercourse or use birth control. I am however not pro-choice of allowing parents to kill their unborn children. Used in the context of keeping abortion legal the term “pro-choice” is equivalent to calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” or drug dealers “unlicensed pharmacists”.

Students Protests Against Gun Restrictions at Universities

Students across the country are strapping empty gun holsters to their waists protesting gun restrictions at their respective campuses. This is starting to become a new hot topic of debate, adding a new spin to finding the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, an organization of students and family members organized after the Virginia Tech shootings, came up with the idea.

A spokesperson from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence stated, "You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school." Yes, that sounds like a mature argument. Whether you are for or against the issue, wasn't this country found on the principles of being able to protest the powers that be? Ummm....I think that's called the First Amendment.

Ethan Bratt, a grad student at Seattle Pacific University, is in favor of allowing concealed weapons for those with a valid license. He argued that, "People who would otherwise be able to defend themselves are left defenseless when on campus."


I really think that both sides of the argument have valid points (other than the part about dropping out of school). On one hand, having more guns on campus would theoretically lead to an increase in the probability of one being used, which is bad. But on the other hand, if a student carrying a gun was able to take out someone trying to go on a mass killing spree like the one at Virginia Tech, I think it could really help.

I guess the key determining factor that makes me believe that we SHOULD be allowed to carry guns on campus is the Constitution itself. We were given the right by our forefathers to bear arms and defend ourselves. This isn't high school anymore. All of us are adults, and we could legally carry a gun if we wanted to off of campus if we obtained a license. The schools are trying to protect us, which is understandable, but there comes a point where they go a little to far, and I think that is happening now, and this issue needs to be looked at by the courts to see if it is, in fact, a violation of the Second Amendment.

Update: Rep. Stark Apologizes to President Bush

To update a previous post, Rep. Pete Stark has issued an apology to President Bush after his comments last week saying that the troops in Iraq are getting their "heads blown of for the President's amusement." Several members of Congress had demanded an apology for the remarks, which Stark originally defended, saying he has no respect for "the commander-in-chief who keeps (the troops) in harm's way nor the chicken hawks in Congress." He now has either come to his senses or someone told how much support the Democrats are losing because of it.

He said in a statement to Congress, "I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president, his family, to the troops that may have found (offense) in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize. ... With this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be and we can return to the issues that do divide us but that we can resolve."

My Official Endorsement for President: Mike Huckabee

After watching the many debates over the past few months, I have come to support the one true conservative in the race, Mike Huckabee. For those of you who aren't familiar with him, as most people aren't, Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas, and before that he served as a Baptist minister. If that doesn't suit you, he also plays bass guitar in the band, Capitol Offense.

If you listen to this man speak once, you realize that it is impossible not to like him, even if you completely disagree with anything he says. He is known to add a little spice to the debates with his witty humor and blunt assessments of the current administration. I think that is completely what our country needs right now. He doesn't care what opinion is Republican and what issue is Democrat, he wants to bring the country together to get the United States moving in the right direction.

In the debate last night, he was the clear winner in the polls, and was a big surprise to the so-called "top-tier" candidates. The hosts of the debate tried to get him to attack some of his fellow candidates, and he simply responded, "I'm not interested in fighting these guys - I want to fight for the American people. For the first time in nine debates, I'll be more than happy to sit back and let them fight and shed each other's blood, while I run for president."


As the United States is in the middle of a budget crisis, spending much more money than it is taking in, Mike Huckabee is making the most of the money he has. While other candidates are spending tens of millions of dollars on their campaigns and television ads, Huckabee doesn't have near the bank account as the other top-tier candidates, so he has had to rely on town-to-town campaigning, and is seeing big results. In Iowa alone, where the first votes are cast to decide the Republican nominee, he is in a virtual tie for second place, with his numbers continuing to climb.

While the support for other candidates have started to level off or even decline, Huckabee's support has never stopped growing. As people learn more and more about him, the more they believe that he is the right man for the job. Last night in the focus group after the debate, one person stated, "I was a Thompson supporter before this, but Mike Huckabee won me over," and several others agreed.

It is impossible for me to describe all of his stances on the issues in the length of this post, but if you are interested in learning more, visit http://www.blogger.com/www.mikehuckabee.com for more information.

In Response...

Last week a post was made and I have been trying my hardest to let it roll off my back in the name of free speech, however I can no longer do that. I am at the point now where things I want to say are keeping me up at night, so here it goes. This post will be written in response to everyone who posted and responded to the abortion issue. Being a woman, I believe I have a much different view of this issue as the rest of you, as you were all male.

Many of you agreed with the idea that being partially pro-choice meant allowing the use of condoms and birth control (even though many anti-abortionists use condoms because they prevent the spread of disease) however, this entirely goes against the definition of what being pro-choice is. Being pro-choice is supporting the belief that women should have the right to control what happens to their bodies. It is supporting the belief that no person or government has the legal, moral, or ethical right to force a woman to have a child, which is what illegalizing abortion would do. By reversing Roe v. Wade it becomes a criminal offense not to want to be a mother. We outlawed eugenics and forced sterilization so that no one can force you not to have a child, so why would we now go in the reverse and force people to have a child if they don’t want one?

Also, illegalizing abortions will not stop them from happening. Women will revert back to four main options for abortion, all of which are highly unsafe and threaten the life of the woman. For those of you unaware of what these options are they are: having the procedure done in another country, going to a back-alley clinic, throwing themselves down stairs/having someone beat their stomach, and using a wire coat hanger. Illegalizing it would do much more harm than your purported good.

