First it's the Psychos, next it's You

In light of the new gun laws that have been passed since the Virginia Tech incident, I have a few points that I would like to make. Although I don't think someone that has been declared legally insane should posses a gun, that doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to that right. Shootings, they happen everywhere; schools, banks, post offices, homes, and clubs, just to name a few places. But I think that we're missing the point. Who is the one who said that all shootings occur around some crazy going out and buying a gun?? The point is this, very sane people do some crazy sh*t, most people that commit shootings do it during moments of extreme anger, depression, or moments of passion. I really think that this can happen to anyone, especially since half the population is suffering from depression or anxiety. And although most state's laws revolve around those people that have been involuntarily committed, I think that it is just a matter of time before the government starts restricting us all. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, amendment II in the bill of rights. I don't know what the government and probably 65% of people in America (keep in mind that the average intelligence is 100+/- 15, with mental retardation starting at 70) think, but I believe that banning certain people from their basic rights is just a step towards total tyranny. If the government really wanted to make us safer, and monitor who purchased guns they would give people I.Q. tests. Hell they should just make that a requirement for people to receive their basic rights, because if you aren't intelligent enough to stand up for your rights (like half of America) you shouldn't have them. Our rights are being stripped from us one by one, stand up and fight for them--spread the word.

In My Opinion

So, I guess I will comment on......Our Price Of Freedom’s blog, it seemed to get a bit of attention so I will throw my two cents in. First off, I have completely contrasting views with you on this. I believe our country was founded by immigrants, it was built by immigrants, and continues to be run by children of those immigrants. Our Latino friends are no different; Hell as Texans we technically live in former Mexico. And I don't think they take our jobs. That's a load of crap. We Americans are snobs, and a lot of Immigrants take jobs that we could not imagine doing ourselves, at wages we sure as hell wouldn't accept. And as far as not paying taxes goes, they buy back into our economy, which includes a tax on just about everything (food, alcohol, tobacco, and gas). And what about those individuals that do get fake IDs and do pay into taxes that don't get the full benefits. Illegal Immigrants are trying to better themselves, their families, and their futures, and some of the hardest working people I have met are Immigrants, and trust me when I say they don't get treated fairly. Although many send money back home to Mexico, without it the Mexican economy would probably crash. I am honestly more concerned about so called "Americans" who have forgotten the basis this country was founded upon. I think we should all stop to ponder what the founding fathers of our nation would say in light of our opinions now.

I Don't Like Bush.....:(

So it seems George W. Bush is doing it again, as if he isn’t to busy trying to bully Congress into giving him tyrannical power, or more money for a pointless war; it seems as though he has now decided to devote an awful lot of time trying to get another “yes” man in the Attorney Generals position. Although the Senate Judiciary Committee believed that Michael Mukasey would do a more honest and “memorable” job, this was not the case. After being thoroughly questioned it seems as though Mukasey is just another Gonzalez; Mukasey was evasive about issues and just didn’t answer some questions he was confronted with, mainly the waterboarding torture techniques. Although this is an important issue, because this type of torture should NOT be allowed (we have prosecuted people in the past for this exact thing) there are a few things that concern me more. First, I don’t think the waterboarding issue with Mukasey is the main issue, I think the main issue is the fact that he will obviously be just another person that Bush would have in his pocket, allowing Bush to “get away” with even more corrupt shit then he gets away with now. Secondly, my next concern has to do with that of a certain senator running for president (ahhhmm…McCain) that claims “we are not doing [waterboarding torture techniques] in our American government”; which technically may be true since they are just hiring out mercenaries (Blackwater??). But we all have heard stories about what has happened and continues to happen at Guantanamo Bay. It frustrates me because Republicans like this (which are either in denial or just plain ignorant) will help in the assurance of Bush getting what he wants. Thirdly, it is sad, but true that no matter how many democrats we vote into office, that as long as we the people have a corrupt, manipulative, and backward ass president, not much is going to change. Bush has made it perfectly clear that anything he wishes to get passed will get passed even if it means giving bribes, blackmailing, providing countless ultimatums, or whatever you want to call it.

Whats in a Bill??

