Encroachment! 5 yard penalty.

I'm not sure how my audience feels about smoking cigarettes, but I loathe the act. I grew up in a home in which my parents smoked freely. I would show up to school and other children would ask me if I smoke, and, when I replied in the negative, was asked if my parents smoke. It was rather embarrassing, but I managed to push through those awkward moments by bringing levity to the situation or other such subterfuge. My hatred for the act, however, does not lead me to support any sort of anti-smoking legislation. I do agree with the separation of smokers and anti-smokers when the disgusting act of smoking infringes on an anti-smokers life, liberty, or property. This is the basis of this blog which was spurred on by an article I recently read.
The aforementioned article stated that a couple in Golden, Colorado was ordered by a judge that they could not smoke in their condominium. The condo obviously had other tenants residing juxtapose or above and below these smoking condo owners. The tenants and the condo owner both have complained to the couple about the smoke leaking into the other units in the complex, but to no avail. One tenant, the article notes, spent thousands of dollars attempting to "smoke-proof" his unit from the fumes emanating from the smoker's unit. The smoking couple now has to perform their habit out on the street away from the complex.

Let's start with the couple's response to the whole ordeal. These wonderful people have stated that they don't believe they shouldn't be able to perform a lawful act in their home. This is true, except that their act is now infringing on another citizen's rights. If they are adjacent to a unit that contains non-smokers and their smoke is infiltrating the neighbor's unit though, as mentioned above, he has spent thousands trying to bar the substance from entering his premises, then the owners should step in. If the owners do everything they can and still this sordid act's consequences are limiting the liberty of the neighbor, then the law must rule on the matter. Law must be limited to protecting citizen's rights. The smokers had an opportunity to perform their habit in privacy until it encroached a neighbor's privacy. Reasonable measures were implemented to prevent this encroachment and the privacy invasion continued. At the point at which all non-legally based corrective actions are perceived not to be working, the law must step in and rule accordingly.

The couple's second response to the ruling by the smoking couple stated that, if a blizzard were to hit, they would have to placate their addiction while enduring the outdoor elements. Since we have already defended the fact that the judge's ruling was legitimate, the cure for this ailment is that the smoking couple can either give up the habit, endure the elements, or find a new place in which to reside. These citizens knew for a long time that their smoke was annoying their neighbors, knew that they were a part of a home owner's association which governed the complex in which they lived, and chose to continue breaching other citizen's rights. This is blatant disregard for common liberty and should be punished as such. They are receiving just reward for their actions.

Allow this to be a lesson to all of you who are selfish in your habits, whether it be loud, obnoxious music, smoking and/or drinking, boisterous or raucous behavior, or any other act that infringes on other's ability to enjoy their freedoms. Americans will not tolerate immature or irresponsible behavior. Just as you have the right to act, think or feel the way you do under the First Amendment, we enjoy the same liberty. We will use our First Amendment right to petition the law to limit your abuse of your freedoms. Be vigilant is seeing that your behavior doesn't limit the rights of others. Heeding the idea behind this demand will allow all of us to enjoy the freedom we receive in the United States.

Another chapter in the Mexican invasion

A seven-year-old Mexican descent child who is an American citizen because he was born in our borders is petitioning the American government and the Mexican government to do something about the approximately three million children who are American citizens with undocumented immigrants for parents. His mother is being deported and he either goes with her or becomes a ward of the state. He wants to stay here and keep his mother here as well.
Let me start my rant by first saying that this trend of illegal female immigrants crossing our border and giving birth to a child in the states is not a new one. The fact that our government has done little to nothing about the Mexican invasion is bad enough, but they haven't put any good programs in place to take care of such an absurdity as this either.
Kids must have parents of some high caliber in order to have a good chance in this life. An adult who would cross international borders at risk of losing her life to have a child in another country in which her child may have a better opportunity may be considered noble but she is still criminal. Let us not be overly Liberal in our thinking here and assume since the lady is doing a noble thing that it is not incorrect. In this case, illegal equates to wrong, but it is the type of wrong that is punishable by law. The law, then, has an obligation to carry out the punishment assigned to the encroached law. In this case, the woman should be deported without hesitation because it's proven that she was using a Social Security number that was not hers, which is a felony. She should have a waiting period after deportation before she can come over here on a visa and apply for citizenship, just like a LEGAL immigrant. She has a couple of options for her kid, then. This child of hers is an American citizen and may take advantage of our lax welfare system. He could be adopted into a foster home and live out the remainder of his years, until his mom came back, as a U.S. citizen. Unfortunately for him and his mom, they would rather have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. They want to use the Mexican government's diplomatic abilities, however impotent they are, to petition the American government to change our laws for the illegally immigrated parents of U.S. citizens rather than honestly and forthrightly abide by our current laws.
The first wrong here in the report I read is that the lady asserted that she was not a criminal. The last time I checked, doing something illegal makes one a criminal. Not only did she enter the country illegally, she used a fake Social Security number. If she will lie about her identity, about what will she NOT lie? She is a criminal and should be treated accordingly.
The second wrong here is the desire to tailor the law system in America like a suit to fit our own bodies rather than see that laws are made to create a hedge around human behavior. Laws are in place to define the governments jurisdiction. That means, with every new law, we are giving the government more jurisdiction of our lives and our country. In this case, the family should be given the following options:

