The ACLU is inappropriately named, as it rarely serves America or Americans. This organization seems to only care about criminals, pornographers, gays, abortionists, drug addicts, and perhaps a handful more. In other words, this is a liberal organization, not one that represents the American people as a whole. They stretch the First Amendment to the furthest possible limit, but don't recognize the Second Amendment at all. They do everything possible to protect and expand the rights of criminals, but totally ignore the rights of victims, juries, and the common citizen who has the right to be protected from dangerous criminals. And they do absolutely nothing for the American taxpayer, who is being taxed unconstitutionally and mercilessly for liberal government programs which are not provided for in the Constitution. The ACLU deserves not support, but scorn.
Some say that affirmative action was begun with "the best of intentions". I don't know if that is true or not, but even if it is, intentions are not the same as good, fair, or constitutional policy. Affirmative action is wrong on a number of levels, and is actually counter-productive to the goal of improving race relations.
Affirmative action proponents like to claim that "there are no quotas", and that "you can still hire based upon qualifications". But this simply is not true. If you simply hired the best person for the job, there would be no affirmative action. Affirmative action means using factors like race and gender as criteria for making hiring and promoting decisions, favoring one group over another in order to meet certain specified percentages of minority employment. It is supposed to be illegal, a violation of federal law, to use race, gender, religion, or national origin as a basis for hiring or promoting employees.
The most basic American belief that affirmative action violates is that only the guilty should be punished. It certainly does "punish" someone to have the government or government policy deny them a job based upon their skin color, race, etc, when that type of discrimination is a violation of federal law for everybody else. The employer is also punished by being denied the right to hire the best candidate for the job, instead having to comply with arbitrarily drawn up figures for minority employment. This is true for the employer even if no allegation, let alone proof, of illegal discrimination has ever been introduced in a court of law. This is true even if there is no allegation or proof of any kind that the person being discriminated against has ever benefited from illegal discrimination. In other words, the constitutional right to due process has been thrown out for affirmative action. This is not only wrong and illegal, it is dangerous.
It is also interesting to consider the claims by affirmative action supporters that "very few people have been denied jobs due to affirmative action". Whether it's true or not, it's damning to their cause. If untrue, then many Americans have been wrongfully and unconstitutionally denied their rights by the government. If it is true, then affirmative action is inneffective, and not worth the trouble and controversy.
Actually, it's not worth the controversy either way. Despite how many people may or may not have actually lost out on a job or promotion because of affirmative action - how many believe they did? You can bet that however many people have actually been effected, ten times or a hundred times that many believe they have been. In each case, the person undoubtedly (and rightfully) holds some resentment for the persons responsible for the injustice - that would include the company, the government, and the beneficiary of the injustice. This cannot help but be detrimental to race relations.
If racial discrimination is to be considered wrong, it should be considered wrong for everybody, including the government. The best solution, the only legal and constitutional solution, is to punish illegal racial discrimination when it is found and proven, and do away with affirmative action.
The BATF and other federal law enforcement agencies are in need of substantial outside oversight, having proven that they are incapable of policing themselves. BATF internal memos prove a long standing policy of intentially lying in court testimony regarding the accuracy of BATF data, which they know to be faulty. The BATF also has a habit of using "confidential informants" to a degree and in a manner that would not be accepted in any other law enforcement agency in the country. The BATF is also poorly concieved in it's purpose, especially for a government agency. With such a narrow focus, the BATF is virtually compelled to invent crimes in order to justify it's own being and budget ("Operation Showtime", the raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas is a perfect example of this sickness). However, there is another far more sinister and dangerous dangerous aspect to the BATF that I must address.