In an article in the Washington Post by Jonathan Weisman and Ellen Nakashima, entitled Senate and Bush agree on terms of spying bill, the government’s surveillance bill was finally agreed upon and passed. The article explains that the hopeful competing version of the Bill was dropped for a lack of votes before it was even placed on the floor. It is unclear of what was actually passed, but according to the article, the Democrats allowed Bush somewhat of a victory, or at least let him get his telecommunication buddies off the hook. Although some important provisions might have been left out, the Democrats were able to keep two important stipulations. First, despite Bush’s previous demands that the program and its “subjects” remain top secret and unrestricted, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will oversee the program. Secondly, the Democrats were able to place time restrictions on the bill, expiring it in February, and requiring renewal every six years thereafter. Unlike Bush’s desire for the bill to be permanent, this expiration and renewal will hopefully allow for stricter oversights to be placed on the program in the future.

It’s great that certain stipulations were passed about the bill, but I think we cannot forget that there are no guarantees for restrictions or safeguards against unwarranted spying on our fellow Americans. In addition, it seems like Bush was overly concerned about the immunity of his telecommunication buddies and “had repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation that lacked this provision”. Sadly, this shows that Bush can basically get anyone to do whatever the hell he wants, and then later grant immunity, including immunity for himself. Does anyone remember Enron??? In addition, Bush and his fellow party members have used ridiculous tactics such as fear mongering to bully Congress and the Senate to help pass bills. For instance this comment from Representative Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.); “the measure extends our Constitution beyond American soil to our enemies who want to cut the heads off Americans”. I just ask, why do statements such as this continue to persuade the masses???

Whats torture to you????

I found this article in the Washington post; lets just say I was incredibly confused. The article is about the ever-evasive legal definition of “torture”. In the article the Administration denies the allegations of torturing detainees, reminding us that it is “Un-American”. According to the article the current opinion authorizes "a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head slapping, simulated drowning, and frigid temperatures", yet they go on to state that these practices are not in violation of our constitutional right against "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees and prisoners of war. Although this is better than the pre-2004 opinion that states "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" was the acceptable definition of “torture punishable by law”. As always our fearless leader, Bush, has repeatedly denounced torture and denied its use. Maybe Bush hasn’t been informed of the new definition, seeing how he doesn’t read much.

I ask therefore, why do we have Guantanimo Bay and what the hell are they doing there if not torturing detainees??? I think just about everyone has viewed or heard of the photos of the black bagging and torture that have gone on there to date. The Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines torture as something that causes agony or pain. I think that everyone would agree with me when I say that getting slapped upside the head repeatedly, while naked, with a bag over my head, and crammed with other people would be torture. I think that we should not be so concerned with the “legal” definition of torture, and concentrate on the fact that our government is blatantly lying to us. I don’t know about you, but I am tired of the government telling us that they are doing one thing and obviously doing the complete opposite.

Article:http://www.washingtonpost.com

/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100400979.html

Sorry, forgot the article....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901111.html

Freedom of Speech???

The article that I found in the Washington Post addresses a frightening issue. According to the article, Bush went in front of Congress asking for the temporary wiretapping law to become very permanent. Although the Democrats were willing to rework the law to limit Bush’s authority, and place Foreign Intelligence as an overseer; Bush reiterated his belief that these “restrictions” would impede the timely manner in which they can take action. Not that the Bush administration works in a timely manner; remember the Clinton administration warning the Bush administration about a possible terrorist attack back in 2000??? Although Assistant Attorney General Wainstein states that ‘the Act does not authorize physical searches of homes, domestic mail or personal effects, and computers,” this is of no comfort. We know already that there have been breaches of legality with regards to at least a thousand wiretapping cases to date.

And although this may not be important to some, people need to realize that wiretapping for “terrorist” has been around since the Clinton administration. Also that this current law allows them to tap into “communication between people in the United States and suspected terrorist abroad”. HELLO!!????!! Does anyone see the problem with this?? BETWEEN PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES, that means you, me, everybody. We have already started to lose our Freedom of Speech…does anyone remember when Bush passed the law being able to throw anyone who protests the war in jail, indefinitely, while they seize all their property too? This is just the next step to be able to monitor the masses and squash anyone who spreads freethinking and rejects the idea of a tyrannical government.