Minx Dynamic Pages for Movable Type

Ogre's Politics & Views

April 27, 2007

Lunch with Rudy

It's here! Ogre has arrived and checked in at the 2007 North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference. After a few delays getting internet connections, we're connected and ready.

We're waiting for a late plane apparently carrying Rudy Giuliani. Meanwhile, the festivities have started. The first person with Mr. Giuliani's campaign I met was Elliott Bundy, representing JoinRudy2008. There's also various other North Carolina elected officials (and previously elected officials) wandering about. I've spotted Eddie Goodall, Patrick Ballantine, Fred Smith (candidate for NC Governor), and Representative William Current.

So keep checking back here with various updates throughout the afternoon!

Posted by: Ogre at 04:26 PM | Comments (4446) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Separation Clause Invoked over Postal Contractor

by Nathan Bradfield

U.S. District Judge Dominic J. Squatrito, in a case in Manchester, CT, has ruled that the nearly 5,200 facilities run by contractors that they cannot promote religion through pamphlets, displays or any other materials.

Squatrito sided with Bertram Cooper, who in 2003 sued the Postal Service and the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church, which operates the Sincerely Yours Inc. post office on Main Street in downtown Manchester. When he filed the lawsuit, Cooper, a Navy veteran of World War II and the Korean War, said he became upset when he went to Sincerely Yours.
Inside, the facility has evangelical displays, including posters, advertisements and artwork. One of the displays is about Jesus Christ and invites customers to submit a request if they "need a prayer in their lives."
"There is nothing wrong, per se, with the church exhibiting religious displays," Squatrito wrote in his ruling. "Here, however, the church is exhibiting such displays while it is performing its duties under a contract with the Postal Service., i.e. the U.S. Government."
Squatrito said that the post office was a state "actor" under the First Amendment and that its religious displays violate the clause calling for the separation of church and state. But he said the contract itself does not violate the clause.
The Postal Service had argued that signs make it clear that Sincerely Yours is not an "official" postal facility. It also said that it had no proprietary interest in the office, other than postal products and equipment, and that there was no evidence that the agency had a direct financial stake in the office's success. The agency noted that no government employees work at Sincerely Yours, and insisted the facts demonstrate that the post office is a private entity.
The judge said the Postal Service relies on contractor-run offices [officially called a Contract Postal Unit] to provide services to areas that the agency has determined to be unsuitable for official facilities. Contract offices are typically at colleges, grocery stores, pharmacies and some private residences.

It probably comes as no surprise that Contract Postal Unit's are not very profitable. They attract clientele with the postal convenience and make profits on snacks, drinks, and newspapers. Much like a fuel station. Sincerely Yours offers no snacks. They do offer salvation and posted paraphernalia concerning feeding the homeless, aiding mission work, and helping the sick.

Full Gospel would have no interest in running the store without the evangelical trimmings. "If the church is forced to sanitize the place of any religious reference in order to keep Sincerely Yours open," Joseph P. Secola, Full Gospel's lawyer, said, "then the Contract Postal Unit will shut down."

Two obvious points here. 1.) Squatrito is another breathingist judge who doesn't understand the meaning of the First Amendement. 2.) It's equally obvious from the Framer's writings, speeches, and letters that the "separation clause" is intended to prevent the establishment of one specific denomination. The wording is irrelevant. The courts have decided to throw out separation of powers and do the legislative work for them by creating new laws that interpret the Constitution in way that ignores 150 years of precedence.

Full Gospel, as a church, could be classified in a denomination. But using the CPU to promote religion in general certainly does not violate the true interpretation of the First Amendment. The real motive goes deeper, I suspect. The ACLU, who represented Cooper, saw the church using the CPU as a front for aiding the poor, figured that is the job of big government, and used the hijacked separation clause as their anti-religion weapon of choice.

I'm glad Full Gospel plans to dump the CPU. If a judge can't understand that the First Amendment also has a "free excercise thereof" line, let the government suffer at the hands of its own breathingist judges. Albeit, this is just one of thousands of CPU's and won't put a dent in the "service issue" with the main postal branch in Manchester. It will show that a church can minister to the poor, homeless and sick. If the ACLU really believed in a separation of church and state, they would sue for the real motive. That is, the church doing the state's work. But when do liberals ever tell the truth? Thank God for conservatism where we don't have to lie.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:08 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NC Property Rights

If you share my belief that private property is a fundamental right of Americans, please take action TODAY.