As for abortion for medical emergencies, while I am pro-choice I do support the ban on third trimester abortions save for the need of medical emergencies. The reasoning for this coincides with my reasoning for when a fetus is considered a child. Until the fetus can survive outside of the womb mostly on its own it is not considered a child. A child is a living, breathing entity and fetuses delivered before the third trimester cannot life and breathe and survive on their own. They are not fully developed and do not have the capabilities to do so. Therefore I fully support abortions before the third trimester in any circumstance.

Now some of you mentioned adoption and the morning after pill when discussing rape. Being men, I don’t think it is possible for you to understand the true horror of being impregnated by a rapist. Yes, both men and women can be raped and in both cases it is horrible and devastating, but women who are pregnant from a rape are given a daily reminder of the most horrible and traumatic experience of their lives. Every time they look at their stomach or feel a kick or movement they are reminded and relive the experience. Every time they look at the resulting child’s face and see the facial features of their rapist they are reminded and relive the experience. Isn’t the following trauma of being poked, prodded, and photographed at the hospital; recounting the story to the police; and testifying in court (if the rapist is even caught) enough? Now try fast-forwarding your life twenty years to the point where you have a 14-year old daughter. One her way home from school she is raped and the hospital does not offer her the morning after pill. Would you really force her to have that child and put her through more trauma? And please don’t let us forget the resulting psychological trauma of the child after they learn how they came to be in the world. Some of you mentioned adoption as a solution to this but as you will never be a mother and will never know the pain of giving up a child it is unreasonable for you to ask this of someone. Knowing that you have a child out in the world somewhere is very damaging to many women. Also many adopted children are curious about their birthparents so they too will eventually find out how they came to be in the world.

The only opinion that I somewhat agreed with is the need for better and more comprehensive sex education. Schools need to stop teaching abstinence and teach a more encompassing program to include sexual violence, relationship violence, date rape, gray rape, condoms, birth control, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases. People need knowledge in order to make informed decisions.

Abortion is never a choice that women make lightly and it is a choice that needs to be protected. Many women debate for days or even weeks before deciding, and it is never a forgettable decision. I have accompanied friends to get the procedure done and they think about it most every day, even years afterward. I have had liberal pro-choice friends decide to have the child, and I have had conservative anti-abortion friends that had abortions. We never know what decision we are going to make until we are put in that situation to make it. That decision needs to be safeguarded. Even I personally do not know what I would do when faced with the choice of abortion, but that choice needs to be there. For future reference, many women would appreciate it if before you shoot your mouth off, you grow ovaries and a uterus and actually have the possibility of making this very difficult and life altering decision.

Yamlight: Fred Thompson

Speaking of actors running for President... Fred Thompson is also taking a shot at the race. Fred is a Republican who served in the Senate from 1994 to 2002. He is Pro-life, thinks states should determine the legality of gay marrige, doesn't think humans are to blame for global warming, and supports the right to bear arms. I hear he makes a great District Attorney and has a strong sense of Law and Order.

Freddy declared that he was running for President on the Tonight Show. Now don't get me wrong, Thompson isn't exactly some ballsy actor who randomly decided to get into politics. Thompson was in the Senate for about 8 years, so he has plenty of experience when it comes to making laws and representing the country. In fact, I'm willing to bet that one of the reasons he is such a good portayer of a District Attorney is his experience in government.

Fred also happens to be a Republican. However, he isn't one of those wishy washy Conservatives that vote Liberally on a lot of things. Freddy has an 86.1% rating with the American Conservative Union. That's a pretty high percentage, at least in my opinion, which goes to show that Fred Thompson isn't easily swayed from his convictions. Thompson is also known for not being afraid of voting against the crowd, as he has voted more than one against a 99-0 vote, making it 99-Fred Thompson vote.

I don't like a decent amount of Fred Thompson's positions about how we should run the country; such as his opposition of Roe vs. Wade, his opinion that global warming isn't a product of humanity, and his support of the invasion of Iraq. He also has some positions I'm unsure about, such as allowing states to decide if gay marrige should be allowed and the right to bare arms. However, I do respect him as a person, as he knows what he believes in, and isn't easily convinced otherwise. Overall, I wouldn't be greatly upset if Freddy took up residence in the White House, but I wouldn't vote for him. I'd rather watch him on NBC, not CNN.

Warning: Newcomer Approaching

As if I didn't have enough potential Presidents to focus on, a new challenger has stepped out onto the field, Stephen Colbert. Yes, you heard it right; Comedy Central's very own "news" anchor is taking a stab at the White House. While taking the modest approach of only running in his native South Carolina primaries, who knows what a high turn-out could lead to.


For those of you who don't recognize this man, he is a comedian talk show host who portrays a news anchor on the popular show The Colbert Report. He reports on stories that simultaneously poke fun at influential people in the world, while at the same time giving a bit of true information. Due to this, one could almost know as much about what is going on in the world by watching his show as by watching CNN. The main difference, of course, is that Colbert is primarily a means of entertainment, and any knowledge gained by watching his show would be tainted with a heavy dose of sarcasm and exaggeration.

Colbert has a cult following that has been insisting he run for President ever since the last presidential election. Last time around he didn't go for it, but earlier this week on his television show he officially announced that he's going for it. However, before jumping for joy or pitching a fit, you should realize that he is only running in the South Carolina primaries. He isn't going all out and campaigning up and down the country...yet. At this time it is unclear as to whether or not this is just another gag to gain ratings, or if he will seriously run for President using his real morals.

Personally, I think this is hilarious. Anyone who is getting upset over something like this should chill out, as currently he doesn't have a chance. However, if he does take this seriously, and happens to win the primaries in South Carolina, who knows how far he could roll with it. I personally know a lot of college students who say they'd vote for him. However, when it comes down to it, I doubt anyone would seriously vote for him in his current state. He seems to be parading this around as a harmless joke. My advice to Colbert, take this seriously, campaign using your own show as a starting point, and you might just see this take off. Actors have been Presidents before...

