Thursday, May 20, 2010
North Korea Sinks South Korea Ship
An eye for an eye seems about right.
Demand reparations for the ship and restitution for the families that lost loved ones. Give them 7 days. If there is no restitution in 7 days...
Hunt down and sink the largest NK ship in existence. Send the message: "you sink ours, we will sink yours." Stop sinking ours, and we will stop too.
If this doesn't work, nothing else will either, so be prepared for war real soon now.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Racial Profiling: Why Not?
What is the problem with racial profiling, and a national ID
If dark-skinned people commit crimes far more often than whites, why not use their profile to stop them?
If ME-looking people blow up things more often than anyone else, why not use profiling to stop them, especially at airports and high-profile facilities. They have earned the distinction of being criminal and of hiding behind their fellows.
If their fellows don't want to be questioned, they could help to put their criminal members in jail, and thus reduce the rate of crime--and profiling too.
I find it insane not to use all of the legal tools we have to catch criminals and terrorists, even if it sometimes inconveniences law-abiding citizens.
The same goes for requiring us to carry proper identification at all times. I'd say we do carry ID 99.8% of the time anyway, because of the need to have a driver's license with you when driving, so by habit the license is in your rear wallet or in your purse just about all the time. Most people in the US have other ID as well, such as an employment badge, a credit card, and Medicare card or Social Security card.
It isn't the problem of carrying ID, per se, that has some nuts upset; it is the problem of having to show it on demand to police. They think of it as an invasion of privacy and a diminishing of liberty as in a police state. Too bad, I say. If the powers in control had managed the borders properly, we wouldn't need such measures, but they didn't do it, so we must give up some slice of our freedom to fix the problem. Tough!
When I think of the millions of undocumented people wandering around in the US, a fairly high percrentage of whom are criminals, it is quite evident to me that we need to do something to correct that problem, such as to have a valid ID with you, and to allow the police to ask for it if they suspect you are not here legally. No ID should mean a trip to the station to find out your true status, and if you are an illegal, it should mean your deportation forthwith.
Labels: Nationwide ID, Racial Profiling
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
An Atheist on the Supreme Court?
No Thank You!
One clear problem with putting an avowed atheist on the Supreme Court is that it an anathema to the Constitution's foundations in Natural Law, which is something that no atheist can tolerate, since Natural Law is a reflection of God's Eternal Law. No God-->no Natural Law-->no Constitution-->Inventive, Relativistic Secular Law.
Natural Law is the basis for our rights and duties in this society, and ultimately, our civil laws as well, at least in that civil laws must not be contrary to Natural Law.
Since fully 80-odd percent or more of the population believes in God and in the Constitution as based in Natural Law, putting an atheist on the Court would result in total violence to the will of the majority of our citizens, and to the Constitution itself.
Of course, it is also true that the Constitution bars the use of religion as a criteria for office. Does atheism fall into this category of religion? I thought it was a non-religion, and hence it would do no violence to the Constitution to block such an appointment using avowed atheism as the reason.
Labels: Atheism. Christianity, Natural Law, Natural Rights
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Critical Pseudo-Conservative Bloggers That Do Nothing Else
Reflections on Some Critical Bloggers
There are a few conservative bloggers(at least they claim such membership) that manage to criticize the rest of us conservatives for the slightest infraction of what they consider to be the political rules of behavior. They pick on Tea Party members, they complain about litmus tests, and they bitterly complain about the general movement rightwards and the closing of the rightist mind to their vocal and written super-moderation in all things.
Of course, these critics do not like the idea of a "right to life" platform, perhaps because they are atheists, and reject the idea that a person is created at conception. Since this is a solid Christian belief, and is clearly called out in the Bible, probably 80% of the electorate signs up to this belief, which makes the complainers look to be crying in the wind.
Then they also take those that believe in Natural Law and Natural Rights to task for being quaint and so 1950's in these critic's modernistic thinking, along with their stance that the Constitution is outdated and needs revision to suit their "more appropriate and nuanced ideas". A close reading of the Constitution reveals that it is quite largely based upon Natural Law and Rights, which is in turn based upon the Word of God in the Bible, especially the Decalogue. It isn't the Constitution that needs fixing, it is the moral degeneracy in our people that needs massive correction, along with the destructive concepts of moral relativism that many adhere to today and attempt to put into law.
When asked, however, to set forth their ideas of how things should be, they do not speak, they do not write on their ideas for improvement; but merely complain all the more that the conservative movement is in the hands of Bible Thumpers and Gun Clutchers. Doesn't it turn out that our 80% Christian citizenship do hold the Bible to be sacred, and hence they are being castigated for their religious beliefs? Doesn't it also turn out that Natural Law requires men to protect and defend themselves and their families, and to provide for their welfare, and thus to own and use guns as needed for that purpose? Doesn't the Constitution declare this to be a right?
You will find these empty critics in many places on the web. I will not name names, but be aware of them as you surf the sometimes so-called conservative, and often atheistic, blogs that are actually driving down the white line in the middle of the road, and refusing to make way for oncoming traffic.
Labels: Conservatism, Moderates, Pseudo-Conservatism