Posts Tagged ‘Ethics’

Rangel Guilty! Who wudda thought…

November 17, 2010

The answer to that is a lot of people, and for quite some time I might add.

WASHINGTON—New York Rep. Charles Rangel, a longtime power in the U.S. House, violated its rules with financial misconduct, brought it discredit and will be punished, fellow lawmakers sitting as jurors ruled on Tuesday.Protesting the enduring stain on his four-decade congressional career, the 80-year-old Democrat said he was treated unfairly for “good faith mistakes.” His statement reflected the bitterness of an eight-month career slide, starting with an unrelated ethics ruling that forced him from his coveted chairmanship of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.Full Story HERE

Rangel’s Rating HERE

Propaganda, pure and simple…

March 28, 2010

The Gray Lady aka New York times is well known for being a leftist mouth piece, and, in spite of a revenue stream that resembles a person hell bent on flowing over Niagara Falls continues to amuse and entertain.

Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich makes a case for the debate of whether the Times uses Saul Alinsky’s Rules for radicals or Goebbels Principles of Propaganda. Filled with misconceptions and untruths, but just enough substance to make his insane accusations believable he continues the NYT tradition.

Read that HERE.

As always, the devil will be found within the details, and? This is what I think. The New York Times is bleeding revenue, therefore, it stands to reason that they will back the obama to the hilt. Can you say another bailout?

I knew ya’ could!

CSU Regents Reject Logic, Reason, and State Law

December 12, 2009

As noted in an earlier post the Regents at Colorado State University were in the depths of deciding whether or not to turn the campuses into Free Fire Zones. Well, they decided that a bloody mess when, not if, the next moral degenerate decides to get their fifteen minutes of fame at the expense of the student body. Not to mention their collective decision is in direct violation of state law.

Senator Greg Brophy sent them a well-reasoned letter that, as a rather successful CSU graduate you would think that they would have listened too, as well as taken into account. However, the forces of political correctness, and anti liberty and logic held sway at the end of the day. Thereby setting the stage for yet another slaughter in an institution of learning in Colorado. I’m guessing that two were not enough for these brainy types to figure things out on their own.

In any case, Senator Brophy was kind enough to allow me to reprint some of the feed back that he has received about all this. Please note the absolute lack of critical thinking, as well as a pronounced lack of logical thought that was expressed in the emails that he responded too. Then, I will follow-up with a few additional links that have related story’s.

Whoops, I need to update the update, as
the punch line is missing from the last of my email
exchange with liberal

And my favorite exchange with Richard
Leather, also from Denver:

How many crimes or violent incidents in Colorado,
over say the past 10 years, have been interdicted by
a private gun owner?

On a national basis:

•The U.S.
has an estimated 283 million guns in civilian hands
or approximately 97 guns for every 100 people (Karp).

•Each year, about 4.5 million new firearms, including
approximately 2 million handguns, are sold in the
United States
(Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF).

•An estimated 2 million secondhand firearms are sold
each year as
well (ATF).

If there are measurable interventions by private gun
owners, including
on campus, then weapons on a campus can be argued for
with at least minimal justification.

But I do not see evidence that private citizens play
any measurable
role in prevention of crime or violence.
What am I missing?

I sent back this:

You really shouldn’t bring a knife to a gun fight, so
to speak.

Two quick examples:

Shooting justified/ Woman who wounded intruder
within her rights,

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs),
Nov 23, 2000 | by Jeremy Meyer

A 72-year-old woman who shot a man allegedly breaking
into her Knob
Hill home Saturday won’t be charged, the 4th District
Attorney’s Office said

Aurora woman fires at intruder who cops think
was serial rapist

By Jim Kirksey

Denver Post Staff Writer 9/23/20
A man police believe may be a serial rapist
preying on women in Aurora
and Denver narrowly
escaped injury when a would-be victim fired a shot
at him as he stood in her
bedroom doorway, said Sgt. Rudy Herrera of the
Aurora Police Department.

The liberal dummy sent this back:

Ah, I see. Once in 2000. Then again in 2005.

QED. Now
really, Brophy. Not even in the old sod would that wash.

The issue, moreover, is not
guns stashed at home, wielded in face of invasive

It’s the rationality of “gunning after” CSU trustees
the problem of youngsters carrying concealed weapons.
Defending one’s
self all too readily translates to defending from
insult. That is a
tradition out here that deserves burial.

Pandering to a constituent element at the expense of
good governance is
no proper part of conservatism.