On March 15, a bipartisan bill to protect our private property from unjust seizure by governments was introduced in the N.C. House. Four days later this bill, HB 878, was referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. It is still stuck in that committee.

House Bill 878 has a total of 96 sponsors and co-sponsors. This means that 80% of House members have signed onto this legislation. 80% of House members have sponsored HB 878 -- and yet the legislative leadership has not brought it to the floor for a vote.

Please take action TODAY by contacting key House leaders.

Please contact the legislative leaders below and tell them House Bill 878 deserves a vote on the House floor. Please be respectful and professional as you exercise your right to make your voice heard. Click on the House member's name for a link that includes their contact information. You can contact them via e-mail, phone, and/or U.S. Mail.
* Rep. Joe Hackney, Speaker of the House
* Rep. Bill Owens, Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. Rep. Owens is listed as a co-sponsor of HB 878.
* Rep. Rick Glazier. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.
* Rep. Dewey Hill. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. Rep. Hill is listed as a co-sponsor of HB 878.
* Rep. Paul Luebke. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.
* Rep. Deborah Ross. Vice Chair of the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.

Click here for a complete list of committee members, with links to their contact information.

Please take action TODAY by contacting your House member. Contact them and tell them to tell Speaker Hackney that House Bill 878 deserves a vote on the House floor.

The House leadership would have us believe that a legislative solution is good enough to protect our private property rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Legislatures change, and a legislative solution can easily be changed by those elected in the future. We need a constitutional amendment that will stand the test of time. Simply put, our private property rights are too important to trust to the whims of future legislators.

Please take action TODAY and make your voice heard.

As citizens, we must unite to protect our private property rights. Now is the time to make your voice heard.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:07 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 26, 2007

Supreme Court Decision

I know some people have gone absolutely bananas over the recent decision of the supreme court allowing a legislature to make it illegal to chop open the heads of little babies. I know some people honestly believe they have a right to suck the brains out of innocent babies because they want to. But I think this cartoon really says it all regarding that decision.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:04 PM | Comments (4058) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NC Conservative Leadership Conference

Yes, folks, just one more day before the big conference! If, for some reason, you can't be there, be sure you stop by here! Yes, the Ogre is heading up to Raleigh first thing tomorrow morning and will be providing you, the good reader, with near-live blogging. Yes, for those who want to participate via the internet, this will be the next-best thing.

For each event, I'll be taking pictures and notes and posting them here as they happen. Be sure to stop by after noon and watch it as it happens. The first event is lunch with Rudy Giuliani (yes, at a conservative conference) at noon. I don't imagine I'll be typing while eating (and an Ogre DOES have to eat), so look for pictures and a report soon after lunch, I'm guessing around 1:30pm EDT. There should be updates throughout the afternoon and well into the evening hours. Then, ALL DAY Saturday, look for lots and lots of posts, reports, and updates about who is there and what they're saying.

Also, check the list of people who will be there -- if anyone has any specific questions for anyone listed, leave a comment here, and I'll do my best to ask them that question for you!

Posted by: Ogre at 05:09 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Standing Up

Indeed, it is good to see when people stand up for what is right. Apparently people have been reading Ogre and are now trying to stand up and be heard. Two news articles today that show all is not completely lost.

First up is California Representative Duncan Hunter. This week he has called for Senator Harry Reid (Surrender Party, ~~France~~ NV) to step down as majority leader of the Senate. How about these words:

Even if you sincerely believe it to be true, your pronouncement of failure will undoubtedly be used by terrorist leaders to rally their followers � inevitably leading to increased attacks on U.S. and coalition forces.

Some might claim that this is just politics because Hunter is running for president. While that may be part of the reason for this, it still takes real guts to stand up and say what's right. There is no question that what Reid is doing IS providing aid and comfort to the enemy. And Reid knows it, but he doesn't care. Reid is with the rest of the Democrats -- against Bush at ANY cost.

Good job, Mr. Hunter, to stand up as an elected official and tell it like it is.

Next up is St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke. He resigned his position on a charity board because the charity openly supported abortion -- and that was at odds with his faith. In what was a difficult position, Mr. Burke was faced with supporting children through the charity -- and supporting abortion; or standing up for his principles against killing the unborn -- and not getting the charity money to the children. He said:

A Catholic institution featuring a performer who promotes moral evil gives the impression that the church is somehow inconsistent in its teaching

Absolutely outstanding. We need many, many more who claim to be religious, who will stand up for their beliefs -- no matter the cost. Other board members and the charity itself -- including Bob Costas, Sheryl Crow, and Event organizer Allen Allred all remained steadfast in their support for abortion.

