Archives for category: Politics

Since the current regime in power in the Senate and the White House seem to think it’s okay to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and while they’re at it, take away the rights given to us, I thought I would take a look at that great document and see what else we can change, just for the hell of it.  These idiots have said “the second amendment doesn’t apply to assault weapons because they weren’t around in 1776 when the constitution was written.”  I’m not sure who said it, but I’m sure one of the chowderheads trying to pass the latest round of right denying legislation did.  Anyways, what else did our forefathers not have in mind when they forged our great nation from the ashes of tyranny?  Let’s take a look.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In 1776, I’m sure there were no Muslims to speak of in the United States.  Guess what, the forefathers didn’t have Islam in mind when they wrote the Constitution.  Also, there was no radio, television, internet or satellite.  So, based on the logic of gungrabbing left, Muslims are banned and so is anything said on any television show, internet blog (uhhh…uh oh) and radio program.

The Second Amendment:

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.

For the sake of argument, we’ll say the only thing that you can have is a flintlock, or a black powder musket.  That’s it.  And only one per household.  Also, you have to join your local state militia (national guard) in order to have a weapon, because that’s what they meant when they wrote it.

The Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

I can’t really think of a witty thing to say about this.  This came from a time when the British would just show up and take over the joint, so I can see why this one was here.

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But…cars weren’t even thought of in the 1700’s.  So, you can have the right against unreasonable search and seizure in your house, but not in your car, because our forefathers didn’t have that in mind.  Find another place to hide your weed, homie.

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So you can’t tell on yourself and you have to be indicted by a Grand Jury.  This is actually good.  It says they can’t take our life, liberty or property…wait, so can they grab our guns or not?  Suppose we should probably ask the folks up on Ruby Ridge.

The Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

But the forefathers couldn’t have forseen the absolute media saturation that revolves around high profile cases.  Do you really think the Batman Killer will get a fair trial?  I don’t think he deserves any trial and should be taken out back and summarily executed, but that’s besides the point.  I believe in the constitution so I guess the guy deserves his day in court, but my point is, this whole amendment should be thrown out, because high profile killers can’t ever get a fair shake.

The Seventh Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Twenty dollars?  Really?  If any amendment needs to be changed, I would say it’s this one.  I mean, talk about outdated, jeez.

The Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So what’s excessive?  In the days when this great document was drafted, I’m sure $1,000,000 was considered astronomically excessive.  However, in today’s society, that’s not uncommon for a high profile defendant.

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not much to say about this one, other than I think this pretty much says you can’t use the Constitution to take away rights from other people.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States Rights, people.  This hasn’t changed in over 200 years, and it shouldn’t change now.  Period.  Dot. End of story.

So, here’s the bottom line.  As I’ve illustrated, many of the amendments in the Constitution have nothing to do with modern day.  The forefathers could not have foreseen the world of 2013.  It’s impossible.  But that’s what makes the U.S. Constitution such a wonderful thing.  It lives.  It breathes.  It grows with the country.  No, AR-15s weren’t what the signers of the document had in mind when the drafted the Second Amendment, but it’s what’s we have.  It’s what the American people who chose to own a firearm have in order to ensure they can fulfill what the drafters had in mind.  You can’t bring a knife to a gun fight and you can’t own a musket when everybody else has semi-automatics.


Ladies and gentlemen of my readership, this is a disclaimer.  I intend to use a word that is not normally acceptable in social circles.  It’s foul and it is grotesque.  If bad words offend you, you may quit reading now and I won’t hold it against you.  However, if you chose to continue reading, please know that I intend to use the word cunt.  It is the only word in the English language…probably in any language that can be used to describe Diane Feinstein.  If you’re still here, I applaud your courage.  Thank you.

Yesterday, this shriveled up old cunt introduced legislation that completely destroys the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution promising that a free man’s (or implied woman’s) right to bear arms would not be infringed upon.  By specifically naming over 160 “scary black guns” that would be banned should this criminal act be passed, she is attempting to remove the tools which keep our country free from the men and women who provide that freedom.

Here’s why I think that it won’t pass and this piece of shit from the great state of California will crawl back to whatever cave she came from and die and finally leave us all alone.