So I sent him back this:

I really feel like I need to pat you on
the head and say nice try. Maybe you
forgot about the New
Life Church
attempted mass murder in December of 2007.
Jeanne Assam had a concealed carry permit and was at
church on that
fateful Sunday, thank God. This is from
the Rocky:

Firing as he moved

approached a Toyota
minivan. David and Marie Works were climbing in with
their daughters –
18-year-old twins Laurie and Stephanie, and Rachel,
16, and Grace, 11.

walked slowly, arcing around the van, firing as he moved.

“Get down! Get down!” David Works yelled.

bullets shattered windows on the van and cut down
Stephanie, Rachel and their

Stephanie Works died in the minivan. Paramedics rushed
Rachel Works to the hospital, performing
cardiopulmonary resuscitation all the
way – and doctors fought to save her but could not.
David Works, seriously
injured, also was rushed to the hospital, where he
was treated for wounds to
his abdomen and groin.

In another part of the parking lot, shots hit a
Toyota 4Runner occupied by
Matt and Judy Purcell and their three daughters. Judy
Purcell, who was sitting
in the front passenger seat, suffered injuries to her
shoulder and face, and
her husband sped off for the hospital.

Bullets cut through the front fender of a Honda Accord,
but the woman behind the wheel wasn’t hurt.

Murray walked toward the church, according to numerous
witnesses, firing indiscriminately from his assault
rifle, blowing holes in the
glass doors on the east side of the main church
building before he entered.

Inside, in a hallway, Murray’s gunfire hit Larry
Bourbonnais, 59,
in the arm, just as he ducked behind a pillar.

At that same moment, church security officer Jeanne Assam
drew her 9 mm pistol and shouted “surrender” at Murray.

“Drop the gun,” she yelled. “Drop the gun,
or I will kill you.”

Needless to say, he is not very happy with
me. Not that I care.

I’ll continue to work to resolve
this issue and make students and visitors to CSU
safer. I’m working closely with Dudley Brown
from He is really going the extra mile
to help the
students at CSU. If you are not a member
of RMGO, you should be. The other gun
groups are good and work hard. RMGO is
the best; you can always count on them to side with
the Constitution, even if
it isn’t on a popular issue – no compromising on


Note: some spacing was edited for clarity, content un-changed.

Related is a response having to do with this issue from NRA/ILA:

Anti-Gun Lunacy Abounds On Colorado College Campuses
Friday, December 11, 2009
The carrying of firearms on college campuses remains hotly debated these days.  Recently, that debate has centered on two prominent Colorado universities.

Last week, the Colorado State University (CSU) Student Senate voted overwhelmingly (21-3) to continue allowing students with valid state-issued carry permits to carry concealed firearms on campus.  The local Sheriff endorsed the students’ decision.  But the nine-member CSU Board of Governors overruled the decision, voting on Friday to strike down the proposal.

A final decision by CSU President Dr. Anthony A. Frank on the proposal is expected soon.  In the meantime, Frank will review recommendations from both the student government and his public safety and cabinet members.

Former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) reportedly called the CSU decision “stupid.”  Tancredo has proposed a 2010 ballot measure that would ask voters to recommend to Colorado’s state officials that they oppose all forms of gun restrictions.  A December 7, 2009 State Bill Colorado article reports that Tancredo said the issue is about self-defense, stopping “horrendous” incidents and protecting the Second Amendment.

“Do you want to protect people, or do you want to be politically correct?  Which is your goal?” Tancredo asked.

“You do realize that there are about 300 million firearms in the United States in private hands.  If the opponents of concealed-carry and of private ownership of firearms were right, every city in the United States would be Beirut,” he said.

Tancredo went on to note that statistics indicate gun violence in the United States has been going down over the last decade, as gun ownership has been increasing.

Meanwhile, the University of Colorado (UC) also took up the issue of banning firearms on campus last week when they confirmed a ban on¾drum roll¾Nerf guns! Yes, Nerf guns.  You know, those toy guns that shoot soft spongy balls?  The ones kids play with in the family room?  Yes, those Nerf guns.

It seems that the game of “humans vs. zombies” has become a national craze on college campuses.  The game involves “zombie” students attempting to eliminate “human” students by pelting them with spongy Nerf balls or balled-up socks.  When campus security officials got wind of the game, they moved quickly to ban the Nerf guns.  Students using the play guns could be charged with violations of the student-conduct policy or even arrested on charges of unlawful conduct.

