Archive for April, 2008

Toby Keith is a great American

Published
by
HawkEye
on April 30, 2008
in Support Our Troops
. 0 Comments

Toby Keith, the great country music superstar, has been on an 18 show USO tour through the Persian Gulf. He is a class act and we all owe Keith respect for the way he supports the morale of our brave soldiers.

Keith was giving a concert for 2,500 soldiers in Kandahar, Afghanistan when the base came under attack. How did Keith react? Like a professional! People reports:

“We all ran about 100 yards to a concrete bunker,” says Keith’s agent, Curt Motley, who is also on the USO tour. Keith, 46, and his band hunkered down with the soldiers in a bunker about an hour, signing autographs and posing for shots to pass the time.

This is the star’s sixth USO tour for our troops. God bless Mr. Keith for his active support of our brave men and women. And as always, God bless our troops!

How McCain Can Win the Black Vote: School Choice (Part II)

Published
by
Cardinal10
on April 30, 2008
in School Choice Now
. 1 Comment

Read Part I here

Inner-cities have been Democrat strongholds since between the World Wars. This is about the time the Great Depression hit and most Americans were suckered by the quick-fix socialism offered by the FDR administration bundled nicely in the neat package called the “New Deal”. Since then, the Founding Fathers’ worst fear has come true (thanks to one Franklin “Dumbass” Roosevelt): Once the people discover that they can vote themselves the treasury, the republic will cease to exist.

Soon after the Second World War ended, the white-flight phenomena began. This left the inner-cities sparsely populated driving down property values which allowed lower income families to afford to move in. The vast majority of the new inner-city residents were now African-American. Other factors played into African-Americans staying or moving to the inner-city besides affordability – mainly Democrat-encouraged Jim Crow laws in rural areas; inner-cities offered a strength in numbers environment. Thanks to “progressive” segregation and Democrat racism, African-Americans became understandably irate at the situation. How did the Democrats respond once their actions were exposed during the Civil Rights era? Hush money. Out of the Democrat’s guilt came even more payouts in the form of clever welfare payments that now made the low-income inner-city African-Americans a slave to the Democrats once again.

Since John McCain is not showing any signs of aggravating his Democrat allies, there is little chance he will free African-Americans from government dependence which prevents them from regaining control of their own financial destiny. However, there is another way to break the Democrat’s ultimate plan of an enslaved population: free the schools and you will free the minds. This must be done slowly, and the first step is to allow inner-city African-Americans to choose which government-run school they would like to attend. More Friday on what impact this simple act can have on leveling the playing field the natural way.

Former child star, Jamie Lee Curtis weighs in on the Miley Cyrus photo

Published
by
HawkEye
on April 30, 2008
in Protect Our Children
. 0 Comments

Jamie Lee Curtis has posted an article on the Huffington Post regarding the Miley Cyrus photo shot by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair. For part of it she plays the part of an apoligist for Leibovitz and Vanity Fair. That’s a shame because both the star photographer and the magazine are culpable for this exploitive photo — Leibovitz for taking it and Vanity Fair for publishing it. But in the end, she concludes quite accurately that entertainment is a business and will “eat” it’s entertainers for a profit. She writes:

When these young people get all dressed up for award show red-carpet events don’t we all comment how beautiful, stunning and grown-up they look in their strapless/backless dresses and heels and tousled hair? None of this is new. None of this should be news. But it is news because it is a business. It is all Business. It is called Show Business. Show Abyss-ness! I call it Show-OFF Business. You throw a child into the jaws of a business and they will get eaten.

I know how Miley feels. I too was a little embarrassed by my recent topless “scandal” and the subsequent parodies, but I am an adult woman. I protected myself during the shoot and I can take the heat. I only wish that her guardians had protected her.

“I only wish that her guardians had protected her.” I agree Jamie!

District of Columbia v. Heller - a brief primer

Published
by
HawkEye
on April 30, 2008
in Protect Gun Rights
. 0 Comments

The Supreme Court of the United is currently considering the the case of the “District of Columbia v. Heller.” This will be a landmark decision rendered by the court on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment simply states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

According to the SCOTUS Blog in November, this is the first time that the Supreme Court will rule on a Second Amendment case in nearly 70 years:

After a hiatus of 68 years, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment — the hotly contested part of the Constitution that guarantees “a right to keep and bear arms.” Not since 1939 has the Court heard a case directly testing the Amendment’s scope — and there is a debate about whether it actually decided anything in that earlier ruling. In a sense, the Court may well be writing on a clean slate if, in the end, it decides the ultimate question: does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to have a gun for private use, or does it only guarantee a collective right to have guns in an organized military force such as a state National Guard unit?

But exactly what is being challenged in the case?

In 1975, the District of Columbia passed the “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975″ banning the ownership of handguns by most residents and placing restrictions on the storage and access of other guns in residents homes effectively rendering the useless for the purpose of home defense. Wikipedia has the following summary:

The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 was passed by the District of Columbia city council on June 26, 1976.[1] The law banned residents from owning handguns, automatic firearms, and high-capacity semi-automatic firearms, as well as prohibited possession of unregistered firearms. Exceptions to the ban were allowed for police officers and guns registered before 1976. The law also required firearms kept in the home to be “unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device”[2], thus amounting to a prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense in the home.[3]

Portions of this law were struck down by United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case District of Columbia v. Parker. This ruling has been stayed pending appeal with the United States Supreme Court.

On March 9, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that the “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975″ violated the residents Second Amendment Rights. The opinion of the court can be read in it’s entirety here.

The Supreme Court is now reviewing the case to determine if the striking down of the law is justified on constitutional grounds. According the SCOTUS Blog, the justices have decided to frame the constitutional question themselves as follows:

The Justices chose to write out for themselves the constitutional question they will undertake to answer in Heller. Both sides had urged the Court to hear the city’s case, but they had disagreed over how to frame the Second Amendment issue.

