User: joelrosenberg http://www.livejournal.com/users/joelrosenberg/118206.html
Date: 2005-05-14 15:56
Subject: Senate hearings are on the web...
Security: Public
Mood: accomplished

... and the antis are fuming:

And the saddest sight was Assistant Majority Leader Ann Rest shaking hands with Joe Olson, lobbyist for the Gun Owners Civil Right Alliance, as he thanked her for "working with us."

Do send Senator Rest your compliments, and your thanks. The antis are sending their "special thanks" -- presumably, via a short bus -- to Senator Mike McGinn (Eagan) -- for trying to help in their futile effort to gut the bill. Anybody in Eagan interesting sending Senator McGinn our "special thanks" by running against him in Fall 2006?
( Read more... )
Enough with the sarcasm, at least for the time being: a bit of advice, to those few sensible DFL senators who, finally, couldn't find it in themselves to vote for the bill:

If what you'd wanted was a long, good-faith discussion over how to modify Minnesota's antiquated, bureaucrats-know-best, carry permit law, you had quite literally years to do so. Advocates -- including me -- were always willing to sit down and talk with you about the problems, and about how to address them. I still am -- and I wouldn't be at all surprised if I do end up sitting down over a cup of coffee with Steve Kelley, who I disagree with -- strongly -- but who I'm willing to listen to, as long as he's willing to listen to me.

But -- and you knew a but was coming -- what you can't do is delay, kill-in-committee, evade, duck and avoid the issues for literally years and years, and then come to people in favor of reform and say, "You know, we're willing to talk about some compromises -- we'll still vote against you, mind, no matter how much you're willing to compromise, but we want to see what we can get out of you before we try to shoot you down."

Doesn't work that way.

That said, assuming that things go as expected in the House early next week, your Republican counterparts will have done you a favor: you don't -- or shouldn't -- want your outstate DFL colleagues trying to campaign in fall 2006 with the metrocrat DFLers' disdain for self-defense hanging around their necks. Many of them don't deserve that, and you shouldn't want them to be burdened with it. It's a pretty heavy albatross.

Onward . . .

Tomorrow, we start talking about next steps. The bill will pass this week, and the flurry of permit training will start shortly thereafter. We'll have to talk about what people who have already taken their training should do, as well as those who have been putting it off.

(Short form: don't put it off.)

2 comments | post a comment

My son was in a freak ass car accident. It was an old style jeep type of car with no seat belts and only one half of a roof on the thing. It flipped end over end, due to a tire blow out. He was hurt and bruised, the docs gave him the full business. MRI and CAT scans etc. He's okay. He's out of town and called me and waiting for his films took nearly 3 hours. Good Gravy. He crawled away from the wreck because of the smell of gasoline.

We are one lucky family indeed. This young man has Angels on his shoulder, or a horse shoe up his butt.
I'm so very thankful that he came out of this so far, my MS won't kill me, worrying about him almost did today. WHEW!

You scored as Gunshot. Your death will be by gunshot, probably because you are some important person or whatever. </td> Gunshot 100% Natural Causes 60% Posion 53% Cut Throat 47% Accident 40% Suffocated 33% Bomb 33% Stabbed 27% Disease 27% Disappear 20% Eaten 13% Suicide 13% Drowning 0% How Will You Die?? created with QuizFarm.com

posted by michaelmichael)
Date: 2005-03-02 21:37
Subject:
Security: Protected

‘Never again' - again
Rwanda's genocide haunts us today, but the world can prevent a ‘Hotel Darfur'
By Don Cheadle and John Prendergast

Paul Rusesabagina visited President Bush at the White House last month. Paul is the hotelier-turned-hero who saved more than 1,200 lives during Rwanda's 1994 genocide, and whose actions inspired the movie Hotel Rwanda. Paul was eager to see the president because he wanted to tell him that Rwanda's horror of a decade ago is happening again - this time, in Sudan's western region of Darfur.

A brutal campaign of state-sponsored violence in Darfur has led to the deaths of up to 300,000 people, and the lives of about 2 million displaced people hang in the balance.

After his visit, Paul wondered aloud with us whether the president's genuine concern would translate into action, remembering well the way the world had expressed so much concern about the Rwandan genocide a decade ago, but had done so little to stop it.

( read more........... )


The world watches; and does nothing!!! Just like Rwanda!!!!!