So, while Nerf guns may be safe to sell in “Kids R Us,” and safe for use by children in their home, apparently they are seen as enough of a grave danger for college students that UC has banned them.

“We told them that the violation of the weapons policy is a serious thing,” said CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard.  “If a third party happened upon this and called 911, we’d have to respond as if it were a real incident.”


“It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.”

December 12, 2009

The latest from the felon Bloomberg reveals just what lengths idiots such as he, and others like Lautenberg, Schumer, and the usual gang of suspects will go to with the express goal of depriving you of life and liberty through the destruction of the Bill of Rights.

This week, anti-gun New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released the findings of a poll conducted by a political consulting firm called “The Word Doctors,” whose slogan is “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.”  Word Doctors’ president is a pollster who has been reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and censured by the National Council on Public Polls, and who says that the key to polling is “to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer.”

At some other time in our nation’s history, an organization like this would not have been commissioned to conduct a poll, and perhaps it would not even have existed. At a minimum, its poll would have been considered biased and rejected by every newspaper in the country.

But today, as the distinction between editorials and news has become blurred, information is treated so superficially that a catchy word or two is enough to get someone elected to public office, and some in positions of authority cannot conceive of the concept of shame.

Thus, earlier this week, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) excitedly called attention to the bought-and-paid-for Word Doctors “poll,” which claimed that a majority of NRA members and other gun owners support Lautenberg’s bills to prohibit the possession of firearms by people placed (often mistakenly) on the FBI terrorist watchlist (S.1317), to require gun show promoters to send ledgers of customer information to the federal government (S.843), and to let the FBI retain records for 180 days of every gun purchase approved by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)  (S.2820).  The poll also claimed support for Bloomberg’s proposal to rescind the Tiahrt Amendment, which prevents unfettered release of BATFE firearm trace data.  (Bloomberg, of course, wants to use the data in lawsuits against the firearms industry.)

But did the poll really show such strong support?  Certainly the participants didn’t have much information to go on.  The poll didn’t explain that the watchlist has been under fire by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s office and the ACLU for improperly including the names of innocent people, and that many innocent people have been mistaken for those who are on the watchlist. It didn’t explain that Lautenberg’s gun show bill would do much more than require NICS checks on private gun sales at gun shows.

The poll mischaracterized the issue of NICS record retention. Instead of informing poll participants that the accused Ft. Hood murderer had been investigated by the FBI and found to not constitute a terror threat months before he went through a NICS check to purchase the gun he allegedly used in the murders, the poll simply asked whether “the FBI should be able to access and keep information about gun purchases by terror suspects in cases similar to [the accused Ft. Hood killer’s]?” Worse, Word Doctors misinformed poll participants by telling them that the accused killer was still under investigation at the time he purchased the gun.

The poll also asked if participants agreed that “The federal government should not restrict the police’s ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws,” when in fact the Tiahrt Amendment fully allows access to trace information, as long as it’s related to crimes that they’re actually investigating.

And the poll also claimed that a majority of gun owners want to “balance” their rights against the need to stop criminals from getting guns. But what it actually asked was whether gun owners agreed that “We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them.” Coupled with the poll’s findings that an overwhelming majority of gun owners believe “Criminals . . . should be punished to the maximum extent of the law” and “Law-abiding Americans should have the freedom to choose how to protect themselves, based on their personal situation,” it’s fair to conclude that gun owners understand the two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive.  Since the ideas are compatible, they don’t require a “balance,” as suggested by gun control supporters.

Notably, Lautenberg mentioned none of the poll’s findings that undercut the anti-gun agenda, and Dionne mentioned few. These include findings that an overwhelming majority of gun owners:

  • Thinks President Obama will try to ban guns;
  • Agrees that the Supreme Court’s decision in last year’s Heller case was correct;
  • Agrees that the Second Amendment should prevent all levels of government from infringing the right to arms;
  • Agrees that people should be allowed to carry guns for protection in national parks;
  • Agrees that people should be allowed to transport firearms in baggage on Amtrak trains;
  • Agrees that gun laws should be less strict or left as they are; and
  • Opposes or is neutral about gun registration and an “assault weapon” ban.

One final note: Since Word Doctors had no access to NRA membership lists, there’s no way the pollsters could verify that any of the “NRA members” actually were NRA members.  While this is a fatal flaw, we mention it at the end only because the poll’s other flaws were even worse.


Incorporation: Beast or Blessing?