P.S. You can get a petition for signatures at http://www.colbert08.org/ but keep in mind you have to be from South Carolina to sign it.

Political Unrest in South Africa

Recently in South Africa murder and the mafia have been linked to the police commissioner, adding fuel to the power battle for the African National Congress. The power struggles and corruption scandals became all the more illuminated when an industrialist with heavy political ties is gunned down by the mob. The complication comes in when ties between the mafia and the national police commissioner arise. Then, the warrant for his arrest disappears and the chief prosecutor who secured it is fired, all while President Thabo Mbeki stays silent.
Most experts believe that this stems from a political battle for control of the African National Congress between President Mbeki and Jacob Zuma, his competitor. Adding even more complications to this battle is the fact that in 2005 Zuma was fired from his deputy president position under Mbeki after he was tied to a multi-billion dollar military contract bribery scandal. Now instead of firing someone linked to corruption, Mbeki has intervened in the prosecution of Jackie Selebi, the commissioner and also president of Interpol. The Selebi scandal arose with the assassination of a Johannesburg mining magnate at the hands f Glenn Agliotti, a reputed mafia official. Phone records were found between Agliotti and Selebi on the day of the murder, just after it occurred. Mbeki refused to prosecute so Vusi Pikoli, the nation's chief prosecutor, secured two warrants including one for the arrest of Selebi. They were never enforced because Mbeki's justice minister demanded for the resignation and then the suspension of Pikoli. Mbeki is now having Pikoli investigated for prosecutorial excess. With elections for the party's next leader two months away it is predicted the power struggle will only get worse as Mbeki and Zuma both vie for power.

Sen. Harry Reid Thanks Rush Limbaugh

This is an update from a previous post that will give you a good laugh. Check this video out from Breitbart.

This is absolutely preposterous. I can't believe Harry Reid is trying to take credit for this. Rush put this letter up for auction, to try to make some good out of the nonsense, and Harry Reid says "I don't know what we could do more important than help ensure that the children of our fallen soldiers and police offers...have the opportunity for their children to have a good education."

Rush is matching whatever the final bid for the letter is, and donating it to the charity. He even gave Sen. Reid an opportunity to donate matching funds with him, but, of course, he got no response. This is just another ruthless attempt by the Democrats to spin this absolute lie in their favor and play party politics instead of solving the actual problems we are facing right now in America.

Rep. Stark: Soldiers getting their heads "blown off at the President's ammusement"

When only I thought the verbal assaults on President Bush couldn't get any worse, Democratic Rep. Pete Stark of Nevada takes the stand in Congress and claims that American troops in Iraq are just getting their heads "blown off at the President's amusement." Wow. If anyone is enjoying every American casualty in Iraq, it's the Democrats. They have been wishing and waiting for American defeat in the War on Terror since the beginning, as they see it a free ticket to the White House in 2008.

The sad thing is, he isn't about to send out an apology either. Yes, he knows how what he said came across and actually stands by that statement. I just can't imagine someone thinking a person actually enjoys hearing about a soldier's head being blown off, especially a President who has supported the troops in their efforts, and provided inspiration to them by insisting we finish the job instead of cutting and running like we did in Vietnam. Even Real Clear Politics calls the comments "deplorable."

Responding to the remarks, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) took the stand in outrage and said, "It is despicable to have a member of this Congress accuse the president, any president, of willfully blowing the heads, quote, 'blowing the heads off' our young men and women over in Iraq and Afghanistan," Brady said. "It is dead wrong, and it is beneath contempt as well that we will sit here silently and allow such a remark to be tolerated, accepted, if not embraced." Bravo, Mr. Brady.

The best way for the Republicans to regain control of Congress is to let the Democrats beat themselves. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), the House Minority leader, even said, "I always believe when your political opponents are committing suicide, there's no reason to murder them." It's true. Hopefully, the American people will choose to put people in Congress that actually supports the United States in its efforts, and don't make it their goal to play party politics at the expense of our troops on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere.

Some Democratic Congressmen Finally Do Something Right...

Several Democrats recently pulled their support of a bill that condemning Turkey for the killings of up to 1.5 million Armenians during World War I. The president of Turkey said in a statement that if the United States passes such a resolution, the political relationship could never be the same again. President Bush put a call into Speaker Pelosi asking that she not bring the bill to a vote, noting that it can only hurt the United States.

Turkey has been a big ally in the War on Iraq, granting us access to their border to transfer needed supplies to our troops from there. Needless to say, if this bill passes, that privilege will most likely be taken away. Even Congressman John Murtha, who has been against the war from the start, doesn't see any sense in the vote. ""From my discussions with our military commanders and foreign policy experts, I believe that this resolution could harm our relations with Turkey and therefore our strategic interests in the region," he said.


While I do not condone the actions of the Turkish government in any way, you have to look at the big picture of the discussion. If the official position of the United States was against the Turkish government to an extent that a resolution needed to be passed, it would have happened well before now.

I think the main thing we need to ask ourselves before making a final decision is, "What will we accomplish by passing a bill against our ally condemning them for something that no one in their present government is responsible for?" If you think the moral obligation is more important than the troops overseas, then maybe we should go ahead and vote. But if you are like me, and you don't understand the logic of the bill, then we should probably leave the situation alone.

