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.)

Condoleeza Rice today

I find it compelling to comment on Secretary Rice's comments today. I know the Mumia lovers uniformly hate Condi (while concomitantly complaining - loudly - that Conservatives can't get away from groupthink). I also know that she has experienced more of the Black experience than people like Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, who's moving into a 10,000 sq ft hovel.

Secretary Rice said the following:
"What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them — and that's our legacy."

What I would argue is that Obama-like Blacks do not have that legacy. Senator BH Obama in particular does not have long enough Black roots in this country to have that legacy. And I must quietly remind all of Black America that none of their compatriots have any living memories of slavery. By the way, neither do/did their parents. And only a few of their grandparents did, if any. So we're stuck with the quandary that so many Blacks have flat-screen (and might I add, black in color) tv's and car loans while simultaneously complaining that they're oppressed by racist White America. At the same time, their ancestors' struggle with lives of slavery is cheapened. It is cheapened because their outspoken leaders like Obama might as well be White for all of their family history devoid of slavery.

I must add one more point. The whole idea that modern-day Blacks are kept down by the legacy of slavery goes against all things American. Let me draw the line for you: We do not believe in being tied down or promoted because of our forefathers' success or failures. We do not believe in rulers who inherit their mantle. We do not punish children for the mistakes of their fathers. There are exceptions but they're generally in the private sector (i.e., Ivy League legacy admission traditions). These rules generally hold fast. If we are not beholden to our parents' successes and failures, then it is against all tradition to point to our lot in life and say it is the direct result of one person's situation 150 years ago.

I hate how many tangents I'm seeing and chasing, but I must bring up one more point. For the same reasons as I've outlined in the previous paragraph, I am completely against giving people benefits for their paternity. For example, in the State of Hawaii there are tremendous pecuniary benefits reserved for those with Hawaiian blood. I can perhaps understand why pure-blood Hawaiians would have a benefit or two - they'll all be gone sooner or later anyway. But it is incomprehensible that private and public moneys should be set aside for someone whose grandfather's grandfather happened to have Hawaiian blood, but their other 29 ancestors all happen to be Chinese, White, Portuguese and Filipino. Completely ridiculous.

Let me take this back to the point at hand. If your grandfather' grandfather was a slave, but your other 29 ancestors were all European, non-slave African, and Asian, it is completely inappropriate to assign you reparations. And yet it is very likely that a reparations system would pay people on a combination of skin color and provable slave roots.

As a point of note, some of my paternal ancestors owned slaves. I, however, did not benefit in any way from that ownership. I would argue, in fact, that at several turns I have suffered for that ownership. Does that make me a victim or an angry white male?

It makes me work harder. How about you?

(I'm remiss, posting every spare thought while my compadre is getting himself ready to post as well. I'll try to resist till his arrival on the scene...)

-EMN.

What my detractors will say

My detractors are the Mumia zombies (for their bloodthirsty attacks with no sense for reason, logic, goodness or humanity).

First they'll ignore the fact that cop killers are bad people. They'll say, "That EMN jerk just doesn't like Black people! He's white! White people colluded to invent AIDS to kill Black people! White people are living on the backs of slavery!"

Here's where I get to tell you that I, and 99.9% of the rest of my fellow white people, are sickened by the idea of slavery, and do not sit around pining for its return. In fact, white people are the ones who ended it. White Christians even!

And the worst thing? Brown people sold all the slaves to white people. No one wants to admit that. If that fact were better known, maybe the religion of peace wouldn't be exploding (to coin a term) in America's jails among the Black population there.

Second, my detractors will say hey, Mumia wasn't there! A jury of his peers found he was, and that he committed the crime in a premeditated fashion. This is America; we're all peers. The bum on the street is equal in his or her citizenship to me. On a social level we are not, but the fundamental fact is that we all know the difference between right and wrong. It's the sociopaths who can't feel it.

And I think my detractors aren't feelin' it...

Cop Killers...

A lifetime of racism culminates in killing a white cop. Unsurprising shock.

He killed a cop, he deserves the ultimate justice. Yes, Justice for Mumia!

...but only if it's the executioner's needle...