In 1994, the Federal Firearms Ban was passed.  This law went by many different names including the Brady Bill, but it was the precursor to the ban in front of us today.  It was passed by a Democratic Senate and signed into law by a Democratic president.  The next election cycle, the Democrats lost the Senate and many point to that illegal banning of weapons as the reason why.

Here’s the thing, folks.  Even some Democrats, as backward as they can sometimes be, still own firearms.  Some of them even own these so called “assault weapons,” shotguns and hand guns that are on Feinstein’s list.  They don’t like having their rights fucked with any more than us sensible conservatives do.  And as was the case then, they showed their displeasure by replacing their senators with men and women who wouldn’t fuck with those rights.

“But Jason, won’t taking assault weapons off the streets eliminate school shootings and mass murder?”

I’m glad you asked that question, because Diane really wants you to believe that.  The fact is, there is no noticeable change.  There are plenty of tables and charts out there on the internet (thanks Al Gore) to look at in regards to the crime difference pre ’94 ban and post ’04 when the ban was lifted.  The most reliable, I think, is the FBI site on crime statistics.  It shows no noticeable difference in killings with these “bad” weapons than before they were banned.

The bottom line is, Clinton has warned the current sitting government of the perils of messing with peoples guns and their right to bear them.  He remembers what happened.  And let’s not forget, just because the cunt introduces a law, doesn’t automatically make it so.  There is still a process that has to pass before it’s signed.  There is still hope that our democratic process will win the day and restore a little bit of our faith to the system.

If you’re concerned, right letters to your congressmen and senators.  Demand an answer and demand they tell you how they intend of voting.  If their intention is to vote against your best interests, inform them of how you feel and let them know they can probably start looking for a real estate agent to sell their condo in D.C. because they’re gone in the next election.  This country was founded on Democracy.  Just because the current administration is acting tyrannical, doesn’t mean we have to accept it.  Rise up and fight these illegal actions with the weapon they CAN’T ever take away from us.  The Constitution of the United States!

Let’s talk about rape. I mean, there’s rape, then there’s rape-rape and then there’s legitimate rape, right? Rape is bad, we know that and if you’re a decent human being, you’re taught that from the time you’re a little kid. You don’t touch somebody else’s “no-no zone” unless you’re asked either verbally or with body language. I suggest you ask, just to make sure and take any of the questions and variables out of the equation. It may take some of the sexiness out of the moment, but there’s nothing sexy about facing a rape charge because you misread the signals you thought you were receiving from some intoxicated co-ed. But, if you rape someone, and it’s legitimate rape, they can’t get pregnant, right? I mean, that’s what this dipshit Todd Akin, the representative from Missouri would have you believe. In an interview that aired Sunday, these were his comments:

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors that’s really rare,” Akin said when asked whether a woman who was raped and became pregnant from the assault should be allowed to get an abortion. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Wow. I really am speechless at the level of stupidity that comment displays. It’s like saying in a room full of black people that Mitt Romney is going to put you back in chains, another faux pas by another politician made in recent days.

This guy actually believes so strongly that abortion is wrong, he’s going to spout some right-wing, medieval, dark ages bull shit. That kind of stuff makes me embarrassed to be a “right leaning” individual. And he’s not the only one. There are people out there, educated, upstanding people that believe that a woman can only get pregnant if she “wants it.” This entire line of thinking sets us back 100 years and essentially makes it sound like any woman who gets pregnant by rape (and it happens more often than you think) actually wanted the vilest thing imaginable to happen to her.

But, if we’re pointing fingers at Mr. Akin, we need to be fair. He’s not the only idiot around. There’s a certain, black, Jewish lesbian who once dated Ted Danson we need to mention when it comes to this subject.

A few years ago, Roman Polanski was found alive and well in Switzerland. If you don’t know who Roman is, he was a director from the 70’s who was accused of date raping a young lady in her teens by drugging her and sexually assaulting her in his home. He fled the country during trial and has been on the lamb ever since. This guy is as big of piece of shit as anyone, but since he’s an “artist” the Hollywood left ran to his side to defend him, including Whoopi Goldberg.