Affirmative Action Is Not the Way To Go

For those of you who don't know what affirmative action is, here is a brief explanation from Wikipedia: Affirmative action refers to policies intended to promote access to education or employment aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minorities or women). In other words, those who believe in affirmative action hire or accept into a certain college a certain amount of minority or female applicants. While I am all for diversity, I believe that affirmative action is unfair to those people that would normally deserve a spot, but are rejected just because of their sex or color of their skin. The whole argument for affirmative action is that it reduces discrimination, but in reality, it creates a new form of discrimination, only it is against the majority.

Richard Sander,a law professor at UCLA recently published the results of a study reporting that black students accepted into the law program because of the school's affirmative action policy are not performing at the same capacity as the other students. "Currently only about one in three African-Americans who goes to an American law school passes the bar on the first attempt and a majority never become lawyers at all," he explained. To read more of the article, visit Fox News.

Much of this effect comes about not because the African-American students don't belong in college. It is that they don't belong to the college that they choose to attend based on its academic credentials. They might be accepted into Harvard because of affirmative action, and not be able to handle the work, but if they would have chosen a school that was a little easier, they could have passed with flying colors. The only thing affirmative action is accomplishing is that it messes up the correct distribution of students when it comes to acadmemic abilities. Students who rightfully deserve to go to a certain school are being rejected because of their skin color. I am not sure who first put this policy into effect, but it is a clear violation of the Constitution, and should be taken out of schools and places of business immediately.

Addendum to How to be Pro-Choice and Pro-Life at the Same Time

I when I wrote the article “How to be Pro-Choice and Pro-Life at the Same Time” I was trying to collect all my thoughts and some things did get omitted. For those of you who made comments about those specific areas’s thank you for brining them to light. One concept that I did forget to address the concept of medical complications, in the case in which the mother's life is in danger or there is an imminent health risk to her I do believe that she should be allowed to choose to end the pregnancy. From what I understand of the human body it is made so that if there is a problem with a baby it is miscarried so as not to harm the mother. If a problem of such nature exists and there is no miscarriage, again leading to problems with the mother’s health or survival, then in that case she should be able to opt for a "medically assisted miscarriage".


Another right that I meant to include did deal with rape and that would be the right to give up a child for adoption. I am completely in favor of allowing women to put up children for adoption, no questions asked. I simply feel that regardless of the horrific nature of the act no good, psychological or physical, can come from killing your un-wanted child.

Another issue I did forget to mention was education. I believe that in this country the sexual education program is severely lacking and another right that I meant to include was the right to an unbiased and comprehensive sexual education program. It is my belief that if we give our school children the all of the information about sex including the risks of pregnancy and std’s and back that up with the statistics about various types of birth control effectiveness we will be in a far better place than we are now concerning teen pregnancy. Another element to this is parental involvement on the subject, all too often parents and teachers shun the issue of sex as taboo while television and movies show people going at it all over the place. The issue is not that media needs to be censored, because it is art and art involves the artist relaying a message or state of emotion, and by editing it you change the message and therefore the art. Rather than change the media equip our children with the facts they need to bring the sexual endeavors that they see in fictional media into a realistic light. If a child consistently sees people on tv running around killing people and none of them get into trouble then that child’s view point is being skewed unless they also understand that such things are not realistic.

I probably have forgotten to address some other concerns at this point which I will try to address in the comments sections of these two posts, however if there are enough I will simply add another addendum.

Yamlight: John McCain

John McCain is another Republican candidate. He is considered somewhat of a radical amongst some members of his party. Yes yes, that sounds a lot like Rudy in my previous post, and I apologize for posting 2 Republicans in the same night, but rest assured, both were picked at random and statistics dictate that eventually I’ll stop posting about moderate Republicans.

McCain served in Vietnam, big time. He almost died due to an accident while stationed on an aircraft carrier. If that wasn’t a big enough deal for ya, he was also a POW for about 6 years. After his first year he was offered a chance of getting out due to his father’s high station in the military, but he refused to leave until everyone else in his prison was released as well. Because of this he suffered 5 extra years of beatings and physical trials.

McCain supports reforming the rules concerning campaign financing. He favors gun control, legalizing illegal immigrants, and he initially was against Bush’s tax cuts. These issues, amongst others, have given him his reputation as a more radical Republican. However, like most Republicans, he is pro-life, supports the death penalty, and is in favor of the privatization of social security.

McCain sees about half of the issues as I do. I strongly respect him as a person because of his strong moral convictions during his status as a POW, but I’m confident that such actions would reflect well on him as a leader. Though he isn’t exactly my first choice as a Presidential nominee, there are many people I would be displeased to see getting passed the primaries over him.

Problems in China

I was reading some articles in the Times about China that I found interesting. While there is far to much information for my to accurately summarize in this post I will try to give a brief synopsis if any one wants to check it out. The concept in the series of articles is that while China is booming economically they are running out of drinking water and irrigation water. Not only is that a problem but the water that they do have is becoming increasingly polluted as well as the air in the country. While enviromental problems are to be expected in countries that are industrializing (hell we in the US have lit a river on fire before with pollution) the nature of the problems in China seems far more serious, I'm no economist so i can't predict what effects this will have on their countries economy and ours, nor do I know what capabilites the Chinese government has to deal with such problems, but from the sound of the articles it seems like China's swift economic climb might just pleatu for a little while some time soon

The green water is supposedly some kind of toxic algae.

How to be Pro-Choice and Pro-Life at the Same Time

One topic that has been a recurring hot topic in the news around every election season since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 is, you guessed it, abortion. On one side of the aisle you have people that are saying allow contraception and abortion because it is a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. On the other side of the aisle you have people who are saying sex is for producing children only and therefore we should not allow contraceptives and abortion, but rather promote an abstinence only approach to preserve the sanctity of life. Well now for the first time ever, a compromise!!! Using my stunning super powers of common sense and basic logic I have over come the hurdles of indecision that have remained impenetrable for the past 35 years. Without any further ado I will now explain how one can be both pro-choice in the name of women’s rights and pro-life in the name of children’s life.