Good job, Mr. Burke. People, STAND UP for what you believe. Suffer the consequences, but do it with a clear conscience.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:04 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Create New Criminals

Apparently there's not enough laws on the books. According to the US Federal Government, there's just too much freedom going on. So they need to create a few more criminals, hoping that a few less people will be free to make choices on their own. You subjects just aren't smart enough to be free, apparently.

Once again, this time it's the FDA that wants to make more criminals. Apparently they want to regulate anything that can be used to treat someone's health. They want to require you to get permission from a government doctor before you drink that herbal tea or swallow that multivitamin. They want to increase government regulation which always reduces freedom.

So how does this create more criminals? Well, just like last time the FDA decided to restrict a certain drug (Ephedra), I will simply choose not to obey them. When they decide that I cannot go to the local GNC and buy my multivitamin, I'll just find another source and buy it anyway.

I just wonder how long before the FDA breaks down my door when they find mint herbs growing in my yard.

Oh, and in case you think I'm making this up, check the actual text of the FDA document. They actually give as an example vegetable juice being regulated as a drug! If you think you actually have any power over the federal government (people used to), feel free to leave them a comment and let them know what you think. Keep in mind, however, that the purpose of the FDA is to protect big companies, NOT individuals.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:07 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Easley wants MORE Socialism

If you've watched Democrat NC Governor Easley over the years, you know he honestly dislikes freedom. I don't pretend to know why he dislikes it -- I can't tell if he thinks all people are just more stupid than he; or if he just is jealous that some people are working and producing more than he; or if he just honestly hates people overall. But it is clear that he works hard to stop freedom everywhere he can find it.

His "pet" issue over the years has been socialist education. He honestly believes that those who work and produce should be punished and forced to give money to those who do not -- and in the process should give their money to those in the education system. Every chance he has to raise taxes to give it to government, he takes that chance.

Now he wants to take even more money from those who work to provide completely, 100% free educations for people who don't work for them. And no, this isn't to provide "education" to those who aren't already getting it -- he wants to give more money to people who are already getting an education -- but Easley doesn't want these poor people to have to take out loans -- he wants it to be free to the consumer (and not to the taxpayer, obviously).

Even worse is the insane circular reasoning that passes for "logic" to socialists. You see, since the government is charging more for "education" (I keep putting that in quotes because the government system has NOTHING to do with education, just money); students need more money for the "education." Then, since the students need more money, the government will take more from people who work to give to the students. And what will the students do with that money? Give it to government to pay for their "education." So the government is taking from working people to give to non-working people so they can give that money to government.

Sorry, if you're interested in freedom, you're not going to find ANY in North Carolina while Democrats control the legislature (as they have for OVER 100 years).

Posted by: Ogre at 11:07 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 25, 2007

The Llama Fool

After reading all the antics of the left today, all I can think of is how foolish they are. So, to combine that mood with the afternoon silliness, I present the Llama Fool!

His name is Eric.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:13 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Department of Peace?

Everyone needs to go find a Democrat Congressman and shake their hand. You see, Democrats have found the solution to all the world's problems. They can eliminate all war around the world today (if Bush would let them). You see, there's already 63 of them who have signed on to end all war by simply creating a Department of Peace.

This is HR 808 (Search Thomas for HR80.

And to show you how utterly insane the Democrats really are -- to illustrate their utter and total disconnect from reality, take a peek at the very start of this bill:

Congress finds the following:
(1) On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously declared the independence of the 13 colonies, and the achievement of peace was recognized as one of the highest duties of the new organization of free and independent States.

Apparently the Democrats have a very different version of the Declaration of Independence than I do. The version I have openly declares separation from government! The version I have mentions that it is the right and duty of The People to THROW OFF abusive governments (gee, like the one run by Democrats, perhaps?).

(a) Establishment- There is hereby established a Department of Peace and Nonviolence (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the `Department'), which shall--
(1) be a cabinet-level department in the executive branch of the Federal Government; and
(2) be dedicated to peacemaking and the study of conditions that are conducive to both domestic and international peace.

Yes, they really, really want to create a "Department of Peace and 'Nonviolence.'" How do idiots like this really get elected? And the department (and it's HUGE budget and hundreds of thousands of employees) will actively "Make Peace." Can someone please explain to me how you "make" peace? Go ahead, give it a shot. I'll give you a hint -- it involves overbearing, superior FORCE.