Now Whoopi, speaking on her show, “The View” made a comment in Polanski’s defense saying that while he was accused of statutory rape, it “wasn’t rape-rape.” Basically, this idiot is saying if you sexually assault a minor, it’s not as bad as holding an “of-age” woman down and forcing yourself on her. Where is the outrage? Where are the demands for Whoopi’s head on a platter? There weren’t any then, and there won’t be any now. Because the fact of the matter is, while both comments were ridiculous and downright offensive, Whoopi is a hero to left and while they control the media, they don’t attack their own.

Besides, Whoopi won an academy award for Ghost, so why shouldn’t we listen to her?

So, here we are again.  Things sure are getting interesting, aren’t they?  As we move along in this race that isn’t really quite a race yet, we find ourselves with our first real showdown.  The Democrats led by the great Harry Reid (read sarcasm <—  here) are demanding that Mitt Romney turn over his tax returns.  Why?  Because they think that Mitt has done something unscrupulous with his finances over the last few years.  This was backed by our president, yes ladies and gentlemen, the leader of the free world when he said that he would lay off the attack ads if Romney turned over his last five years worth of IRS tax returns.

Now, as I remember it, we had a similar situation about..oh…four years ago.  A young upstart senator decided he wanted to run for president.  But, there was a problem.  He wasn’t a U.S. citizen.  Or was he?  Was he born in Kenya?  Or was it Hawaii?  Did he lose his citizenship when he lived in Indonesia?  Hmmm…how do we solve this issue?  I’m pretty sure John McCain never said, “well Barrack, we’ll stop the attack ads if you turn over your birth certificate.”  Nope, that scenario never played out.

Were there conspiracy theorists that demanded the certificate?  Absolutely.  In fact, as I understand it, the “birther” conspiracy continues today, even after a scanned copy of the certificate has been produced.  My point is, the opposition (then, John McCain) never stooped to that level.  He let it go.  It was beneath him.  As it should be beneath President Obama.  I mean, let’s face it.  There’s plenty of things we should be asking the president for.

How about his college records that have been sealed and are gone forever. That’s not relevant?

How about the real reason he gave up his license to practice law?  We don’t need to know?

Why did he go by a different name when he was in college?  Anyone ever hear of a guy named Barry Soetoro?  That’s your president, ladies and gentlemen.  They’re one and the same.

Finally, since we’re talking about releasing papers, why doesn’t President Obama release the documents relating to the Fast and Furious investigation.  Why did he allow Mr. Holder to utilize executive privilege and seal those documents.  And you people say George W. Bush was a criminal…

This man is currently the president.  He already has the job.  I’m more concerned about his tax returns and the other shady dealings that he’s had than the guy who might be president.

Besides, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Mickey Mouse all have one thing in common.  They’re not the president, therefore have no obligation to turn over jack nor shit.  When they get the job (and for this country’s sake let’s hope that’s true) they’ll turn over everything they’re required to.  Just like President Obama did…oh wait….

So, it’s been a few days since I’ve posted anything and that’s only because nothing has really gotten me fired up.  I’ve been pretty mellow, and if you know me, that’s kind of hard to believe.  As I was scrolling through the usual crap on Facebook wall…or page…or timeline…or whatever the hell it’s called this week (and oh, when I say crap I’m not referring to the awesome stuff all my friends post, just usual blather of all the politico pages I subscribe to) I came across an item that said:

“General Petraeus to run as Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential Candidate!”

Holy shit!  For reals?  I’m fired up again.  I’m ready to write about something meaningful.  I’m ready to write about something current.  And this is it.  Why this country needs a hero.

I don’t give a shit what you think about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I don’t, plain and simple.  Unless you’re in the military or have served honorably in the military, you have no idea what it’s like to leave the people and place you love and travel 4,000 miles to a place you can’t spell to help people you don’t know for a cause you don’t understand.  And I don’t give two shits how many times these politicians say they know how we feel and know what is going on.  They don’t.  Clinton didn’t.  Bush Jr. didn’t and Barrack Obama sure as hell doesn’t.  And for that matter, Mitt Romney hasn’t got a clue either. But…General Petraeus does.  Not only was he there in both conflicts, leading from the front, but he wrote the book on our foreign policy.  There is nobody that understands foreign policy better than this man.  Trust me.  I’ve met him.  Hell, when I was in Iraq, my office was just down the street from his.