My proposal is that women are allowed to choose whether they want to have sex or remain abstinent, whether or not they want to use birth control, what type of birth control they want to use (male condom, female condom, diaphragm, cervical cap, sponge, spermicide, oral contraceptive, high dose morning after oral contraceptive, contraceptive patch, vaginal ring, hormone shots, intrauterine device, tubal ligation, vasectomy, and/or the combination of any of these) based on the statistical success rates, and what brand of the type of birth control they want to use based on the brand’s statistical success rate. The variable plethora of choices gives women hundreds if not thousands of choices all providing variable rates of pregnancy prevention, pleasure, and std protection. And this is how I fulfill the pro-choice side of my argument.

In the end the only choice that the woman does not have is whether or not to kill her unborn child. While some may say that this is not free choice because the woman can no longer kill or to put it more pleasantly, “terminate” or maybe in a more Orwellian fashion if you prefer that sort of thing, “liquidate”, her child I believe this is not the case. To back up said point I have a quote from former Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins”. Such is true with women and their child in my belief, the woman has the right to have sex with whomever she wants, she has the right to catch an std, she has the right to get pregnant, she also has the rights not to have sex, the right to attempt to prevent pregnancy, and the right to attempt to prevent an std. However the one thing that one must realize is that the woman has these rights because doing such things directly affects her life and only her life, where as killing your child, by the nature of the act itself, clearly must affect the child.

As to the question of at what point is an unborn child considered an unborn child, I would say when all the pieces are there to build it. Just as bricks, wood, and a labor crew all separated are not considered a house under construction, sperm, egg, and the womb when all separate are not considered an unborn child. However say you were to buy bricks, and wood, and pay a labor crew to build you a house, now you have a house under construction and if some one were to burn it down you could file criminal charges because they destroyed your house while it was being built. Now in the same fashion once a sperm and an egg come together, each carrying half of the supplies necessary to make a baby, and they do so inside a womb which is capable of building a baby, now you have a baby under construction until the date it is born, thus upon fertilization of an egg by a sperm inside of a womb you have an unborn child.

In the end I find that this compromise in keeping with the history of the American Justice system preserves the woman’s rights to choice so far as they do not interfere with a child’s rights to life. In the end I believe that it would be in the best interest of all those on both sides of the issue capable of using unemotional and unbiased reasoning (note neither the word God nor sexist references were used in this article) to agree that this would be a suitable compromise. By the nature of this argument being pro-choice and pro-life the only three groups that I can think of that would fall into this category would be religious extremists, feminists who are so in favor of women’s rights that they want to crush the rights of everyone else, and people who hate babies.

To simplify terrorists, Femi Nazi’s, and Michael Jackson hate my proposal.

Yamlight: Rudy Giuliani

Next up on the chopping block...I mean Yamlight, is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy's a Republican now, but he used to be a Democrat back before 1980. Because of his Democratic background he tends to be more moderate than most Republicans. He was Mayor of New York from 1994-2001 which included 9-11. Because of this fact, he was Time Magazine's Man of the year in 2001. However, now he is running for the candidacy of the Republican Party.

Many people would consider Rudy a moderate in a Republican's suit. He is pro-choice, even though he has stated that he hates abortions. He is in favor of Education Vouchers, saying that he would revive and reform the public school system, as opposed to destroy it. He believes in the concept of evolution, yet at the same time likes the idea of allowing prayer in school. He only supports the death penalty in specific murder cases, such as the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. He is usually a big hit with the Log Cabin Republicans as well.

Rudy supports the war on drugs, as well as gun control in highly populated areas. He thinks gun control laws should be different in the Midwest. Unlike most Republicans he doesn't support the idea of a nation wide sales tax, and if he becomes a Presidential Nominee he would be the first one since '88 to not sign a pledge to not raise taxes.

Though old Rudy and I don’t exactly see eye to eye on everything, we do on many things. He also has a lot of experience being a leader in critical situations. Though some call him out on his lack of commitment to his original political party, not to mention his 2 divorces, I consider it one of his strengths. It takes a strong man to admit he has changed his mind and is willing to jump the fence. If I were to vote as a Republican in the primaries today, I’d vote for Giuliani.

Flag Certificate Policy Changed

The Office of the Architect of the Capitol has now changed the policy of not allowing "God" to appear on official flag certificates. I recently posted on the unconstitutionality of the issue, and due to public outcry, the rule has been changed.

Acting Architect Steven Ayers came out with a statement saying, "I have directed that the policy be changed and that new guidelines be reissued immediately. I appreciate the Congress bringing this important issue to my attention, and I appreciate their support as we worked to resolve this situation to everyone’s satisfaction.
As for the Speaker of the House, Nanci Pelosi, who previously defended the rule, she completely flip-flopped on the issue. "I don't think the architect's office should be in the role of censoring what members want to say on those documents ... and I spoke earlier to the minority leader about this issue and said that it was my understanding that the architect's office was going to put forth this statement," Pelosi said. "I think they, the architect's office, came to their own conclusion."

It sounds to me that Ayers is trying to cover his own butt by acting like he had no idea of what was going on, when in fact, he was the one writing the certificates.

As for the Speaker of the House, Nanci Pelosi, who previously defended the rule, she completely flip-flopped on the issue. "I don't think the architect's office should be in the role of censoring what members want to say on those documents ... and I spoke earlier to the minority leader about this issue and said that it was my understanding that the architect's office was going to put forth this statement," Pelosi said. "I think they, the architect's office, came to their own conclusion." Typical American politics if you ask me.