1. the mom should be deported and have a waiting period as punishment for the crimes she has committed against America and the child given to foster care here in the state in which they were residing until she can get a visa and come back to that state.
2. the mom should be deported and the child choose to apply for a visa into Mexico and live with her until after her waiting period to apply for a visa to come back to America.

Stop in the name of love

This is almost too easy. Ok, in unison, what is the Liberal answer to any conundrum? Let the government decide. When the Liberals want someone to stop doing something that they don't like, what do they do? Get congress to pass a law. When the law doesn't allow for specifics, what do liberals do? Get the judicial system to rule on a law. If all else fails, what do Liberals use as a last resort? They throw an infant style tantrum on television. Ok, now that we've had a lesson on the vulgar misuse of power, let's go over a topic that really boiled my blood.
Conservatives can paint themselves in Liberal body paste sometimes (I think you can purchase a bottle of it down at your local adult novelty shop). I read an article recently about a Missouri judge's ruling that a girl not get pregnant. Ok, this one definitely is the ultimate in the government controlling our decisions. First, political correctness was levied on our expression (violation of the First Amendment), then hate crime laws were tied around current laws to make punishment more severe (I'm going to write a blog separately about these), and now the government wants to tell us when we can or can't procreate. Listen to this carefully my children: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL US WHEN WE CAN AND CAN'T HAVE A BABY, EVEN IN WELFARE SITUATIONS. If we as a people don't like women gathering their livelihood from creating babies to increase their government handout checks, then we need to do something about the welfare system. It is preposterous and ridiculous to attempt to fix a broken system by ruling against human rights. The judge also ruled that the girl get her GED, perform community service, and pay resititution. This was a ruling on a FORGERY case. This judge stepped completely out of bounds and needs to be told so. Fining someone for a crime is customary in America. I believe all resititution should be taken directly out of her handout. The community services causes her to be responsible and find a way for her kids to be watched while she earns some of that handout. However, obtaining a GED is a choice in this country. It is not the government's job to make our life choices for us. If we make good decisions, we are left alone by the government. If we make bad decisions, we are punished by the government. That is good enough. It is our job as parents to teach the decision making process to our kids. If we fail and the child grows up only physically, then we have failed as parents and must spend whatever resources it takes to correct the mistake we made.
Here's a message to all of you Conservatives: the government is not here to legislate the morals that you failed to instill in your kids. We as the American populus do not want our tax dollars going to play mommy and daddy.
Here's a message to all of you Liberals: people are going to make bad mistakes. Passing laws to help them out of the pit they dug for themselves is only enabling them to make more bad mistakes. You're using money that is stolen from us by the Federal Government to help people we don't even know to get back on their feet only to wind up right back where they started. This is gross misappropriation of funds and is not fair to the American public.

Limited free speech?

So, I'm reading this article from a local news reporting bureau online and I realize just how low people will stoop for political opinions. Pundits are wonderful people. I consider myself an unofficial pundit of the Libertarian Party, so being an apoligist for your political beliefs is acceptable to me. This story consisted of a law enforcement agent attempting to limit free speech and a citizen attempting to collect a handout.
A woman in the Atlanta area has a bumper sticker that reads "I'm tired of all the BUSHIT", which, to one officer, was obviously offensive and potentially illegal given the state's former "lewd decal" law. I for one find the sticker a little over the top, but still well within the bounds of expressive freedom. Appropriately, the judge that oversaw the case threw the ticket out because that "lewd decal" law did not exist anymore. Strike a huge blow for freedom lovers everywhere!
This is the point at which the story turns sour. This woman apparently suffered some inexplicably tremendous emotional trauma because she has brought charges against the county for "emotional distress." You could label that case a stretch, at best, if she was diagnosed with bipolar or schizophrenic, because any damage caused by having to go to court for a traffic violation is frustrating, at worst. To add insult to injury, the woman is asking that a declaration be set forth that her bumper sticker is protected under the First Amendment. Ok, so let me get this straight: You want us to make a law stating that having "I'm tired of all the BUSHIT" on your bumper is constitutionally justified by our First Amendment. If you get your way, when we read the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment will say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the abridging of having "I'm tired of all the BUSHIT" on ones bumper, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." All I have to say is "WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH"! You are not so special that we need to customize a law for your pathetic, fame-seeking persona, or your blood sucking subhuman lawyer. Grow up.
Wake up people. We have to start rebelling not against our government, but against those that seek to destroy the freedom of the group by trying to gain some sort of special treatment!