August 25, 2009

Incorporation used in this context will apply to legal terminology.

First, I suppose that I will need to go pee in the various swelled headed Lawyers morning bowl of oatmeal. I believe that you simply do not have to be a Lawyer in order to understand the difference between what is right and wrong. Moral, or immoral. Lawyers write really neat briefs and such. However, as I pointed out to a Jury once. They are disconnected all to often with reality.

Now, on to the point that I intend to make. The Supreme Court, and in all the downstream Courts there is a hierarchy. The Supreme Court of the United States is above, or has authority over the Courts of Appeals, which have authority over United State District Courts, which can over rule State Courts, and so on down the line. My terminology may be a bit off here, but, after all I’m not in the business of Law. I am a retired Paramedic, and the son of a dead Marine. So, if any corrections are needed as to the chain of command I will accept them.

The point here is that within the legal community there are big dogs, and then there are bigger dogs, and so on. I was taught that Law operates in the same manner. As in, there is the highest Law in the land the United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. All this is pretty logical so far. There is indeed a clear cut chain of command. Not to tough for a kid that attended High Schools in Southern California to understand. Or anywhere else as far as that goes.

However, it seems that some people just can’t figure out that simple principle. Those people are called Lawyers, or at least that is how it appears. No, not all Lawyers. Some actually can think like normal people do. Others though, simply can’t understand normal thinking as an old Scot saying goes…

So now, as a result of illogical and quite possibly immoral action we the American people are about to be Lorded over yet again by a bunch of blithering nincompoops that probably should be tarred and feathered! Oh, I forgot, that they had that made “illegal” so that they can’t be held accountable…

Read on folks, and warm up some tar as you send you children off to the barn for Great grandma’s old feather bed.

A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that’s a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms” restricts only the federal government — the current state of affairs — or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.

A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.

Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as “incorporation.” If the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.

The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County’s fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but “a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”

The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco.

A few other items:

California Update: I wrote an article three months ago about a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation saying routine denials of concealed carry permits violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Oral arguments on a preliminary motion in that case are scheduled for the same day — September 24 — at 2 p.m. in Sacramento.

In a brief filed on Monday, Sacramento (one of the counties sued) says it wants more time to question the gun owners who filed the case to verify that they’re in a position to sue. “Defendants seek to depose the individual plaintiffs on these issues to determine the basis of their alleged ‘undisputed facts,’ what process each plaintiff has engaged in to the end of obtaining a carry concealed permit in Sacramento County,” it says.

Some Guns Are More Equal Than Others: Nobody has been hurt by the protesters who have legally carried guns to events where the president has been speaking, and I know of no evidence that they were even close enough to see the man.

Nevertheless, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s non-voting Democratic rep in the U.S. House of Representatives, wants mandatory “gun-free zones around the president, his cabinet and other top federal officials,” according to a report by the local Fox affiliate. Similarly, the Brady Campaign told CBS News that guns have no place at such an event.

It’s Official: Congratulations to the Calguns Foundation for being awarded non-profit status by the IRS. Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, told me on Monday evening that the group is now officially a 501(c)(3) non-profit; previously, the non-profit status had been pending.

Montana Update: You may remember that a Montana state law seeks to challenge the federal government on the manufacture and sale of guns made entirely within the state. It takes effect on October 1. As soon that happens, according to Montana Shooting Sports Association president Gary Marbut, gun-rights types will have a lawsuit ready to file to prevent federal prosecution of local would-be gunsmiths.

“We have some strong arguments to make, including some that have never been argued before about the (U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment, as far as I know,” Marbut told me on Monday.

Paging The Ninth Circuit: I just noticed yet another case in which a judge has declined to extend the Second Amendment to state or local laws. The case is called Slough v. Telb and arose out of a gun seizure in Ohio.

U.S. District Judge David Katz ruled on August 14: “The United States Supreme Court has never held that the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states by incorporation into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts in other circuits have held that Second Amendment rights are not enforceable against the states under (civil rights laws). As the weight of authority holds that the individual right to bear arms may not be enforceable against the states, the constitutional right to do so is anything but clearly established.”

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for He can be reached at You can bookmark the Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Justice Ken Salazar?