Yamlight on the Election: Kucinich

This post will be the first in what I hope to be a long series covering the many candidates of the 2008 election. What follows will be information, and my opinions, on whichever candidate peaks my interest. Today that would be Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic Congressman who represents the 10th District of Ohio.

Mr. Kucinich is a Democrat, as noted above. He has voted against funding the War in Iraq every time, voted against the Patriot Act, and was part of the impeachment attempt towards Dick Cheney. He calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, followed by a multinational security force taking up residence. He then suggests we more or less make sure everyone knows we are sorry, help Iraq rebuild their country, repay them for damages, and make sure we don't get any of their oil. He was very upset about Dick Cheney's involvement in initiating the War in Iraq, calling him out on suggesting false evidence and misleading the public into thinking Iraq has weapons that they really didn't have.

Kucinich is pro-choice, though he doesn't support the idea of abortion. He supports the usage of contraceptives, hoping that such actions will lower the "need" of abortion. Oh ya, did I mention he's a Roman Catholic? On that note, he is also a Vegan, being cited as considering all life sacred. Incase you don't know what a vegan is; they don't eat meat, eggs, milk, or anything else that's a product of animals. He supports rural family organic farming, none of those big corporation farms, and he believes in "the meat that we consume coming from happy and healthy free-range animals."

Now, I'm on the fence about the war; I support staying and finishing the job, but I don't agree with our reasons of starting the whole thing. I don't think pulling out of the area now would be a good idea. I do agree with his stance on the Patriot Act though, as I consider this an infringement on our rights. However, I'm really interested in his stance on abortion in accords to his religion. A Catholic who puts his religion on the back burner and fights for a pro-choice, contraceptive using country gets a lot of bonus points in my book. I don't understand the vegan thing, but to each his own I guess.

Kucinich isn't exactly on the top of my list, but he isn't at the bottom either. I'll defiantly be keeping an eye on him, and hopefully one of you guys learned something from this. Expect a lot more Yamlights in the future, its about time people started voting based on what they believe, not just on what political party they like better.

Mike Pence fights back against the Fairness Doctrine

With the current attacks being brought forth on Rush Limbaugh, the Democrats are attempting to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to limit talk radio from freely expressing their views. For those of you who don't know what the Fairness Doctrine is, it is basically a law that requires radio programs who discuss controversial political issues to present both sides of an argument, rather than only having the host advocate his or her opinions. Here is a video of Mike Pence, the radio host-turned-Congressman on his view of why the Fairness Doctrine should not be passed back into law.



This effort by the Democrats is merely a last stitch effort to gain a little bit of power over the millions of radio-listening citizens of America. I completely agree with Congressman Pence that this would not even be an issue if the Democrats had a talk show host that people wanted to listen to. They just aren't out there. The Democrats already have a near-monopoly on television networks (other than Fox News), but that just doesn't satisfy them. They want control over all media outlets, so their propaganda will be heard by all. Well, newsflash: We don't want to hear it.

This also is clearly a violation of the US Constitution. There is a little clause in the First Amendment protecting the freedom of the press. I don't know about you, but I take that as meaning that the government isn't allowed to tell the media outlets what they can and cannot say (other than profanity). Again, Congress is wasting taxpayer dollars by taking time to argue over a bill that is clearly unconstitutional, and was only written to try to censor a Republican talk show host from saying what the majority of Americans want to hear.

Pelosi Denies the Use of "God" to a Boy Scout

Several Republican congressmen recently sent a letter House Speaker Nanci Pelosi questioning her decision to refuse the use of God's name on certificates of flags flown over the US Capitol. An Eagle Scout recently requested a certificate sent with the flag to his grandfather reading, "In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family." But when they received the certificate, the "of God" had been removed. When the boy and his father called to question the omission, they found out that these certificates are not allowed to include the word "God," and Nanci Pelosi defended the decision saying, "It's not about being anti-religion. It is just about what the architect thought was appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate." You can read more of the story here.
This is exactly about being anti-religion. For years, the Democrats have been afraid of religion and trying to remove God from all aspects of government, citing "the separation of church and state" as the reason. Well, news flash: the separation of church and state is not a law, and does not appear on the books of any federal or state legislation. The founding fathers of this country partook in a prayer the day before and the day after they approved the First Amendment to be sent to the states, so clearly, they believed that God should be a part of government procedures, as long as it was not being forced upon anyone.

Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio is leading the effort to get the policy changed. He said in a statement, "The word 'God' is carved into the walls of both chambers of Congress. The Architect is the custodian of the Capitol and currently maintains several religious symbols in the building. If permitted, removing 'God' from the Capitol flag ceremonies will be the precedent for removing 'God' from the Capitol, and this cannot be permitted.”

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) added, “Just this week, Congress approved a resolution ‘commending Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith’ – yet the word ‘God’ is being scrubbed from private flag certificates.” This misguided and contradictory political correctness has got to come to an end.”

I absolutely agree with both statements. The Democrats need to realize that the word "God" is not a bad thing. Christianity is a belief that this country was built on (as well as others, but Christianity is by far America's largest religion). The United States government needs to be a little more consistent on their stances when it comes to topics of God and religion. They celebrate one religion (Islam) one day, and the next, they censor all use of the word "God." We need to realize that religion is not a bad thing, but rather something that should be celebrated by all who believe. It is something so precious that it could bring the entire country together, but members of the House are turning it into an issue that just tears everyone apart.