"No Knock Raids" or "Dynamic Entry Raids" are inherently dangerous, both to the agents and the suspects. This is where a large group of agents kick in the door and rush in, with weapons drawn, using the elements of surprise and preparedness to overwhelm the suspect. These surprise arrest actions are typically executed in the wee hours of the morning to maximize the suspect's disorientation. Obviously, this is a dangerous exercise. Tensions run very high with the agents, weapons are already drawn, and the agents are rushed to take immediate control of the suspect, who by design is surprised and disoriented, unaware of what is going on. There is great potential for an accidental or needless shooting in this type of action. Now, this type of arrest action is justifiable under certain circumstances. When there is a proven threat to the agents, when a history of violence has been established, or real threats have been made by the suspect, this type of action may be the safest way to effect an arrest, both for the officers and the suspect. The risk to all parties then is perhaps less than the risk of a normal type arrest. However, when no history of violence is present, when no threats have been made, and for all intents and purposes no threat exists, this tactic is totally improper, subjecting the suspect and the officers to great danger needlessly. This is not an action that should ever be carried out unless a real threat is present. Government agents subjecting people to unreasonable dangers is both wrong and unconstitutional. However, lately there seems to be a policy within the BATF to assume that the mere presence of firearms is enough to justify the risk of "dynamic entry" raids. In other words, a gun owner with no violent history of any kind, who is suspected of a non-violent offense, is a valid target for a highly dangerous "no-knock" raid in the BATF's current mindset. This is totally unacceptable and unconstitutional. The ownership of firearms is a legal exercise, and in no way by itself justifies the owner being put in great danger by government agents. It is simple wrong to treat every American gun owner like Dillinger just because they own a firearm. At least one innocent person has died in a "no knock" raid so far, and several others needlessly endangered and traumatized. This practice should stop immediately. Further, because of this and the aforementioned reasons, I believe that the BATF should be disintegrated, and it's functions be taken up by the FBI or Department of Justice.
There is no constitutional right to not be offended. In fact, the supposed and non-existant right to not be offended is in direct conflict with the right to free speech that is protected in the First Amendment. Somehow, it has become a common misconception that people have this right, and that anyone who says something objectionable to someone else, or something objectionable that is overheard by someone else, is violating that right. This plays out in the workplace to a ridiculous degree, with people filing complaints about private comments overheard, calanders with pictures that someone doesn't appreciate, off-color jokes, and even things that offend the "animal rights" nazis among us. What happened to that First Amendment that the liberals like to wave around to protect pornographers and jar-of-piss artists? It seems that to liberals, the First Amendment ends where political correctness begins.
The Constitution is an amazingly simple document, it's brevity and clarity truly remarkable. It is such an easy document to understand that any high school student should be able to comprehend it with no problem, even though some of the language and spelling is dated. Statements like "You have to be a lawyer to understand the Constitution" are utterly ridiculous, generally spoken by people who have never read it in their adult lives. Anyone can understand the Constitution's meaning and intent. The only reason that "You have to be a lawyer" is to understand the modern liberal "interpretation" of the Constitution - why certain parts are expanded far beyond their original intent, while others simply do not exist at all. Yes, for that you do need to be a lawyer.
The Constitution defines the structure, scope, and powers of the federal government of the United States, and protects certain enumerated freedoms from encroachment by government at any level. It also allows for changes to be made to that defined government and those defined rights though Article V, the amendment process. There is no legal option of disregarding the Constitution or any of it's parts for any reason - no power granted to whatever current administration to ignore or add powers or rights at their discretion. The Constitution must be fully enforced. If any part of the Constitution can be ignored, then all of it can be ignored. If the Constitution ceases to exist in this way, then America will cease to exist, because the Constitution is America. The Constitution that protects the right to keep and bear arms is the same Constitution that protects the right to free speech. The same Constitution that protects the people from unreasonable search and seizure and guarantees just compensation for confiscated property also protects the right to vote and the right to a fair trial. Sans constitutional protection, the people of America would be at the mercy of whoever is in power at the moment, and if that ever happens, God help us all.
The federal government has no business and no constitutional authority to be involved in education. Education is a state issue, preferably a city issue, therefore any and all federal involvement should cease. What should also cease is the heavy handed influence of the NEA and other teacher's unions. All laws that require cities and states to deal with teacher's unions should be recinded, since that is a private contracting matter. All teachers should be held accountable and responsible on an individual basis, and be subject to whatever testing and minimum standards the community sets. The dumbing down of the classrooms - so-called "outcome based" education, gradeless classes, and the elimination of excellence awards - should stop immediately. School vouchers for private education, including private religious schools, should be given a widespread and substantial test.