Here is the way the Court phrased the granted issue:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

The arguments on the case were heard by the justices on March 18, 2008. The entire transcript of those hearings is available from the Supreme Court here. The arguments can be heard here.

For all Originalists, this is will be a ruling that will be watched with great scrutiny. In my opinion, the Second Amendment is quite clear on the rights of US citizens to own and utilize guns and that right shall NOT be infringed! It would be a terrible travesty if the court were to uphold DC’s “Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.”

John Fischer: “do something that will amaze and delight those around you”

Published
by
HawkEye
on April 30, 2008
in Warms Your Soul
. 0 Comments

I subscribe to an email list called Catch of the Day. It’s a Christian daily devotional e-mail list authored by John Fischer. Most of his e-mails can be appreciated by people of all religious beliefs including those who are atheist. I just wanted to share this one with you — it’s quite moving. Watch the video and enjoy.

Catch of the Day
Opera night

Wednesday, April, 30, 2008
by John Fischer

Okay, everybody, get out the Kleenex. And get out all your excuses for not going after your dream, and put them on the table. While you’re at it, empty your pockets of every ounce of pre-judgment you can muster and get ready to do something with that too. Then dump out your fears, small thinking, and inadequacies and watch this video. When you’re done, I suggest you clear the table of all that unnecessary stuff and decide what you’re going to do. You are gifted by God to do something that will amaze and delight those around you in no less of a manner than this.

http://www.maniacworld.com/Phone-Salesman-Amazes-Crowd.html

The Obamacle speaks on Whacko Wright! [Updated]

Published
by
HawkEye
on April 29, 2008
in 2008 Presidential Election
. 0 Comments

It looks like the freshman senator from Illinois finally got the idea that Wright is doing him political damage. So now, when Wright has resurfaces and it is apparent that Obama’s speech in Philly on race wouldn’t cut it with the public, the rookie senator has finally decided to more strongly denounce Wright’s hateful anti-American rhetoric.

Mike Glover writing for the A.P. in his article titled “Obama says he’s outraged by former pastor’s comments” clearly indicates that Obama has denounced Wright’s comments in a much more forceful manner than previously. He writes:

Obama said he heard that Wright had given “a performance” and when he watched tapes, he realized that it more than just a case of the former pastor defending himself.

“What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for,” Obama said.

In a highly publicized speech last month, Obama sharply condemned Wright’s remarks. But he did not leave the church or repudiate the minister himself, who he said was like a family member.

On Tuesday, Obama sought to distance himself further from Wright.

“I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he’s done enormous good. … But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. … There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced.”

So how complete is this break between Obama and Wright? Don Frederick, a political editor in the Washington bureau of the L.A. Times, writes on his blog for the LA Times thinks so:

He could hardly have distanced himself farther from the man who officiated at his wedding ceremony and baptized his two children.

Obama described himself as “outraged” by many of Wright’s remarks and “saddened” by what he termed “the spectacle of what we saw yesterday.”

He characterized as “ridiculous” Wright’s notion that the AIDS epidemic may have been a conspiracy inflicted on blacks by the federal government and that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan should be considered a leading voice in modern times.

Such views …

“offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. They should be denounced.”

But on the surface, Wright’s crazy statements aren’t different than the one’s he gave in sermons years ago. Maybe, Wright is right about one thing, Obama is doing what politicians do. Obama is specifically trying to separate himself from this divisive figure because it is politically wise to do so.

[Update #1 4/29/2008]
Watch Obama’s press conference for yourself:

[Update #2 4/29/2008]
John McCormack over at the Weekly Standard looks at a passage from Obama’s book and questions really how different is Wright at all from what Obama witnessed in the past.

Obama is not a supporter of the second amendment - DUH!

Published
by
HawkEye
on April 29, 2008
in Protect Gun Rights
. 0 Comments

In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama, the freshman senator from Illinois, clearly demonstrates that he doesn’t believe in the right of American citizens to utilize hand guns in order to protect themselves. Here is an excerpt from the interview:

S-T: The Washington, D.C. [handgun ban] case before the U.S. Supreme Court you were asked about at the debate — have you have a chance to look into that more?

B.O.: My view continues to be that the constitution, I believe, does provide a right to bear arms; but that local communities, and state governments, as well as the federal government, have a right to common-sense regulations and firearm ownership [rules.] The truth is, obviously, the ban here in Chicago, the ban in D.C. is not keeping the guns out of our cities, and so I’m interested in just figuring out what works and I’m confident we can come up with laws that work and that pass constitutional muster and don’t infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners whether it’s in Downstate Illinois or rural Montana.

S-T: As a state legislator, you voted against a bill which would let people with orders of protection [against others] carry guns and another that would have barred municipalities from punishing people who kept guns in their homes. Why?

B.O.: I felt that [the first one] was a precedent for conceal-and-carry laws. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer. [The second one] is relevant to the D.C. handgun issue. I wanted to preserve the right of local communities to enforce local ordinances and this would have overturned municipalities being able to enforce their own ordinances. We can argue about whether the ordinances work or not. But I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms.

S-T: But you don’t want to take a stand on the D.C. gun-ban law?

B.O.: I don’t like taking a stand on pending cases.

And Obama is suppose to be a constitutional scholar? No wonder it was so easy for Obama to be critical of small town American’s bitterly clinging to their guns. Also, he clearly whimps out on giving his opinion on the D.C. case being presented to the Supreme Court although it’s pretty easy to guess at his true feelings. Unfortunately, Obama is a candidate of change. He seeks to roll back our fundamental right to own and bear arms.

« Older Entries