To "make peace" one must "ask for or arrange a cessation of hostilities or antagonism." However, if you are refused, then you didn't "make peace." So the ONLY way to actually "make" peace is to destroy anyone or anything that disagrees with you -- with superior force. Don't you feel safer already with Democrats deciding who is allowed to disagree with them?

But wait, there's more! This isn't just any massive, bloated, useless expansion of government the Democrats are promoting -- this is perhaps the largest, most massive, most bloated, most expensive expansion of government ever proposed:

Mission- The Department shall--
(1) hold peace as an organizing principle, coordinating service to every level of American society;
(2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights;
(3) strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking;
(4) promote the development of human potential;
(5) work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution;
(6) take a proactive, strategic approach in the development of policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict;
(7) address matters both domestic and international in scope; and
( encourage the development of initiatives from local communities, religious groups, and nongovernmental organizations.

No, they don't list budget numbers, but hundreds of trillions seems to be obvious. This department needs to "coordinate service to every level of American society." This means they will have supreme power over everything everyone does in the country at all times. Can you say, "Gestapo?" Oh, but it's all "for peace," so it's all okay. Don't worry about your rights, "it's for peace."

The department will "Expand human rights." Anyone who thinks that any government can EVER expand ANY rights is simply uneducated. No government in all of recorded history has ever been able to expand any rights. Government is only capable of taking rights away. That is all any government has ever been able to do; and it is all they will ever be able to do.

They are to "strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking." Hello, Brown shirts. Seriously, now that you know force is required to "make" peace, what manner is there apart from the military? Police and government power, that's what. This bill would create a whole new arm of "peace enforcement" officers that would, in accordance with section (c)(1) have utterly unlimited power.

They are to "promote the development of human potential." Hey, you there, you have a strong back. Therefore, to promote peace, you need to dig ditches. No, I don't care how smart you are, your human potential peace directive says that you need to be a ditch digger. Now comply or we'll be forced to call the peace enforcers.

They want to "work to create peace, prevent violence, divert from armed conflict, use field-tested programs, and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution." What second amendment? It's all about peace. If you oppose them, you oppose peace. I wonder if the "new structures" include re-education peace camps?

Did you miss part 7: "address matters both domestic and international in scope?" Isn't that wonderful? Remember that separation of powers and that whole thing that puts the president in charge of the military? This will create a new Peace Czar who will have the power to mediate peace with other countries on his own terms -- with his own "international peace troops" (non military, of course).

And oh yes, there's more! They get to

provide for public education programs and counseling strategies concerning hate crimes;
promote racial, religious, and ethnic tolerance;

So this ensures that thought crimes are covered under the department of peace. Literally, if you think something that is deemed "non peaceful," it's off to the peace re-education center for you. There's a good subject, smile for the monitoring camera.

And in case you doubt my predictions of "peace troops," that's in there, too:

provide for the training of all United States personnel who administer postconflict reconstruction and demobilization in war-torn societies;
administer the training of civilian peacekeepers who participate in multinational nonviolent police forces and support civilian police who participate in peacekeeping;
jointly with the Secretary of the Treasury, strengthen peace enforcement through hiring and training monitors and investigators to help with the enforcement of international arms embargoes;
create and establish a Peace Academy, which shall--
(A) be modeled after the military service academies;
(B) provide a 4-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates will be required to serve 5 years in public service in programs dedicated to domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution;

If I hadn't read this on Thomas.loc.gov, I would seriously think this was a conspiracy theory straight from a science fiction novel. Can anyone read this any actually think there will be any peace, apart from total thought control of all people? They even named a PEACE ACADEMY that will be modeled after a military service academy! How completely and totally INSANE is that? Orwellian only begins to describe this horrible bill -- AND THERE'S 63 DEMOCRATS WHO WANT TO DO THIS TO AMERICA TODAY.

Did you really read that? I'm going to type it again, in case you missed it. There are 63 Democrats in Congress right now that want to create a "Peace Academy" to force peace on everyone, including your every thought. That IS today's "reality-based" Democrat Party.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:07 PM | Comments (780) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

AZ Rapist

So, if you live in Chander, AZ, and you're aware that a serial rapist is loose in the area, what do you do? You may sit back and call the police after he has struck your daughter and hope they use the "evidence" gathered to catch and convict him; feeling safe in the thoughts that he will be put in jail; provided with free health care for life; provided with better exercise equipment than you can afford; excellent library services; free food; and, of course, all the cable TV channels.

