- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
Dan Simpson of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette shares his solution to the problem of gun violence in America:
Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty. ...
... The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling and empty building. Thoroughness would be at the level of the sort of search that is carried out in Crime Scene Investigations. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.
Sure. Turning America into Nazi Germany should make everyone feel safer.
Forget all those cruise ship horror stories you've seen in the news. Here's a vessel that loses half of its passengers on every trip. From TimesOnline:
An "abortion ship" is planning to sail to countries where the practice is illegal and take women out to sea for terminations after the Dutch Government lifted restrictions banning it from international waters.
Rebecca Gomperts, the director of Women on Waves, told The Times: "We have just received the licence and there are some restrictive conditions but, yes, we are going to prepare a new campaign, that is for sure.
"We are in touch with women's organisations in several different countries. There are still three countries where abortion is illegal in Europe but there are also invitations from Argentina and some other South American countries."
Under the terms of its licence, the group is able to sail under the Dutch flag in international waters and hand out "abortion pills" for women up to seven weeks pregnant, causing them to have a miscarriage.
Kind of makes the tragic voyage of the Sea Diamond seem like a pleasure cruise.
In honor of Confederate Memorial Day (the exact date of which varies from state to state), here's H. K. Edgerton reciting Michael Bradley's poem "I Am Their Flag":
Mexico City has officially entered the 21st century. By voting to legalize abortion on demand, lawmakers have set a precedent that is "likely to influence policies and health practices across Mexico and other parts of heavily Roman Catholic Latin America."
Congratulations, Mexico. You're well on your way to becoming as "civilized" as we are. But until you start killing 3,700 kids per day, you'll still be considered a lightweight.
It seems that the war in Iraq hasn't made us any safer after all. Our glorious protectors now think there's a chance we could be attacked with chlorine bombs here at home:
The U.S. Homeland Security Department is concerned the use of chlorine bombs in Iraq is now a threat to the United States, USA Today reported Tuesday.
In Washington, Robert Stephan, Homeland Security's infrastructure protection chief said 150-pound tanks of chlorine are common throughout the world and terrorists have learned to make bombs from them that kill not only by explosive force but by suffocating victims with toxic fumes.
"This is now being used as a tactic against us in another part of the world," Stephan said.
So much for the "Let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" argument.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker in January of 2006, when a bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus was voted down in the General Assembly:
"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Larry Hincker in April of 2007, when a lone shooter gunned down 32 innocent, unarmed people on Virginia Tech's "safe," gun-free campus:
"We grieve for our families and friends. Our university is going to try to find a way to move forward. We cannot let this horror identify Virginia Tech."
Yes, Mr. Hincker, grieve. Grieve not only for the loss of life, but the loss of liberty. Grieve for those who are condemned to death simply because they are law-abiding citizens who no longer have the right to protect themselves.
In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, it should be noted that while the usual suspects are calling for more government funding for mental health care, the gunman, Cho Seung Hui, had already received the best treatment the mainstream medical establishment has to offer: he had been given drugs. Could that have had something to do with it?
There are known links between antidepressants and violent acts. Research on the drug Paxil found that more than twice as many people taking it experienced a serious "hostility event" as did those taking a placebo. In the United States, labels for all antidepressants note that anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, and mania are all possible side effects.
Part of the cause may be the disconnect with reality these drugs sometimes reportedly cause. In another study of the links between antidepressants and violence, a 12-year-old boy who killed his grandparents while he was on a course of antidepressants said that the whole incident seemed like a dream, and he was unsure whether or not it had really happened.
We can't say for sure whether or not antidepressants played a role, but there is no question that our society is addicted to drugs. We have prescriptions for every little ailment under the sun. "Restless leg syndrome"? Give me a break. The sad thing is that we're so hooked, few people will even bother to consider that there might be a connection.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has a simple solution to future shooting massacres such as the one that ripped apart Virginia Tech university Monday: more guns.
"People are a little more cautious if somebody might have a gun there," the GOP presidential candidate told Politico reporters Tuesday. "A concealed gun carried by a responsible person -- that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed."
Paul, 71, is the kind of lawmaker, and presidential candidate, gun control advocates love to hate at moments like this. And, based on public opinion polls and reader feedback at Politico.com, he's far from alone.
Echoing the views of many Americans, he sees calls for restriction on guns as an affront to freedom. The libertarian-minded Texan is one of the most outspoken defenders of gun rights in Congress. Since the obstetrician was first elected to Congress in 1976, he has never voted for a bill restricting gun ownership. And he said the tragedy in Blacksburg, Va., could have been prevented if the school allowed students and professors to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Details are still forthcoming about what motivated the shooter in this case to act, and how he was able to arm himself. It is well known, however, how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country.