Employment is a private contract between employer and employee. Both parties negotiate this contract with the purpose of serving their own needs, the employer to have required services performed, the employee to have required compensation given for those services. Both parties are free to ask or offer whatever they want, and both are free to accept or decline the offers and conditions of the other. The only requirement is that once an agreement is made, both parties hold up their end of the agreement. Either party has the right to terminate the agreement at any time, unless otherwise agreed to by both parties.
It is approriate the the words "lawyer" and "liar" sound somewhat similar. If you think about it, that's exactly what a lawyer's job is - to distort the truth, ergo to lie. In a courtroom, the lawyers on each side have the same facts to work with, and the job of each lawyer is to twist, distort and misrepresent those facts to the benefit of his client. This is why lawyers should never be trusted, particularly lawyers in the government. Listen to the answers and statements they make - especially the Clintons. Every statement is loaded with disclaimers, qualifiers, conditions, and other "outs" so that they can "technically" not lie, but go on to misrepresent the truth. Lawyers never give "yes" or "no" answers.
Lawyers in general have also brought a scourge upon this country by making the legal process far more complex than it need be, and by stifling any reasonable restrictions on court actions. There should be a careful balance in our courts. If it is too difficult or costly to bring a lawsuit, justice will not be served because the poor and unfortunate will not be able to sue for just compensation when injured. However, if it is too easy and risk free to bring a lawsuit, justice will again not be served, because the immoral and irresponsible are able to bring ridiculous lawsuits that do great harm to those unjustly accused. Tort reforms are necessary to stop frivolous lawsuits and unjustifiable awards. Lawyers themselves will never agree, because it directly and negatively effects their livelyhoods. But these reforms must be made, and they will save American consumers billions of dollars each year in passed on costs. They will also save those targeted by frivolous lawsuits possibly their homes, businesses, and life savings.
When Dick Armey mis-spoke "Barney Frank" as "Barney Fag", it made the national headlines and was a lead story on most network newscasts for several days. A week later, Bill Clinton said in an interview on his upcoming affirmative action decision, "Black Americans watch the TV news just like ordinary Americans". This did not appear on any network newscast, and was not reported in any paper that I know of.
When the House Ethics Committee first announced it's intentions to further investigate a possible violation of House rules by Newt Gingrich in a very complex tax issue, Democrat David Bonior stated at his press conference that Gingrich had been "convicted", "censured", and "found guilty" of the charges, despite the fact that 1) the Ethics Committee has no authority to convict, 2) Gingrich was not censured in any way shape or form, and 3) the Ethics Committee's sole actions were to drop two of the three pending charges against Gingrich and have the other looked at by tax experts. Not one reporter present questioned Bonior's statements or his language. A half hour later at Republican Tom DeLay's press conference, the very first question asked after DeLay's prepared statement started off "Now that Newt Gingrich has been convicted by the Ethics Committee.....".
Whenever the network news did a report on the upcoming gun ban in the 1994 "Crime Bill", they showed film footage of people shooting machine guns and automatic weapons, even though fully automatic firearms have been essentially banned since 1934 and the "Crime Bill" ban dealt only with semi-automatic firearms.
These are typical examples of reporting by the "mainstream media". There is an overall bias towards liberals and liberal ideals, which is born out by the survey results which show that 87% of reporters vote Democratic each year. There is no such thing as "unbiased" journalism - every human being is effected by their own personal beliefs and prejudices. The best one can hope for is to attain balance by diversifying their news sources, balancing the liberal slant of the Washington Post with the conservative slant of the Washington Times, or the very liberal CNN coverage of the news with articles from National Review or American Spectator. Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, and Bryant Gumbel are no less liberals spewing the liberal party line than Rush Limbaugh is a conservative spewing the conservative party line.
The typical take on modern liberalism is that liberals support individual freedoms, while at the same time supporting societal responsibility through what is collectively known as the "Welfate State". The first part of this is essentially untrue however, as liberals want just as much or more control over people's behavior as any conservative, just in different areas. However, since it is usually accepted that liberals support personal freedoms, I will address it as such.