Or you can provide actual justice yourself. If I lived there, I'd be wondering how many shotgun slugs it actually takes to disintegrate bone.

Sure, I read the report. I realize that the rapist waits until the parents of 12-14 year old girls aren't home, then he attacks. If, for some reason, I were to leave my 12-14 year old girl home alone; I'd be sure she was well-trained in how to fire the shotgun herself. What? Arming a child? Am I insane? Once again, I draw your attention to the first paragraph of this post.

Oh, and if you choose that option, you will have to deal with the loss of innocence and the "post-traumatic stress syndrome" and all the other mental and emotional problems this monster caused -- all while he sits in jail, watching the live Diamondbacks game.

There is evil in this world. The only logical response to true evil is to destroy it.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:08 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

5 Years for cutting a dead animal

Be careful if you touch a dead animal in Florida -- you might go to jail for 5 years like Benjamin Hodges.

You see, Mr. Hodges was walking around, minding his own business. Then he spotted a dead animal floating in a canal near his home. Instead of letting it stay in the canal, stink, bloat, an attract diseases, he picked it up and took it home. At home, he touched it with a knife. One of his busybody neighbors called the police, who took him away.

Go ahead, try and tell me that you have any freedom in this country. Mr. Hodges is already out $2,000 for bail money, and he's going to have more fees in the form of court costs, potential fines, and up to 5 years in prison. All because he touched a dead animal. So be careful what you do in your own yard -- ignorance of the billions of laws on the books is no excuse.

Only in a post-republic; post-freedom America can police come to your house and arrest you or kill you because you touched a dead animal.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:04 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Jessica's Law Legislative Day

RALEIGH, N.C., April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a
statement from Jessica's Law Now North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.-based
Stop Child Predators:
Concerned citizens have banded together to make a stand with Mark
Lunsford at "Legislative Day" on Wednesday, April 25 at the State Capitol
in Raleigh. Their mission is to facilitate the passage of House Bill 933,
The Jessica Lunsford Act, for North Carolina.
"Efforts by the public to pass this bill could be in vain if the House
Judiciary II Committee, led by Representative Dan Blue (D-Wake), chooses to
prevent the measure from reaching the floor of the North Carolina House of
Representatives," said Mark Palmer, Jessica's Law Now North Carolina.
"We are calling on Judiciary II Committee Chairman Blue and the other
members of the committee to not let another year pass without passing this
most important law," said Palmer. "Last year, this same committee, led by
now-vice chairman Jennifer Weiss (D-Wake) killed a similar measure [HB
1921] that would have protected the children of North Carolina from sexual
predators."
Mr. Lunsford, who will speak at the Legislative Day rally, is the
father of the late Jessica Lunsford, the namesake of "Jessica's Law," which
mandates minimum sentences of 25 years' imprisonment and lifetime
electronic monitoring of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious acts
against victims younger than 12 years of age.
Nine-year-old Jessica was abducted from her Homosassa, Fla. home on the
night of February 23, 2005 by convicted sex offender John Evander Couey,
who repeatedly sexually assaulted her over the next three days before
stuffing her in garbage bags and burying her alive in a shallow grave
behind his home. A Florida jury convicted Couey of these crimes in March.
Joining Jessica's Law Now North Carolina in urging passage of HB 933
are the North Carolina Sheriffs Association, Alamance County Commissioners,
the 6th District Congressional Convention, Concerned Women for America, the
Child Protection Coalition of North Carolina and 12,600 registered voters
who have signed a petition endorsing the measure.
"More than 10,000 registered sex offenders move to new addresses or
jobs daily," said Stacie Rumenap, executive director, Stop Child Predators.
"North Carolina should join the growing list of states that have taken
steps to protect children from these dangerous predators."
Stop Child Predators is a non-profit organization based in Washington,
D.C. The organization is dedicated to the establishment of penalty
enhancements for those found guilty of committing sexual offenses against
children; the implementation of an effective and efficient nationwide sex
offender registry; and the protection of the rights of crime victims. For
more information, contact SCP at (202) 234-0090 or online at
http://www.stopchildpredators.org. or (704) 641-6104 Mark Palmer Jessica�s Law Now North Carolina or online at http://jessicaslawnownc.spaces.live.com/

Posted by: Ogre at 11:13 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 24, 2007

Darth Balloon

So, what would you be thinking if you saw this guy make a low pass over your neighborhood?

Some people just have too much time on their hands...