Where does my tax money go?

Sometimes I feel as though reading is doing more harm than good to my psyche. I read today about a research study done on polar bears showing that organohalogen compounds may cause shrinking in male and female sexual organs. The polar bears affected live in Greenland and Russia. The report stated that the affected species list was not limited to these noted polar bears but included the arctic fox, killer whales, and pilot whales. By this research team's findings, we can extrapolate that even a slight decrease in size of either the male or female genitalia, reproduction for these species could be difficult if not impossible.

All living creatures, especially those who do not have sentient thought, deserve protection of some form. The study shows that the polar bears, arctic foxes, killer whales, and pilot whales eat the ringed and bearded seals, which carry the organohalogen compounds. In turn, the affected animals are likely to begin diminshing because of these shrunken sexual organs.

My thoughts on the subject are as follows: Quit giving grants to people who do research on the mating habits and potential problems associated of mammals that don't directly affect the viability of the USA. This particular group of people may not have been funded by American dollars because the research group is based in Denmark, but many other researchers are getting my tax money to research the advanced mating habits of the random mammal. Why? Because if they can prove that it will improve the lives of Americans in general, the US government will grant money to their cause.

Now, I have to rant on a different, associated topic. These researchers write verbose, confusing theses on their topic of interest in order to obtain a grant. These theses are then sent to some uneducated government worker who reads them and determines the viability of the potential grant project. First, we need to have experienced, well-educated people determining where the grant money goes. Second, we need to eliminate the needless spending of money to save the random moth or any other wantonly sought extinction fight. If we can stop the useless grant seekers, who, in essence, are identical to the career college students or government handout whore, from obtaining free money for wasteful projects, maybe we can focus on domestic issues. It's our money and it should go toward our betterment. We must pull the 2x4 out of our eye before we can point out the grain of sand in another country's.

Wal-Mart & Communism

I recently read a report that related the facts surrounding Wal-Mart's Chinese stores. It seems that the labor unions, accepted and sponsored by their Communist government, are attempting to organize at the Wal-Marts in China. I wonder why you don't hear anything about this on the mainstream news during the primetime reports on the major networks? I would assume because there are too many anti-Communism conservative Americans who would cause an uproar by contacting their congressmen. Allow me not to get sidetracked just yet. The report went on to say that Wal-Mart, after several years of these unions attempting to invade the company, is willing to negotiate allowing their organization within the company. Here is a complete and utter mistake. I, as a capitalist, believe that you do what it takes to establish a profit providing that it's legal, moral, and ethical. I also believe that the employee is the backbone of any capitalist run organization. I do not believe that it is a good idea for the number one retail establishment in the WORLD to allow Communist run labor unions to set up camp inside sixty of their stores.

Ok, let's just make up a little tale that may not be too far from the truth. Wal-Mart has over 3900 stores in the USA. I know that China will only have their hands on 1.5% of Wal-Mart, but let us ponder a not-so-off-the-wall hypothesis. Let us assume that, since Wal-Mart allows employees to purchase stocks using a portion of their income from being employed at Wal-Mart (profit sharing), that 90% of them do. Let's also assume that since Wal-Mart is "willing to negotiate" with the Communist run labor unions in China, that it's possible for the labor unions in America to get their grubby paw on the company as well. What could be a logical summation of this series of events is that the latent Communists in the USA, namely the far left Democrats, the Green Party, the Skin Heads, and the like will have a foot in the door in bringing down capitalism in America. If enough of these types of people become employed at Wal-Mart and, with the backing of Communist China (whose population is about 1.3 billion to Americas three hundred thousand) who is to say that it's illogical to think that these Communist run labor unions won't or can't make their way into America? I think it's our civic duty, just like voting or obeying laws, to contact Wal-Mart and express our concerns. Then, we should all contact our congressmen and let them know that they ought to, at the very least, watch this issue over the next 10 years.

We will not allow those freedom stealing Communists to take over our capitalist nation.