May 24, 2009

As I have posted elsewhere, Ken Salazar is a nice guy. He appears to work very hard at pleasing as many people and causes as he possibly can. That, however, is not leadership. Leadership is about making hard choices based upon personal beliefs and solid ethics. It’s decidedly not about pleasing groups or popularity. That is “leading” by way of polls and political correctness. Soon, the impostor in chief will submit a nominee for the Supreme Court. The obama has a lot of political debts left to be paid off. Not the least of which is the Latino contingent. So will obama toss the Latinos a bone or continue to hold them out in front of a bus where they will be easy to toss under as a matter of political expediency? The obama also has some real serious debt politically in Colorado. Two birds with one stone perhaps? As much as I disagree with obama I’m not about to call him stupid when it comes to obfuscation and related “skills.”

I’m thinking that the heavy hitters in Colorado may have hit a home run on this one. After all, being a Justice on the Supreme Court isn’t at all about intestinal fortitude, and hasn’t been for quite some time, if indeed it ever was. It is about turning any argument away from the true issue at hand. Witness the recent decisions in the Heller case, and another having to do with domestic violence that was really about ex post facto law. The Supreme Court was at best disingenuous, and in the worst sense kowtowing to political correctness.

Based upon the preceeding realizations of truth I whole heartedly support Ken Salazar for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. He would fit right in.

The Golden Dome on Colfax Avenue

April 30, 2009

Shenanigans, pure shenanigans is what I see going on down on Colfax Avenue at Colorado’s golden dome. Those few brave souls that try to do what is right and correct for the state’s population are to be commended. Those that do otherwise need to be tarred and feathered, chained to a log and tossed into the South Platte River. What with the run off beginning, they might make it all the way to New Orleans where their politics and sense of ethics would be more the norm. To that end, I’m posting an informative email that I received from one of the people that is taking the heat by standing firm for his beliefs.

The final version of the budget passed the House and Senate last week. It was one of the most controversial bills of the session, forcing legislators to make a choice between true fiscal responsibility and the temptation of big government.

In spite of the doomsday proclamations you may have heard about budget shortfalls in Colorado, the Democrats managed to pass a budget that increased spending by about 4% over last year.

Colorado fell about $850 million short of projected tax revenues this year. The Democrats’ original plan to fill the gap was to increase fees on everything from car registration to hospital stays and to seize $500 million from a private insurance company. Shortly after the Senate approved the seizure, Governor Ritter and the Democrats were forced to accept the fact that his plan was illegal and doomed to failure.

The House then had to rewrite  the $17.9 billion budget to make up for the $500 million gap. The Democrats relied primarily on gimmicks to fill the  gap: adding a new tax to vending machine sales, diverting cigarette tax revenues from anti-smoking campaigns to state coffers, repealing several tax breaks, and furloughing state employees for eight days next year.

While making small, temporary cuts is certainly preferable to Communist-style nationalization, this approach does nothing to address the fundamental budget problems in Colorado: our government has grown too big, too fast.

The Democrat notion of fiscal management consists of growing the size of government as quickly as possible: they managed to add 200 new employees to the state payroll this year in spite of the recession. To avoid making tough choices, they have drained cash funds, used creative accounting practices, and sidestepped TABOR to raise taxes again and again without voter approval.

Colorado needs to return to fiscal responsibility and adjust spending to meet revenues, reassess the size of government, and live up to the spirit of the law and ask voters before increasing their taxes. The Democrat-controlled legislature has dug itself into a deep fiscal hole. I sincerely hope that the economy bounces back quickly so that Coloradans will not be forced to pay for their irresponsibility.

In the final stretch of the legislative session, I could use your help in writing or e-mailing legislators and donating to cover ongoing expenses. You can donate online now be clicking HERE.

The legislative session will end next week, and I am still fighting a repeal of the death penalty, more tax and “fee” increases, forced unionization of public employees, and a proposal to abolish the Electoral College. I’ll keep you updated.


Ted Harvey

Civil Liberties versus Civil Rights

March 10, 2009

Civil Liberties versus Civil Rights. Over the past weekend my mailbox was inundated with questions having to do with the subject. I got tired of responding individually and decided to write a short essay about it. Basically, a comparison contrast piece.

First, some definitions;

Civil Liberties

civil liberties n. rights or freedoms given to the people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, by common law, or legislation, allowing the individual to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, or petition without government (or even private) interference or restraints. These liberties are protective in nature, while civil rights form a broader concept and include positive elements such as the right to use facilities, the right to an equal education, or the right to participate in government. (See: civil, civil rights)


Civil Rights

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination.


Leave it to Lawyers to muck things up beyond belief! They are nearly as bad as Economist’s when it comes to turning something, anything, from the profoundly simple to that which only confuses.