Posted by: Ogre at 07:04 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Nation of Wimps

Just look around, and you can see -- we're nothing but a nation of wimps. Where are the real men like John Wayne and Ronald Reagan? Where are the men with the guts to stand up and declare right from wrong, no matter the cost? I mean, of course, besides Chuck Norris. Just look around and you can see what the feminization of men has wrought:

Joe Francis, of Girls Gone Wild fame, cried for 45 minutes before a judge. He cried as he apologized for calling the judge a name. Now there's nothing wrong with apologizing, but crying for 45 minutes? Sorry Joe, you're a complete and total wimp. Someone check his pants, because I think there's something missing there.

After the VT murder-spree, I was interested in the victims. I was tired of hearing about the evil murderer, I wanted to hear about the victims. So I checked out the MySpace pages and the like. The very first one I came to had a woman crying to a male victim: "I'm sorry you never got to cry on my shoulder." What the heck is that all about? Women, if there's men crying on your shoulder, they've got serious issues. And men, if you're thinking about crying on a woman's shoulder, you have serious, serious issues and honestly do not know how to be a man.

We've got the National Democrat party doing all they can to get the US to hand Iraq over to terrorists, despite Iraq's own leadership asking for help. We've got John Edwards, presidential candidate, getting $400 haircuts and claiming that getting those haircuts is the "American Dream."

We need more people like Chuck Norris and fewer like Dennis Kucinich. We need more who still stand up to evil like Liviu Librescu and a lot fewer like John McCain.

As Bonne Tyler said:

Where have all the good men gone
And where are all the gods?
Where's the street-wise Hercules
To fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
I need a hero.

America need a real hero.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:07 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

"I Don�t Care What the Judge Said!�

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24518.html

###
by Joel Turtel
�I Don�t Care What the Judge Said!�
April 22, 2007 02:00 PM EST

�Look, Mr. Straun, John, can I call you John? We�ve been at this for 25 days. We�re all sick of this. We all want to go home. You�re the only one left. You�re the one keeping us here. I got things to do at home. I got to go to work and make a living. All of us do. The judge is mad as hell at us. You�re going to hang this jury. You�re going to make this three-month trial into a farce and waste of time. You have no right to vote acquittal. You heard the judge�s instructions. The jury is not allowed to judge the law, only the facts.�

�The fact are clear as day, aren�t they?� Dillard ranted. �You even admitted that to us. The guy was found with marijuana in his car. That�s against the law. And the guy admitted the marijuana was his. What more do you need?� said Raymond Dillard, the jury foreman. Raymond Dillard was tall, beefy, in his 30�s, and he was getting mad, so mad he wanted to beat John Straun�s head in.

Straun was a small, slim man in his 30�s, with a straight back, dark brown hair, large, steady eyes, and a firm mouth. He seemed not to care at all about all the trouble he was causing. And he seemed to be fearless.

John Straun said, �I don�t care what the judge said. I happen to know for a fact that a jury has the right to judge the law. Jury nullification has a long history in this country. A jury has the right to judge the law, not just the facts.�

Raymond Dillard and a few other jurors sneered. Dillard said, �Oh, are you a lawyer, Mr. Straun? You think you know more than the judge? What history are you talking about?�

John Straun said calmly, �No, I�m not a lawyer. I�m an engineer. But in this particular case, I do know more than the judge. When I found out I was going to be on this jury, I did a little research about the history of juries, just for the hell of it. Most people don�t know this, but jury nullification has been upheld as a sacred legal principal in English common law for 1000 years. Alfred the Great, a great English king a thousand years ago, hung several of his own judges because they removed jurors who refused to convict and replaced these courageous jurors with other jurors they could intimidate into convicting the defendant on trial.�

�Jury nullification also goes back to the very beginning of our country, as one of the crucial rights our Founding Fathers wanted to protect. Our Founding Fathers wanted juries to be the final bulwark against tyrannical government laws. That�s why they emphasized the right to a jury trial in three of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. John Adams, second President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury all flatly stated that juries have the right and duty to judge not only the facts in a case, but also the law, according to their conscience.�

�Not only that, more recent court decisions have reaffirmed this right. In 1969, in �US. vs. Moylan,� the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of juries to judge the law in a case. In 1972, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the same principal.�

Raymond Dillard said, �Yeah, if that�s the case, how come the judge didn�t tell us this?�

�That�s because of the despicable Supreme Court decision in �Sparf and Hansen vs. The United States in 1895.� John Straun said. �That decision said juries have the right to judge the law, but that a judge doesn�t have to inform juries of this right. Cute, huh? And guess what happened after this decision? Judges stopped telling juries about their rights.�

�The judge knows about jury nullification. All judges do. But they hate letting juries decide the law. They hate juries taking power away from them. That�s why judges never mention a jury�s right to judge the law, and most judges squash defense attorneys from saying anything about it in court. Remember when Jimmy Saunders� defense lawyer started talking about it? The judge threatened him with contempt if he didn�t shut up about jury nullification.�

�And since you asked me,� Straun continued, �I�ll tell you a little more about jury nullification. Did you ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act? Did you ever hear of Prohibition? Do you know why those despicable laws were repealed? Because juries were so outraged over those laws that they consistently refused to convict people who violated them. They refused to convict because they knew that these laws were unjust and tyrannical, that Congress had no right making these laws in the first place. So, because juries wouldn�t convict, the government couldn�t make these laws stick. They tried for many years, but finally gave up.�

�What do you think this mad War on Drugs is that we�ve been fighting the last sixty years? It�s the same as Prohibition in the 20�s. It�s the same principle. A tyrannical government is telling people that they can�t take drugs, just like in the 20�s they said people couldn�t drink liquor. What�s the difference? A tyrannical law is telling people what they can or can�t put in their own bodies. Who owns our bodies, us or the self-righteous politicians? Does the government own your body, Mr. Dillard? Do you smoke, Mr. Dillard? Do you drink beer?�

Dillard nodded his head, �Yeah, I do.�

�Well, how would you like it if they passed laws telling you that can�t smoke or drink a beer anymore. Would you like that, Mr. Dillard?�

Dillard looked at John Straun, thought about the question, then admitted, �No, I wouldn�t, Straun.�

John Straun turned to the others around the table. �You, Jack, you said you�re sixty-five years old. You like to play golf, right? What if they passed a law saying anyone over sixty-five can�t play golf because the exercise might give him a heart attack? You, Frank, you said you eat hamburgers at McDougals all the time. What if they passed a law saying fatty hamburgers give people heart attacks, so we�re closing down all the McDougal restaurants in the country, and they make eating a hamburger a criminal offence? You, Mrs. Pelchat, I see you like to smoke. Everyone knows that smoking can give you lung cancer. How would you like it if they passed a law banning all cigarettes? What if they could crash in the door of your house without a warrant to search for cigarettes in your house, like the SWAT teams do now, looking for drugs? Mrs. Pelchat, how would you like to be on trial like Jimmy Saunders because they found a pack of cigarettes you hid under your mattress?�

�Do you all see what I mean? If they can make it a crime for Jimmy Saunders to smoke marijuana, why can�t they make golf, hamburgers, and cigarettes a crime? If you think they wouldn�t try, think again. They had Prohibition in the 20�s for almost ten years, till they finally gave up. The only reason they haven�t banned cigarettes is because there are thirty million cigarette smokers in this country who would scream bloody murder. They get away with making marijuana and other drugs illegal only because drug-users are a small minority in this country. Drug users don�t have any political clout.�

Raymond Dillard sat down in his chair. The others started talking among themselves. John Straun started seeing heads nodding in agreement, thinking about what he had said.

�OK, Straun,� Dillard said. �Maybe you�re right. Maybe Jimmy Saunders shouldn�t go to jail for smoking marijuana. Hell, probably most of us tried the stuff when we were young. Clinton said he smoked marijuana in college. Bush said he tried drugs in college. Probably half of Congress and their kids took drugs one time or another. O.K. we agree with you. But what about the judge. He said we can�t judge the law.�

John Straun stood up. He was not a tall man, but he stood very straight, and he looked very sure of himself. He looked from one to another of them.

He said, �If you agree with me, then I ask you all to vote for acquittal. You are not only defending Jimmy Saunders� liberty, but your own. You are fighting a tyrannical law that is enforced by a judge who wants the power to control you. I told you that many juries like us in the past have disregarded the judge�s instructions. They stood up for liberty against a tyrannical law. Are you Americans here? What do you va!ue more, your liberty, your pride as free men, or the instructions of a judge who doesn�t want you to judge the law precisely because he knows you�ll find the law unjust? Will you stand with those juries who defended our liberty in the past, or will you give in to this judge?�

�Here�s another thing to think about,� John Straun said with passion. �What if it was your sister or brother on trial here? Do you know that if we say Saunders is guilty, the judge has to send him to prison for twenty years? I understand this is Saunders third possession charge. You know the �three strikes and you�re out� rule, don�t you? The politicians passed a law that if a guy gets convicted three times on possession, the judge now has no leeway in sentencing. He has to give the poor guy twenty years in prison. What if it were your sister or brother on trial? Should they go to jail for smoking marijuana, for doing something that should not be a crime in the first place? Do we want to send Jimmy Saunders to prison for twenty years because he smoked a joint, hurting no one? Can you have that on your conscience?�

�Do you know that there are almost a million guys like Jimmy Saunders in federal prisons right now, as we speak, for this same so-called �crime� of smoking marijuana or taking other drugs? These men were sent to prison for mere possession. They harmed no one but themselves when they took drugs. How can you have a crime without a victim? When does this horror stop? It has got to stop. I�m asking you all now to stop it right here, at least for Jimmy Saunders. The only thing that can stop tyrannical laws and politicians is you and me, juries like us. If we do nothing, we�re lost, the country is lost.�

�I�m asking you all to bring in a not-guilty verdict, because the drug laws are unjust and a moral obscenity. I�m asking you all be the kind of Americans our Founding Fathers would have been proud of, these same men who fought for your liberty. That�s what I�m asking of all of you.�

John Straun sat down and looked quietly at Dillard and all the others around the table. They looked back at him, and it seemed that their backs began to straighten up, and they no longer complained about going home. They were quiet. Then they talked passionately amongst each other.

Fifteen minutes later, they walked into the courtroom and sat down in the jury box. When the judge asked Raymond Dillard what the verdict was, he was stunned when Dillard, standing tall, looking straight at the judge, said �Not guilty.� Over the angry rantings of the red-faced judge, all in the jury box looked calmly at John Straun, and felt proud to be an American.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:04 PM | Comments (332) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Democrat Surrender

As I'm sure you are well aware by now, the Democrats have agreed on terms of surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. Of course, it's all grandstanding, because they know President Bush will veto the surrender bill, as he has continuously promised. And he told them again and again that he wants a bill to fund the troop, but the Democrats refuse to fund the troops they "support."

So, after the veto, what happens next?

Know what I'd love to see? A veto override. That would be an awesome Constitutional train wreck -- because it would be completely unconstitutional.

I'd love the see the Democrats screaming and yelling that they had demanded surrender and that Bush HAD to surrender -- and then have Bush absolutely refuse to do it. Of course, anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows that the Congress doesn't have that power, so even if this bill were to pass, it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on -- not that Democrats care about such things.

But it sure would be fun to see the show of Democrats complaining and whining (more than usual). I would so love to see that override vote.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:01 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NC To Ban Lending Freedom

Democrats in the North Carolina Legislature are upset at the free market. They're so upset that they've introduced four different bills to attempt to interfere with and limit people's freedom to engage in economic transactions. Of course, Democrats are calling it "fairness."

In the example cited, a person willingly agreed, in writing, freely, to a transaction. In return for paying some money, they would receive a piece of land. However, after they made the agreement, they decided they didn't like the agreement. So, the person wanted out of the agreement. Of course, since it was a free and legal transaction, the editorial writer complains that "no attorney would take her case." So the legislature wants to get in the way of that free transaction.

So, what would be the result of these actions by the legislature? Increased costs for home loans. You see, the Democrats in the legislature want to give business to lawyers and allow lawyers to sue mortgage companies who don't spend more money on loans. In case you don't understand how mortgage companies work, they exist to make money. So if they are required to SPEND more money, they will CHARGE more money. And if lawyers are allowed more options to sue them, they will have to spend MORE money for insurace against lawsuits. So they will charge even MORE money.

So, if you're looking for a home loan and you want to complain about the high fees and expenses, look no further than the Democrats in the North Carolina General Assembly -- they want to take more money from you and put it in the pockets of lawyers. All in the name of "fairness," of course.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:36 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 23, 2007

Reagan on Guns

This fellow sure was wise beyond his age.

There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism�government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:45 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Ultimate Resource

This coming Tuesday, April 24th, Free to Choose Media is continuing the work of its inspiration, Milton Friedman, of bringing the benefits of freedom to the people of this world, including its most remote corners. A new documentary, �The Ultimate Resource� will air on HDNet at 10PM EST.

In short, they travel to China, Bangladesh, Estonia, Ghana, and Peru and show examples of how people (thank you Julian Simon) - when given the incentives and the tools - are proving they can apply their free choice, intelligence, imagination and spirit to dramatically advance their well-being and that of their families and communities. The program features 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, Hernando de Soto, James Tooley and Johan Norberg.