Eight years ago this week, the young people in Littleton, Colorado suffered a horrible attack at Columbine High School, and almost exactly six months ago, five young people were killed at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania. Since these killings, we've done nothing as a country to end gun violence in our schools and communities. If anything, we've made it easier to access powerful weapons.
We have now seen another horrible tragedy that will never be forgotten. It is long overdue for us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from continuing to occur.
Violence Policy Center Mass shootings have come to define our nation. Today's shooting at Virginia Tech - the largest mass shooting in U.S. history - is only the latest in a continuing series over the past two decades. These tragedies are the inevitable result of the ease with which the firepower necessary to slaughter dozens of innocents can be obtained. We allow virtually anyone the means to turn almost any venue into a battlefield. In the wake of these shootings, too many routinely search for any reason for the tragedy except for the most obvious - the easy access to increasingly lethal firearms that make mass killings possible.
Mothers Against Guns This is a sad day for this country as our hearts go out to the families and friends of the victims at Virginia Tech", said Liz Bishop-Goldsmith - President of Mothers Against Guns, Inc.
Bishop-Goldsmith said "today's cowardly act of gun violence is another reminder as to why guns do not belong in the hands of our youth, unstable persons and those with criminal intent."
She added "gun control is out of control, and until "federal legislation regarding the sale, purchase and distribution of firearms and ammunition are implemented, these cruel and brutal acts will continue."
The anti-gun nuts are convinced that all we need to do to quell the violence is just implement more restrictions and pass more laws. Yet whenever a mass shooting occurs, these same people are left scratching their heads, wondering how on earth some armed maniac was able to breach the magical force field created by the "No guns allowed" signs posted in our nation's gun-free zones.
As of this writing, ABC is reporting "At least 29 people are dead in what may be the biggest mass shooting in modern American history — and the death toll may rise." No doubt this will be exploited by the gun grabbers as another example of why we need more gun control laws.
But here's the rub: Virginia Tech was already a gun-free zone. Not even those who have conceal-carry permits are allowed to bring a gun on campus. So, when you stop to consider that these mass shootings always occur in gun-free zones...
Well, if I really need to connect the dots for you, then this country is in worse shape than I thought.
Using the same fool-proof scientific approach that environmental activists use, I have determined that life as we know it - at least here in Minnesota - will cease to exist in less than a year. How do I know this? First, I refused to look at any previous weather trends throughout history, deciding instead to limit my observations to a very brief period of time. That way, I know that I am using the most current data available. In this case, I am using temperatures dating back to January 1, 2007.
Next, after taking regular readings from my backyard thermometer for the last three-and-a-half months, I made note of the average temperature (the mean between the extreme highs and lows) for each bi-weekly period:
As you can see, the average temperature has been rising steadily since the beginning of the year at an astonishing rate of 6° every two weeks!
This is bad news. If the current trend continues, it could have devastating effects on life here in Minnesota. Here are the projections through the end of the year:
Apr. 9 - Apr. 22: 54° Apr. 23 - May 6: 60° May 7 - May 20: 66° May 21 - June 3: 72° June 4 - June 17: 78° Jun. 18 - July 1: 84° July 2 - July 15: 90° July 16 - July 29: 96° July 30 - Aug. 12: 102° Aug. 13 - Aug. 26: 108° Aug. 27 - Sept. 9: 114° Sept. 10 - Sept. 23: 120° Sept. 24 - Oct. 7: 126° Oct. 8 - Oct. 21: 132° Oct. 22 - Nov. 4: 138° Nov. 5 - Nov. 18: 144° Nov. 19 - Dec. 2: 150° Dec. 3 - Dec. 16: 156° Dec. 17 - Dec. 30: 162°
Again, these are only the projected average temperatures; the extreme highs would be even worse. Needless to say, whatever life is left by the end of the year won't be around much longer.
And keep in mind that my observations are limited to my immediate geographical location, so I cannot say with 100% certainty that these numbers reflect what will happen elsewhere. But since the climate tends to be warmer closer to the equator, I can only assume that life in those areas will have died out long before it does here in Minnesota. Without a doubt, it will be the poor who suffer the most.
So let's quit talking about conserving water, using energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs, and driving hybrid cars. With over 6 billion people each spewing 450 liters of deadly CO2 into the atmosphere each day, time is running out. We need to stop all human activity NOW! Our very lives depend on it.