Both Liberties and Rights have much in common, or at least they appear to. So then, how are they differentiated one from the other? One must step away from politics and enter the metaphysical world of ethics.

In the realm of ethics, as applied in this context, there are the Natural and Unalienable Rights. These are rights that you, as a person are in fact born with, and can never be taken from you.

There are also Inalienable Civil Liberties or Rights. Those are rights that are granted via society or government. Those rights can be surrendered or forfeited based upon behavior. (The link above addresses both.)

The simplified version then, is that a “Natural” right cannot be taken or surrendered. But, again this is very simplified, a Civil Right or Liberty can be taken from you. Most often by surrendering a right for the perceived greater good. A good example would be surrendering your right to self defense via gun control. You will always have a right to self defense, in an ethical context, but you can choose to impose self restrictions upon yourself.

Further, society can in point of fact take your Unalienable Rights from you should it deem it necessary for the good of society. That being execution for true felonies.

Confusing even in a simplified version? Yes, admittedly it can be. A Civil Right is a Natural or God given Right. A Civil Liberty is granted by society or government.

These are the crux of such diverse issues as California’s Proposition Eight, as well as Gun Control, and the list just goes on from there.

Mission Accomplished? « Thoughts Quotes and Internet Fun

May 2, 2008

Mission Accomplished? « Thoughts Quotes and Internet Fun


This is just one of the really good things about WordPress, you can expose idiots via the “Press This” feature. They moderate all comments, so as not to have to deal with such esoteric things as logic, reason, or actual knowledge. I am no  “Bush Bot,” as anyone that reads this blog, or numerous forums over the years well know. But, sometimes things just go beyond the pale. Like this particular statement being taken out of any sort of meaningful context to the point that it is a dead horse. Figure it out dingbat. That Aircraft Carrier, and those aboard Her, did in fact, accomplish their assigned mission.

Bush, as much as I despise his politics, never, to the best of my knowledge, has declared “victory.” Go crawl into a hole, and light a candle, open a book, and learn. Then, perhaps you can write a new version of “The Allegory of the Cave.”

The truth be damned! MSM agenda fails in the light of truth and logic!

December 17, 2007

Some peoples children just cannot understand normal thinking!

Outrage Of The Week! An Inane Statement

Friday, December 14, 2007
This week’s outrage comes courtesy of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show co-host Mika Brzezinski, who apparently has a very hard time laying aside her anti-gun sentiments, even when confronted with the truth.   

We all know that firearms are used as many as two and a half million times a year for self-defense.  And, as we recently saw graphically demonstrated in the senseless shootings at the New Life Church in Colorado, a law-abiding, armed citizen can make a difference.   

In the tragic New Life Church incident, Jeanne Assam, who, according to media reports, had a permit to carry a concealed firearm and was volunteering as a “security person” at her church, shot a heavily armed, homicidal madman as he began attacking innocent parishioners.  New Life’s Senior Pastor Brady Boyd hailed Jeanne as “a real hero,” because the gunman she shot “had enough ammunition on him to cause a lot of damage.”  There is no question that this brave citizen’s decisive action with her personal firearm saved many lives. 

But, facts be damned.  Brzezinski, who wasn’t in the church, but who appears daily as a co-host on the MSNBC morning program doesn’t agree.  

When discussing the murderous rampage, Brzezinski responded to host Joe Scarborough’s assertion that “One person with a gun can make a big difference,” by blurting, “Oh gosh, no!  No, no, no.  No, no, no, no, no.”  Scarborough then reiterated his assertion, “One person with a gun in the right place can make a big difference.”  At this point, Brzezinski had clearly had enough of the truth and, putting an exclamation point on her unabashed anti-gun sentiments, said, “You know, that is the most inane statement I have ever heard.”   

Ms. Brzezinski obviously can’t be bothered with undeniable evidence, nor restrained by a code of unbiased reporting.  She can’t look at a crystal-clear example of evil being countered by an armed, law-abiding citizen and have the integrity and intellectual honesty to draw the correct conclusion.  That’s outrageous. 

To see a video clip of the exchange, please click here:   

To respond to Ms. Brzezinski, please visit the MSNBC “Morning Joe” web page at, and send a message via the e-mail tool at the bottom of the page.   

If you see something that you feel would be a good candidate for the “Outrage of the Week!” section, please send it to:  Please be sure to send additional background and citations where available.

%d bloggers like this: