Frankly My Dear, I Don't Give a Damn

The illegal alien debate is not one about immigrants. We aren't in the 19th century when everyone hates the Irish and Italians. This is the 21st century and we all know we're descendants of immigrants (and if we didn't, we're reminded ad nauseum).

When the MSM paints a picture of a societal trend involving immigrants, they're taking aim at the Right. They know brutally well that the right wing is very concerned about illegal immigration. They also know that we're not actually racists and xenophobes. But by couching every conceivable article in terms of immigration - period - they are twisting the Right's arguments.

Today's example? This article about the Los Angeles workforce. I don't care how many Los Angelens are immigrants. What I care about are raw numbers of illegals. The MSM won't give us that info though - they show us stats on immigrants. Thus, all immigrants are good, and anyone disliking any section of that population must be a xenophobe, a racist and a bigot.

Yeah, there is one thing I hate - the people who keep telling me I'm a hater if I don't conform. The problem is they're intellectually dishonest with the public and even themselves.

Guns & Ammo

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.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment II

Let's talk about that 2nd Amendment issue from my previous post for a moment. I believe the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment is erroneous - the Bill of Rights tackle individual rights. Taken in context, it's obvious that the right to bear arms falls right in line with the right against search and seizure, the right of free speech and the right of assembly. If their stance on the 2nd Amendment were true, then the tenor of the other Amendments in the BoR would be more collective. The right to free speech would be a right for a group of people to make an organization and then to issue statements without going to jail. The freedom of Press would only be for large news organizations, not for individuals like unto those who wrote the Federalist Papers. The protections against search and seizure would not apply to individual abodes. And thus they could say the 2nd Amendment only provided a right to be a member of the National Guard and hold a weapon in the course of your duties. Their unintelligent stance on the 2nd Amendment (and their deathgrip on its interpretation, all hopes pinned on the Supreme Court forever refusing to incorporate this Amendment along with... 1, 4, 5, and 6?). Instead, it appears to be consistent with the Leftist view that any rule constraining individual rights is a good rule.

I must also say, that the Left's (and the ACLU with them) interpretation of individual firearm ownership is also inconsistent with the realities of pre-1950 America. If the Founders had intended to criminalize individual firearm ownership, they would have died in every encounter with the Indians and wild animals. Outside of the several Cities within the several States, early America was a wild and dangerous place, and the Manifest Destiny never would have been realized. We needed, and need, individual firearms. Now, American cities are bordering on lawlessness, and we need individual, legal firearm ownership to stave off the mobs. It's just as wild and dangerous as ever.

Al-Qaeda Idiots

One thing you can never use as an accusation Al-Qaeda spokespeople: moral and intellectual honesty. In the name of Allah, you see, they find solace in lies because their religious beliefs are so pure. Please, no one point out the discrepancies in their thought processes.

Now, today the Al-Qaeda spokesman says, "We don't kill innocents." Idiot and a liar. Please, someone tell him I said so - and he can take up my problems with my exercised 2nd Amendment rights (those rights the equally dishonest ACLU-types don't believe I have). At least in America, when we drop a stray bomb on a wedding ceremony we apologize, hand out money, and try not to do it again. We even apologize when one of the attendees firing his weapon gloriously into the air is a known militant, but therein lies a question for another day.

Al-Qaeda and their compatriots believe all individuals standing in the way of their cowardly little explosions are complicit in the "crimes" of the intended targets, or so they say. What they really mean is anyone non-Muslim, or anyone Muslim who refuses to kill non-Muslims on sight, is complicit in crimes against Allah and thus deserves to die. Please, someone show them one of the Ahmed the Dead Terrorist videos.

(And someone tell my fellow blogger to stop editing and start posting.)