Just when you thought the heretics at Little Geneva were gone for good (you can read about their downfall here), they're back, and nastier than ever. They continue to be an insult to the family, the South, and the Gospel - the very things they claim to defend.
I ran across Caitlin Moran's latest column at TimesOnline entitled "Abortion: Why It's the Ultimate Motherly Act." If you want to get at the heart of the evil of abortion, then read this article. It is by far the most unashamedly selfish argument I have ever seen in favor of murdering one's own children:
My belief in the ultimate sociological, emotional and practical necessity for abortion did, as I have mentioned before, become even stronger after I had my two children. It is only after you have had a nine-month pregnancy, laboured to get the child out, fed it, cared for it, sat with it until 3am, risen with it at 6am, swooned with love for it and been reduced to furious tears by it that you really understand just how important it is for a child to be wanted. And, possibly even more importantly, to be wanted by a reasonably sane, stable mother. Last year I had an abortion, and I can honestly say it was one of the least difficult decisions of my life. I'm not being flippant when I say it took me longer to decide what work-tops to have in the kitchen than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being. I knew I would see my existing two daughters less, my husband less, my career would be hamstrung and, most importantly of all, I was just too tired to do it all again. I didn't want another child, in the same way that I don't suddenly want to move to Canada or buy a horse. While there was, of course, every chance that I might eventually be thankful for the arrival of a third child, I am, personally, not a gambler. I won't spend £1 on the lottery, let alone take a punt on a pregnancy. The stakes are far, far too high. ...
... However, what I do believe to be sacred - and, indeed, more useful to the earth as a whole - is trying to ensure that there are as few unbalanced, destructive people as possible. By whatever rationale you use, ending a pregnancy 12 weeks into gestation is incalculably more moral than bringing an unwanted child into this world. Or a child that, through no fault of its own, would be the destructor of a marriage, a family, a parent. It's fairly inarguable to say that unhappy children, who then grew into very angry adults, have caused the great majority of mankind's miseries. If psychoanalysis has, somewhat brutally, laid the responsibility for mental disorders at parents' doors, the least we can do is to tip our hats to women aware enough not to create those troubled people in the first place.
Sure. This is the kind of B.S. you want to read after finding out that your own adoption process will most likely take three times as long as you once thought.
I can't help but wonder: if Ms. Moran really wanted to ease "mankind's miseries," then why not make more of a personal sacrifice? Couldn't she just as easily abstain from sex? It's 100 percent effective. No sex, no unwanted children. Oh, but that would mean exercising a little self-control and assuming personal responsibility - and those are exactly the kinds of burdens abortion on demand is supposed to alleviate.
Compare Moran's reasoning with that of Miranda Sawyer, who detailed how she came to "rethink" abortion in a recent article for The Observer:
Like most women - at least most British women - I have always been firmly in the pro-choice camp because I've spent nearly all of my sexually active life trying not to get pregnant. Throughout my twenties and the better part of my thirties, I did everything that was required for me not to have a child (other than, you know, not having sex). I wasn't always safe - I've necked morning-after pills like vitamin tablets - but I was lucky enough not to end up in a situation where I was pregnant and didn't want to be. I've never had an abortion, though I am mighty glad that legal abortion exists.
When I got pregnant so soon after my Granny's death, it felt weird. My mind kept returning to the pregnancy test. If my reaction to those fateful double lines that said 'baby ahead' had been horror instead of hurrah - and, to be honest, it wasn't unalloyed joy that I felt when I saw them; I was scared, too - then I would have had little hesitation in having an abortion. But it was that very fact that was confusing me. I was calling the life inside me a baby because I wanted it. Yet if I hadn't, I would think of it just as a group of cells that it was OK to kill. It was the same entity. It was merely my response to it that determined whether it would live or die. That seemed irrational to me. Maybe even immoral.
Ms. Sawyer still thinks women should be allowed to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. However, she believes that "once an embryo has developed enough to feel pain, or begin a personality, then it has moved from cell life into the first stages of being a human," so, for her, "ending that life is wrong." I guess that's at least a step in the right direction.
But she points out the inherent fallacy of the pro-abortion argument. It isn't about determining whether what's being killed is a human life or not. If a woman wants it, it's a baby; if she doesn't, then it's just a blob of tissue. That's why I have never bought into the notion that having an abortion is a "tough decision" for a woman to make. It's the easy way out of a difficult situation. Deciding what's best for the child - whether to keep it or give it up for adoption - that's a tough decision. But that's also one that doesn't have to be made alone.
Ask anyone who has adopted, or is trying to adopt, and they will tell you that there is no such thing as an "unwanted child." That's a lie perpetuated by those whose bloodlust and selfishness get in the way of reason.
Don Imus used the term "nappy-headed hos" in reference to the mostly black Rutgers women's basketball team and is crucified in the media. He loses his TV deal with MSNBC. He gets fired from his radio show. He is now unemployed and branded as a racist.
Sure, he shouldn't have said it. It was rude and in poor taste. But how does the punishment fit the crime? Who are the victims of his off-handed comment? Exactly how did the offended parties (which seems to include everyone but the Rutgers women's basketball team) suffer? If you can't answer that, then maybe you can tell me how Imus' remark even begins to compare to what a real "ho" (stripper, hooker, whatever) did to members of the Duke lacrosse team.
When Crystal Gail Mangum accused three young men of raping her at a party for which she and a friend were hired to strip, people believed her. She was backed by the full resources of the District Attorney's office and the police department. The men, on the other hand, were arrested, charged, and had their lives subsequently turned upside down.
And even when the case began to fall apart, the lead prosecutor forged ahead anyway. What should have been over in a matter of days dragged into a year-long ordeal. Eventually, we found out that Mangum lied, but now we're being treated to the details (assuming, of course, that they are true) of her troubled life.
Personally, I have little sympathy for the spoiled Ivy League twits who spent their parents' money on booze and strippers. I think they were idiots for putting themselves in that position in the first place. That, however, does not excuse Mangum's behavior. For all we know, her false accusation was just as racially motivated as we're told Imus' comment was.
There is a comparison to be made here, yet no one in the media wants to make it. All they can focus on is what an evil, disgusting person Don Imus is. Can someone explain this double standard to me?
To commemorate the four-year anniversary of the fall of Baghdad and the subsequent occupation of their country, Iraqis celebrated American style--they held a protest. From the AP:
Tens of thousands of Iraqis draped themselves in the country's flags and marched peacefully through the streets of two Shia Muslim holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall.
Demonstrators were flanked by two cordons of police as they called for U.S.-led forces to leave, shouting "Get out, get out occupier!"
I will concede that Dick Cheney might have been right when he said we would "be greeted as liberators." But that lasted all of, what, a week?
A lot can change in four years. Now that more Iraqis are dying in the streets on a daily basis than when Hussein was in power, who can blame them for being just a little upset?
Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on Good Friday, April 14, 1865. Because of that, he went down in history as one of America's noblest heroes and is remembered as a great man of God. But nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to this murderous tyrant.
Desperate to justify their unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, many members of Congress have flown to the war-torn country for the obligatory photo-op with smiling Iraqis and proud U.S. soldiers. It's as if they're saying, "See? Iraq isn't as bad as the pictures you're shown by the liberal, anti-war media. Our pictures show the truth of just how good things are over here."
Here are a couple of shots from Senator John McCain's recent visit:
Not pictured are the other 100-plus soldiers, the armored Humvees, the sharpshooters on the rooftops, and the attack helicopters circling overhead. Yes, if nothing else, these images prove just how free and safe Iraq is with Saddam out of the picture.
Too bad these pictures aren't being shown to the Iraqis. Some of them are still under the impression that with all the car bombings, sniper shootings, and gun fights in the streets, their homeland really isn't the democratic utopia our government says it is.
A man in Wales found a way around his country's draconian smoking ban: he turned his home into a private pub. Since it isn't open to the general public, and since he doesn't charge anything, the government can't do anything about it. Score one for private enterprise!
I can't help but wonder if this kind of thing will catch on. If it does, I'm sure it would only be a matter of time before the government found a way to put a stop to that, too.
Those who defend states' rights and Southern heritage realize that private companies have the right to run their businesses as they see fit. That's what the free market is all about. And sometimes that means being punished simply for defending what you believe.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has tossed out a lawsuit filed by barbecue magnate Maurice Bessinger accusing several grocery store chains of unfair trade by not selling his sauce on their shelves.
Nine chains with over 3,000 stores between them removed Bessinger's mustard-based barbecue sauce in 2000 after he raised the Confederate flag over his restaurants in protest of the General Assembly's decision to take the Confederate flag off the top of the Statehouse dome.
Thanks to short-sighted merchants who are ignorant of history and are afraid of being politically incorrect, many of you are missing out on some of the best barbecue sauce you'll ever taste.
Fortunately, you can order it online here. Definitely money well-spent. No grill should be without it!