My point is, the man is a military hero.  And that’s what we need.  Now, you left leaning folks will probably disagree with me.  “The last thing we need is some war mongering, baby killing, napalm shooting, barbarian in the white house.”  To that I will say, yes we do.  And since this is my blog, I win.

We’re at war, folks.  Any way you want to shake it, we’re at war.  Your great savior, Mr. Obama got us out of Iraq (which is still blowing itself halfway to hell everyday, by the way) but we’re still at war.  He can stand up on the stage and say we’re prematurely pulling out of Afghanistan like a teenager on prom night, but the fact is, we’re still at war.  There are crazies everywhere.  I’m not just talking about the ones with the funny clothes who pray towards Mecca six times a day.  I’m talking about Russians, I’m talking about Chinese, I’m talking about people that look just like you and I who want to do harm to this country.  We need a strong military minded presence in the White House and I believe that by Mitt bringing the general on board, that gives us that presence.  I’ll tell you what, when the time comes, I’d rather have Mitt in there taking his advice from the greatest military leader in the last generation than Barrack taking advice from that bumbling idiot he’s got as his right hand man.  Think about it.

I’m going to say right off the bat. I’m going to try really hard to not be “ranty” or “preachy.”  Gun control, arming myself, protecting my family and my second amendment rights are something I take very seriously.  For anyone to infringe upon those or tell me what I can and can’t do when it comes to my rights really upsets me.  However, as I’ve tried to do with my last few posts I will try and take a thoughtful approach to this post.

This post started the other day when I saw this image on my Facebook wall:

Now, this was put here by a friend of mine.  She’s liberal…obviously.  I happen to respect this person quite a bit, even though I don’t agree with her politics.  That being said, I don’t know who “Ann” is, but I don’t like her politics very much either.  Upon seeing this picture, I asked what “Smart Gun Regulation” was.  The answer I was given was that no one should own an AK47 nor should they be allowed to stockpile 6,000 rounds of ammunition and if they thought they were, they were an idiot.  I take a bit of exception to that.  We’ll tackle the AK47 issue first.

In the wake of the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, politicians became politicians again and decided to walk on the bodies of the 12 dead for political gain.  In doing that, President Obama made a comment in a speech in which he said:

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Obama said. “That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” – President Barack Obama

Why the president chose this particular model of firearm to use in his speech, I’m not sure.  Perhaps his advisers misinformed him of the type of weapon used in Dark Knight Massacre.  American soldiers don’t use AK47s.  They use M16s and M4s.  The AK47 is a Russian/Chinese weapon used by our enemies.  And oh, by the way, in its fully automatic configuration, they are already illegal.  However, because it’s big and scary and referred to as an “assault rifle”, it must be bad.  Right?  Actually, the term “assault rifle” is a made term from the left-wing authors of the “Brady Bill” during the Clinton administration, which was probably the biggest constitutional wronging in the history of this nation.  If used in a certain manner, all firearms are capable of “assaulting” so to define a rifle as an “assault” rifle is just silly.  I’m just as capable of “assaulting” you with my pistol or shotgun as I am with an AK47 or an AR 15.  So the answer to the “big, bad rifle question would be a resounding: Wrong!

Do you know why we have our second amendment rights?  Do you know why it is against the U.S. Constitution for the government to limit your gun rights?  The Second Amendment wasn’t put in the constitution so we could protect ourselves against criminals; well, not the ones who rape and murder anyways.  It was put there so that we, as citizens, can defend against an invading army.  More importantly than that, we have those implicit rights so that we can protect ourselves from our own government.

Wait, Jason, are you advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government?

Absolutely not!  I would never advocate for such a thing.  However, I’m simply stating a fact that the reason we have the rights we do when it comes to “bearing arms,” is so that if the government oversteps their bounds and becomes a tyranny, we the people can do what needs to be done.  And, as bad as many of you may think it is right now, we’re not to that point.  However, my point is that because we have the right to defend ourselves against the government, we must have the same (or close to the same) firepower that any invading army has or more importantly, the government does.