How To End American Socialism

After all of the talk in my previous two posts about the growing trend of socialism in this country I have come up with an idea to please all parties involved, Optional Socialism. The concept is simple, every five years you are given a choice, I want to live in a socialist society or I want to live in a free market society. For those who choose to live in the free market society things are the same as they are now except with less taxes, you buy what you need and if there is money left over you can buy what you want. For those who chose the socialist society route you would be pooled with all of the other Americans who choose to do it and all of your yearly income would go to a branch of the government set up to regulate this group of people.

The income of the people in the socialist group would go strait from their employer to the government who would deduct the standard taxes that were charged to the people in the free market group and then forward the rest to the regulation branch who would then divide the total amount of money by the total number of people in the program evenly. Every one in the program would then get the exact same goods in the exact same quantity every month. The same food, the same medical care, the same housing, the same clothes, ect. The total amount of goods disbursed would be based on the total amount coming into this program not on what people wanted.

Again people would be able to freely move between the programs every five years if they wanted to. My personal belief is that over time these people would begin to want the things that they were no longer getting. Every one would want something different because as humans our needs are different, which is why socialism cannot work effectively. Different needs and wants lead to trading of goods, trading of goods leads to the development of currency, and the development of currency leads to a free market economy. Maybe after all of the fools in this country who join the socialist program spend five years in a poverty stricken socialist hell they will finally pull their heads out of their collective asses and stop trying to turn the U.S.A. into the U.S.S.R. with all these damn socialist bills.

Where Increasing Socialism Will Take This Country

Let me explain my take on the story in the previous post. In my opinion taxes should be used for only the necessities such as maintaining a military, courts, disaster relief, economic stability, intelligence agencies, police, fire departments, schools, and various other bureau’s and departments that work for the common good of every one. In stead of letting the people in this country put their money into stocks and investments that help us expand economically we just keep siphoning it off it to things such as welfare and all of these other government subsidies. As I have said in my post on my Theory of Emigration, over time there will be fewer and fewer jobs in this country due to increased automation and mechanization. That being so we can keep increasing government payments to the people without jobs, watch those numbers continue to grow and carry an increasing deadweight around, a massive economic burden for those with jobs or we can simply say no and allow our country to flourish economically.

For those of you who have heard the old adage “Give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for a year” I believe the teaching has been done, we have public schools, collages give scholarships, student loans are available, any one with some motivation can get the education they need to bring in all the fish they want. So keeping in line with the adage, rather than force hard working fishermen to give out more and more of their catch every day until they are brought down to the level of those getting the free fish, we can stop giving them out. Without free fish (government subsidies) people will be motivated to fish for themselves (get a job) and for those who find it to difficult to fish in this pond (America) they can go somewhere else (another country, emigrate for a better life just like the ancestors of everyone who migrated here).

Why do people immigrate to America? Cause we kick ass? While some may say so I don’t think people move around the world just to live in a country that they consider cool. How about because we are a democracy? For some one living in the lower societal rungs of another country our concepts of democracy and personal liberty are intangible, so why? Because of the fair system we have for social mobility, an honest shot to make a better life for your self and your family. We are not the only country where people live comfortably, even in 3rd world countries there are people living high above the rest. However in those countries the system for social mobility is not fair and it is very hard to move up. The class system in the US is like a mountain, our laws and regulations make sure that everyone is allowed to climb up or down at their own pleasure. We educate people in public schools and give people the opportunity to learn how to effectively scale this social mountain.

In the case of the mountain, if all of the people at the bottom cling to the ropes of those on the top they will pull them down and then no one will reach the summit. Let us continue to have a free and socially mobile America, every one has a fair shot to climb the economic mountain, and no one is forced to be pulled back down by some one who doesn’t fell like climbing it themselves.

The Beginning of Socialism in America

Over time I seem to have noticed that in this country more and more often laws are passed that take more and more of our money in the form of taxes and use that money to pay for other people to live comfortably. The other day I received an email about a foreign man who had come to America from some country in which socialists were trying to overthrow the government. Part of this story was an analogy that I found very interesting so I have decided to post it.

In the story the man is talking and asked the question, “Do you know how to catch wild pigs? You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, then you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The man in the story says that it is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, Medicare, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

The Smoking Ban

Indiana has no state-wide law against smoking in public places. However, in West Lafayette you can only smoke in your house, tobacco stores, private clubs, and outside. This means no smoking in any bar or restaurant. A few cities in California are even trying to ban people from smoking in public areas outside.

Here in good old West Lafayette, it all started back in '06 when Ordinance 8-06 was introduced in March and passed in April. However, it didn't take effect until July of this year. Since then, there has been no legal smoking in Harry's, no smoking B-Dubs, and no smoking in any place of employment. This is all part of a large country, if not world, wide movement towards the prevention of passive smoking. The idea is that anyone who takes in the smoke let off by smokers absorbs an assortment of toxins that can lead to heart disease and lung cancer, not to mention do harm to people who have asthma or an allergy to cigarette smoke.

So what’s my opinion on the whole deal? I'm on the fence. I've heard from many people and studies that second hand smoke is nearly as harmful as the act of smoking itself. I've also heard that it is only a small fraction as harmful. I've even heard some studies go so far as to say it is harmless to most people. Personally, I don't believe it to be very dangerous unless you are exposed to it on a regular basis, but my opinion shouldn't hold much weight since it isn't exactly backed up by scientific data. Then again, a lot of "studies" aren't exactly backed up by real unbiased data either.