3 comments | post a comment

We watched this tonight. We used this link from Wizbang. http://www.buttondepress.com/BostonManifesto/stolenhoner.wmv (enter, then click on the red banner on the top to view in windows media) I was aware of this stuff for quite some time on an intellectual level. While I watched it, it really hit me hard emotionally. It was so hurtful. I'm just outraged about it. The veteran's stories made me cry. I could not help but compare that time to the present. I was reminded of my friends and family who fought and died in that war. Of the friends and family who fought and died in wars after that. The friends and family who are fighting in a war now. Or may be about to. My own precious son is in the Navy. So was his Dad and his Granddad. So are his friends and sons of our friends. All of them precious... I am just sickened that this John Kerry 'person' did what he did. He was simply exploiting others for his own political gain. He is still doing it today, in his run for the Presidency. He is a self admitted war criminal,and he dares to ask for anyones vote to become the Commander in Chief? How insulting. How crass. How did he even win the democratic caucuses? I believe that he should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church, stripped of his U.S. citizenship and indicted for treason. That would be a good start. He played a part in ruining lives in the past, turning history on it's ear by helping to lose a war at home. I'd hate to see what he would do or could do to our future. Shame on you John Kerry. Shame on you. Watch the movie, tell me what you think?

History may not repeat itself, but it occasionally stutters
I've always been able to draw connections and parallels where others tend to not see them. It's an odd little gift of mine that usually gets me funny glances and odd looks more than anything else, but it's occasionally entertaining. And lately I've been seeing a lot of little "echoes" of World War II in the current War on Terror.

War starts several years before the United States becomes an active combatant: check
The United States remains officially "neutral," while favoring one side over the other, for several years: check
War's most prominent, and at one point, pretty much only, combatant is an island nation surrounded by enemies: check (if, metaphorically, you consider Israel an "island" of a Jewish democracy surrounded by an "ocean" of Arab dictatorships)
The United States remains officially "neutral," while favoring one side over the other, for several years: check
The United States becomes an official participant in the war after a sneak attack kills several thousand Americans on American soil: check
Russia/The Soviet Union sides with the bad guys until a surprise attack on Russian soil: check
France either surrenders or collaborates with the bad guys: check
Two hostile nations defeated, a third "surrenders" and switches sides: check (Substituting Libya for Italy)
President elected in year ending in "0" pledges to avoid conflicts, ends up leading war after above-mentioned surprise attack less than one year after being inaugurated: check
Members of the President's opposing party accuse the "island nation" of being behind the effort to get America into the war: check (some Republicans accused FDR of being manipulated by Winston Churchill into pursuing the war; those who accuse Israel of engineering America's entry into the War on Terror tend to be liberals)
Huge mass graves of innocents discovered in one of the bad guy's countries after being captured: check

I'm not quite certain this means anything, but I found it interesting...

J.

show comments right here »



Very entertaining - here are a few more

The United States, while "neutral" is in fact attacked numerous times (ex: USS Reuben James, sunk by a German sub in May 1941, and countless other examples in the months leading to Dec 41), but these attacks are considered "nuisances" by mainstream media opinion.

Posted by: Karl Rotstan at October 17, 2004 06:48 AM

(sorry - hit submit by mistake)

Also, mainstream opinion declares that the President is a warmonger trying to drag America into the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, all in order to protect the interests of big business or the Jews.

Posted by: Karl Rotstan at October 17, 2004 06:52 AM

That's a very insightful post, Jay. Also, in WW2 we were attacked by the Japanese but we also fought the Germans, part of the Axis. Today, we were attacked by Al-Qaida but we also fought the Ba'thists in Iraq.

Posted by: Jim at October 17, 2004 07:45 AM

Lets hope that his one doesn't end in a nuking though.

Posted by: Ray Phelps at October 17, 2004 09:03 AM

« hide comments


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Jay Tea at 06:40 AM
Permalink | Category: War On Terror | * | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

It's How You Play the Game
Posted by Stephen Green · 14 October 2004 ·
If Drudge has it right, then the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic.

To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

I could mention the Lautenberg Trick in New Jersey. Or Gore's ballot shenanigans in Florida. Or the voter-registration fraud currently going on in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere. Or the Democrats' successful call to bring election observers into this country. Bring them in from where, Venezuela? Hey, no big deal sullying the reputation of the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy, just so long as we can make the Republicans look bad, right?

The rules don't matter. The reputation of the country doesn't matter. The political health of the nation doesn't matter. Power matters.

I don't mean to say that Republicans haven't used dirty tricks, or won't in the future. But I have yet to see them pull anything as crass as replacing a losing candidate with a more-popular one just weeks before election day, and in violation of state law. I have yet to see Republicans calling on the world's most corrupt international organization, run largely by apparatchiks from the world's most brutal dictatorships, to pass judgment on how we run our elections. I have yet to see the Republicans encouraging their own to commit fraud by shouting "Fraud!" where none yet exists, putting at risk everything we've built here in the last 228 years.