So no, I don’t think anyone stockpiling 6,000 rounds of ammunition is an idiot.  They could be a competitive shooter, a “survivalist” a gun enthusiast; and yes, they may be a crazed madman.  Sadly, that is the risk we take to have the freedoms we have.  I think everyone should think about this before automatically jumping to silly conclusions and spouting off at the mouth about the crazy guy with the guns.  When the Russians, the government or even the zombies attack, that “crazy guy with all the guns” may be the one who saves your ass.  Just sayin…

Before we jump into this juicy topic, I want to state a couple of facts up front.  First, I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity of…chicken sandwiches.  I absolutely love them.  I love the spicy ones, I love the plain ones and I really love them with mayonnaise.  I also believe in the sanctity of marriage.  By marriage, I mean anyone that is in a committed relationship.  I don’t care if it’s two girls, two guys or what society considers “normal,” meaning a man and a woman.

However, that’s not what this blog is about.  At its core, I suppose it probably is, but that’s not the topic I want to discuss.  I want to discuss the hypocrisy of the media (both Liberal and Conservative) and the reactions of certain personalities to the recent statements by the Chick-fil-A ownership.

Now, Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-fil-A didn’t come out of his own volition and say “we at Chick-fil-A hate gays and lesbians and will refuse to serve them.”  That’s not what he said.  He was asked a very pointed, very direct, very loaded question in an interview.  In that interview when asked if he believed in the sanctity of marriage (which despite my play on it above, generally means one man and one woman) he answered:

“Guilty as charged.  That is, the biblical definition of the family unit.”

If you know anything about Chick-fil-A you know that they’re a Christian Family company.  They are built on their morals and their beliefs.  This restaurant isn’t even open Sundays.  They lose that revenue every week because they believe their employees shouldn’t work on the Sabbath.  That’s how into their faith and beliefs they are.  So, what did you expect them to say?  It’s not like there are signs posted at their restaurants that say: “gays aren’t served here.”  But ask the liberal media and you’d think he was guilty of beating up gay people in the street.  And, it wasn’t just the media that responded.  The Hollyweird elite came out of the woodwork.  One of my favorites was Roseanne Barr who said:

“I hope that anyone who eats at Chick-fil-A gets cancer and dies.”

I’ve been hoping Roseanne got hit by a bus “Final Destination” style since she sang the “Star Spangled Banner” and completely ruined our national anthem.  But…whatever.  She’s still here, so we have to deal with her.  But the protests, and the backlash against a private company that is exercising their First Amendment right is being completely ostracized.  On the other hand, conservative outlets are praising Cathy for standing his ground and taking the moral high road.  They are praising him for exercising his rights.  The right vs. the left.  It’s an issue of standing the moral ground and stating what he believes in vs. caving in and going with what’s popular.  This whole thing seems vaguely familiar.  I’m remembering another incident from nine years ago.  Funny enough, I think it also involved poultry in some way.  Oh yeah….now I remember.  It was the Dixie Chicks!

In March, 2003, the country music group, the Dixie Chicks were performing a concert in England when group leader, Natalie Maines said to the crowd:

“Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

The conservative right went absolutely ape shit!  They banned the group from the radio, they shunned them from award shows, Toby Keith (although oddly enough also a Democrat) went off on them.  But, the liberal left thought that the girls, especially Maines, were brave for speaking their minds about such a controversial subject at such a turbulent time.  Even as the group saw its popularity go down quicker than a hooker in Central Park, they stood their ground, supported by liberal media moguls like Peter Jennings and Wolf Blitzer.

What’s the point of all this?  The point is, both chickens crossed the road against traffic for things they believed in.  As a good friend (who’s quite liberal) told me recently, we can’t pick and choose which constitutional amendments we support and agree with.  The Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights in its entirety.  We don’t get to decide which ones we like whether we’re conservative or liberal.

At the end of the day, you can eat chicken sandwiches from Chick-fil-A or you can eat cheeseburgers from Burger King.  It doesn’t really matter what the chicken guy says, just like the Iraq war went on, despite what the Dixie Chicks thought.  The fight for equality will go on.