It is when it comes down to the areas in which a ban prevents smokers from lighting up that I get a strong opinion. When cities start banning people form smoking outside and in bars I start getting upset. As a self-described Libertarian, I believe people should be allowed to do basically anything they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. (Don't take me too literally on that, there are many exceptions.) You would be hard pressed to convince me that people smoking outside, where there is such a huge area for the toxins to disperse, have a significant negative effect on non-smokers around them. People who don't want to be exposed to smoke in bars and restaurants can simply eat and drink somewhere else, like a no smoking section or your own house.

I don't believe in a smoking ban in any of the areas mentioned above, but I do believe in a smoking ban in some places. For instance, people can easily choose a different area to eat dinner that doesn't expose them to smoke, but finding a new job where the employees don't smoke is a different story. Likewise, smoking in an area such as a hospital is totally unacceptable; half the people in there can't even walk to get fresh air, let alone the fact that they are already sick. Apartments and dorms are up in the air, perhaps there could be a small section of an apartment complex that allows it or a certain dorm on campus that lets people light up.

I'm very skeptical about jumping onto the no smoking bandwagon, and I believe smokers are undeservingly being shunned. However, some of the ideas being thrown around do hold some merit, such as banning smoking in the work place. All in all, I don't believe second hand smoking is really that dangerous, people are being too anal about the entire ordeal, and banning smoking in restaurants and bars is a serious infringement on our rights as Americans. But, I ask, what are your opinions? Do you think there should be a total ban everywhere, no where, certain places? Do you think that second hand smoke is the next plaque, a joke, or some kind of middle ground? Please, comment, elaborate, and share your facts and opinions.

Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance

I heard this the other day on the radio, and I really thought it was something we need to be reminded of from time to time. As we say the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes, we don't really think about what we are saying, but rather just say the words we have known since elementary school. Here is Red Skelton's version of the Pledge, and it is well worth the four minutes to listen to it:



This video was made several years ago, but it still applies very much today. I think Americans get caught up in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, and they forget to remember the simple freedoms that we enjoy as citizens of the United States of America. I am very thankful for each and every person that has fought to grant me these freedoms, and as an American, I will support every effort to give these freedoms to those in other countries (i.e. Iraq) that who are literally dying to have what we have.

As for Red's last statement, "Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said (the Pledge) is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools too?" I could not agree more. There are a lot worse things to be exposed to in this world besides religion, and I think it is good that kids in school grow up knowing the foundation of beliefs set up by our founding fathers, since they even engaged in a prayer they day before and the day after they voted to approve the First Amendment.

Why do we vote on Tuesday?

I'm not exactly sure either. Here is a video from an organization who is trying to get this outdated law changed:


This is absolutely embarrassing. The United States is supposedly the greatest country on the planet, and yet people are too lazy to take an hour out of one day during the year to get out and exercise their civil duty. I think changing the voting day is an intriguing idea that needs to be seriously looked at by Congress. Anything has to be better than a measly 48.3%.

However, I think the only other alternative would be to have the vote on Saturday, because one day during the week is just as bad as the other. Would people take time out of their weekend to go vote? Let's hope so. I think it would lead to some improvement, just because many people are not permitted by their employers to take off work to go vote. But that decision has to be made by Congress and the citizens of America, and we already know how eager most Americans are to change.

And after watching the video, I will make a challenge myself: To all of you, Republican or Democrat, who have criticized the President and his administration for doing a lousy job during the past seven years, take the initiative to go out and vote at the primaries to elect someone who you think will do a better job. I know I will be there, and you should too. Put your vote where your mouth is, and go make a difference, because the only way to get something done your way is to do it yourself.

Sen. Harry Reid Resorts to Lying to Discredit Rush Limbaugh

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went out of his way today to write a letter to the CEO of the company that syndicates Rush Limbaugh's radio program, requesting that he denounce Limbaugh for comments he made last week about how soldiers in Iraq are "phony soldiers." So why am I not upset with Rush, since I am a supporter the war? Because Sen. Reid made the entire thing up. Rush Limbaugh's radio program is the most highly listened-to program in the country, and Sen. Reid thinks he can get away with making up what Limbaugh said.

Reid stated, "Last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line, way over the line. While I respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments I cannot ignore. During his show last Wednesday, Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This one was unremarkable, indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years, until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, 'phony soldiers.' This comment was so beyond the pale of decency, and we can't leave it alone."

The "phony soldier" (singular) that Limbaugh was referring to was of a person telling the stories of the horrendous things he had seen in Iraq and how the United States should leave immediately. The only problem: the person has never been in the military and has not been to Iraq (hence, phony soldier). So, somehow, by rightfully calling this person a phony, Sen. Reid deduced that Rush Limbaugh, who fully supports the troops and continuing the success we have achieved in Iraq, does not believe the American troops there are "real soldiers." Are you kidding me? Why are we even wasting the time of the United States Senate? There are so many problems going on in the United States right now, and we waste the Senate's time with garbage like this.

Limbaugh responded on his radio program by saying, "He's gotta be a nut. I cannot believe that they are actually going this far with this...If anybody in this country has been trying to demoralize the troops, it is you, sir, and your members of the Democrat Party. You have waved the white flag of defeat. You have claimed that they cannot win. You are trying to shift the focus from your perception, the perception, accurately, that people have of you and your party, to me, who everyone who has listened to me any length of time whatsoever knows that these allegations are just totally untrue."

I completely agree with Rush on this one. Sen. Reid and the rest of the Democratic Party have done our troops of disservice by threatening to cut off funding in Iraq and debating bringing the troops home before the job is finished, and now they want to act tough and defend them. It sounds awfully two-faced to me, and I can't sit back and let it happen. No wonder Congress' approval rating is so low right now (25.3%, yes, much lower than President Bush's). If they waste our tax dollars by getting paid to talk about crap like this, that rating will only continue to plummet.