Seat Belt Requirements

Imagine this: you're sitting at your dining room table having a quiet dinner. The television is playing at a moderate level in the background, but you're not listening. You are just having a peaceful, relaxing dinner with grilled beef, bean sprouts, corn on the cob, a buttered roll, and a glass of sweet tea (yes, you're in the south). You finish your meal except for the bean sprouts and start to wipe your mouth and hands of excess food. Suddenly, I burst into your house with a fully loaded double barrel shotgun equipped with a laser sight and tell you that your bean sprouts are healthful and can contribute to proper cellular respiration causing your circulatory system to funtion on a more efficient level. I tell you that you must eat these scrumptious bean sprouts or I shall be forced to use my shotgun on a part of your body. You stare at me, horrified and about to soil your pants, and, after a pause for reflection, you eat the bean sprouts. Did you really have to eat the bean sprouts? I mean, seriously, you run 5 miles three times a week, drink a gallon of water a day, and do yoga for your mental health. The answer to that question is no. If you don't want to eat bean sprouts in your own home and would rather throw them out with the orange rinds and empty milk cartons, that's your right. Why then does the government tell you that you must wear a seatbelt in the car while you are driving? How is it that we the people have given our government the right to tell us what to do inside a vehicle for which we have paid or are paying our hard-earned, tax-reduced paychecks?

This is a great example of how we want the comfort of knowing that, if we accidently hit someone or if some crazy person decides to attempt to end our lives, all parties will be a little more safe because we all have a reinforced nylon strap holding us fast to our seats to prevent whiplash, ejection, or the deformation of the skull because of blunt force. Provided the wreck doesn't land the engine in our bodies somewhere, this device will save our lives, and you can take that to the bank because statistics have proven through the number of lives saved in the use of these ingenious inventions. Regardless of safety and prevention, our job as individuals is to protect ourselves, our families, and our friends. Individuals and private organizations should promote the use of safety devices. Does using government force to compel people to "click-it or ticket" work? Yes, on those who are already responsible or have a desire not to incur financial suffering for not performing a two second safety precaution. The fact of the matter is that amazing principle called Natural Selection works in this case.

We as citizens and individuals have a duty not only to take care of ourselves and the ones whom we love but also to put citizens in office that will look after us in a way that promotes freedom while protecting our borders and those liberties which we are given. Any law that inhibits an individual's liberties just to prevent crimes and death is opening the door for laws that will eventually eliminate our personal freedoms.

Sex Offender Laws

WSB TV's website today has a report of the aftermath of a bill initiated by Georgia State Senate Majority Leader Jerry Keen and passed into law by that very assembly. This is a recent law stating that convicted sex offenders cannot live within 1000 feet of any church, school, or school bus stop. The report goes on to state that several counties' law enforcement agencies have issued and carried out warrants for these convicted sex offenders who have not complied with the new law and have not moved out of this new lawful range of said edifices. It has also stated that an unnamed judge in Atlanta has stopped, for an unknown amount of time, the carrying out of this law in respect to the bus stop provision. The report says the reason for this ruling is that it would force many people from their homes and compel those opposed to the law to argue its constitutionality.

I, having children, like the comfort of knowing that a sex offender cannot reside within 1000 feet of my childrens' schools or bus stops. I enjoy the peace of mind that comes with believing that the government is moving in the direction of protecting innocent children from the possibility of being accosted by these obviously abnormal individuals. Wouldn't any of us like to think that our children are safe when they leave our arms in the morning for school? My question is at what point does our comfort infringe upon civil rights? Is it just for our government to step on many peoples rights while looking out for the rights of others? Are we a nation of hypocrites in which our criminal rights system is extensive in protecting the criminal while our civil rights system is extensive in punishing them?

Let us ponder on this subject in respect to logic and reason. What we're doing here is telling those who have committed a crime and completed their sentence that they are limited in the choices where they will reside for the remainder of their law abiding days. We, those who have not been caught breaking any laws, then, are saying that, not only are we better than you who have been caught committing a heinous offense, but we also will call upon the government and their fire power to ensure that you and your household, no matter if you never commit that exact offense again, shall never have the same freedoms as the rest of us in respect to your place of dwelling again. This is not just by any standard. We as parents are responsible for protecting our children. The government is only responsible for punishing people who break laws when they break them.

Neal Boortz, a nationally syndicated radio host based in Atlanta, related a story to his listening base of a lady who had been convicted for statuatory rape at 17 because she had consentual sexual intercourse with her 15 year old boyfriend at the time. The law provided that she could not legally perform such act and convicted her for breaking this law. She now, because she is a convicted sex offender, cannot live within 1000 feet of any church, school, or school bus stop. This is not a just assessment by our judicial branch of an already broken law created by our legislative branch. In other words, maybe the source of our problem isn't the amount of legislation over criminals after exiting the punishment system but the punishment system itself. Instead of making laws to fit criminals back into society, we should amend or upheave our current punishment system.

Our government enjoys legislative and judicial liberties that infringe on civil liberties in a manner that is constant and overbearing. We as the citizens who elect these unqualified and overly lobbied aristocrats should stand up for our rights as humans first and then as American citizens and put a stop to the government's playing as our parents.