It is simply unsustainable to have individual freedom and societal responsibility. Choice and responsibility go hand in hand. The entity that has the responsibility in any area must also have control in that area. Along with the power of choice goes the responsibility for those choices. Removing that responsibility also removes the incentives to make choices wisely. If people are to be free to make their own choices in life, they must also assume the responsibility for those choices. This is the preferred model for society in America. Having society assume the responsibility for people's choices necessitates society having control over those choices, because society will be unable and unwilling to accept the costs of people's unwise choices indefinately. The current trends prove this - spending on social programs has been growing at rates that are unacceptable and unsustainable, and the people, both liberal and conservative, have been calling for cutbacks either in social services (societal responsibility) or the personal freedoms that cost society heavily (smoking, education, parental rights and responsibilites, etc). One or the other is going to have to give. I suggest that personal freedom and personal responsibility is vastly preferable to societal responsibility and societal control.
Coming soon.
It is truly sad, the people that pass for "role models" today. It seems the modern pre-requisites for being a role model today are athletic ability, artistic talent, and money, and very little else. After all that has happened, after all the scandals, after all the disappointments, you'd think people would have figured out that athletes and entertainers are piss poor role models. The majority of these people are irresponsible crybaby egomaniacs who have a great deal of disdain for common people. And to make it worse, the biggest egomaniacs seem to become the biggest stars. Why is Michael Jordon considered a "role model"? Because he can shoot a basketball? Because he has a lot of money? Jordon is a greedy self centered jerk. He's an ungrateful skunk who refused to allow the NBA - the entity responsible for his fame and fortune - to use his likeness for advertising. He is a gambler, which wouldn't be too bad if he wasn't a welsher also. He also (listen now liberals) makes a great deal of money off of third world "slave labor" through his Nike endorsements. And Jordan isn't the worst offender - that title might well go to Mike tyson, who was a wife beater, bully, mugger, and all around asshole even before he was convicted of rape. Entertainers are no better - look at Elton John, who laughs about being higher than a kite when he was making public service "Just Say No to Drugs" commercials. There are a handful of decent people among athletes and entertainers, and a few really are exceptional people, but making people out to be role models solely based upon athletic or artistic gifts is insane.
Charles Schumer (D-NY) is a lowdown lying dog and a dispicable human being. He lies constantly about the NRA, gun owners, and his own agenda - not exagerrates, not stretches the truth, but lies. The man has a pathological hatred of guns and gun owners, and will stop at nothing, including lying through his teeth, in his efforts to ban guns. Virtually everything that comes out of his mouth on firearms issues - about the NRA supporting the various militias, about the NRA supporting children carrying machine guns to school, about "assault weapons" - is a lie. Schumer is absolutely disgusting in his disregard for the truth.
Of all the agencies and groups responsible for policing themselves, not one of them does a credible job. The ABA (American Bar Association) does a miserable job of policing lawyers and judges. The AMA (American Medical Association) does a terrible job of policing doctors. The FBI and Justice Departments do a terrible job of investigating and policing themselves. Congress does a lousy job of policing itself. Therefore, I feel that every government agency or government licensed group should have totally independant oversight by people not directly involved in that industry. That is the only way abuses and outright crimes will ever be addressed within these groups.
In one sense, I am against the war on drugs. People should be free to make their own choices, and accept the consequences of those choices. If things were as they should be, I would support making drugs legal. However, things are not as they should be. Because of the welfare state, society, not the individual, shoulders the financial responsibility for the choice to use drugs. I know that the costs of law enforcement are high, but the costs of emergency and long term medical care, drug rehab programs, and long term sustainance (welfare) for drug users are even more costly. I believe for a number of reasons that legalizing drugs would cause drug use to rise, and that would cost society far more than what we are currently paying in law enforcement costs. Drug use is not an issue of personal freedom when society is forced to shoulder the financial burden for drug abuse. When the welfare state is dismantled, and it truly becomes an issue of "What I put in my body is my own business", I will support legalizing drugs. Right now, by opposing legalization, I am protecting MY rights.
Get your own Free Home Page