Because, in the end, that's what the national Democrats are doing: They're trying, however inadvertently, to destroy the Republic in order to rule it.

Democracy is the free market of political systems. And like any free market, it can't function without some basic level of trust. That trust comes, slowly, from hammering out rules even competitors can live with. That trust comes, with difficulty, by honoring those rules, even when your candidate doesn't win. That trust exists in relatively few places around the world.

That trust is hard to come by – and it's easy to lose. Ask the German voters of 1933. Or the people who voted in Afghanistan's first-ever presidential election last week. Or the people of Iraq, whose lives are, quite literally, on the line as they try to make something decent of their nation.

The system, the trust, is far more important than anything else. It's more important than the White House, or Congress, or Social Security, or jobs, or even the Terror War. Our Constitution is rigged to make it hard for any party to screw things up in the short time of four years. There's always another election around the corner, if you think the current crop of office-holders is screwing things up – that's the beauty of our system.

But maybe there won't be another election, if you cause the people to lose faith that elections work.

I was raised in a very Republican family. The first election I could vote in was 1988, and I voted straight-ticket Republican. But only the one time. I grew up – I learned that my own convictions were more important than party affiliation. I learned that my own estimation of individual candidates was more important than whether they had a D or an R next to their names. Since then, I've voted for a lot of Democrats, including for President.

Now, I know this is an angry essay. However, I don't mean to imply that all Democrats are evil and all Republicans are sweetness and light. Far from it. But for the first time in 16 years, I'm going to vote Republican straight down the line. If I have to punish a couple of local Democrats I'm fond of, then so be it, but I have to try to get a point across: The national Democratic Party is bad for this country.

I don't say that because of their policies, which I probably agree with more than I do the Republicans. But because their tactics would cause more harm to this country than the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Republican budget deficit, and Congress's corporate tax giveaways, combined.

I'm just one guy; I don't expect my vote to mean much. But the Democrats are willing to treat – in advance - my vote, and all it represents, with feigned contempt. So I can't, in return, treat the Democrats with anything less than genuine contempt.


Comments (420) · TrackBack (60)
Spin Alley
Posted by Stephen Green · 14 October 2004 ·
Blogcritics held another Debate on the Debate. This one is between Democratic congressional candidate Jeff Seemann and John Hawkins of Right Wing News.

Check it out.


Comments (4) · TrackBack (0)

Mail Bag
Posted by Stephen Green · 14 October 2004 ·
Bill writes:

I’m an Army battalion commander currently serving in the heart of Baghdad. Its difficult for me to express how important this election is to those of us currently in harm’s way.
First, let me say that my brigade combat team has been here 9 months. In this time, we have lost over 20 soldiers and had over 200 seriously wounded. Yet, in my battalion alone I have reenlisted over 100 soldiers. I have less than 20 soldiers a day go on sick call out of over 800. Amazing when you consider the oppressive heat during the summer.

I tell you this because our soldiers know they are making a difference, and absolutely believe in this mission. We don’t give a rat’s ass about WMDs and know we are not fighting for oil. Truly, first and foremost we believe that we are defending America by attacking the enemy on his turf. For God’s sake what do people think the likes of Zarqawi/OBL would be doing if they were not on the run trying to prevent us from establishing modern states in the Islamist world? There is no safe haven! This is only true because the US Army and Marine Corps is in his back yard.

Also, we are providing hope for people who have been brutally oppressed for a generation. What an insult to tell those of us who know, and are doing the fighting and dying, that this is the “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place”. Imagine the effect on our military if we have a commander in chief that believes our brothers and sisters have died in vain. Like you I am more liberal than the President on most social issues, but these issues can wait, and probably will seem irrelevant if a nuclear devise is exploded in NYC, or we experience a couple of Breslan’s in the United States.

I beg, plead that my friend’s on the left or undecided, cast there ballot for the President this election, on only one issue, the war on terrorism. Ask yourself what does Ed Koch, an east coast liberal Jew, know that I don’t know.

Sorry for the length, be proud of your military.


We are, Bill. Damn, but we are.

Comments (12) · TrackBack (0)

What Democrats Still Don't Get
Laura Ingraham (archive)


October 11, 2004
Top Democrats advising the Kerry campaign are scratching their heads raw this week, trying to figure out why John Kerry--even with solid debate performances under his belt and continuing violence in Iraq--still is still having such a hard time convincing voters he would be a more effective commander-in-chief than George Bush. But the answer is actually fairly simple. Kerry--like all doves--is unpersuasive on national security issues because he doesn't realize certain basic truths that have guided American policy for decades. These are:

1. The world is a dangerous place, filled with deadly people. Not just people who are misunderstood. Not just people who are poor. Not just people who have different "values." After 3,000 of our fellow citizens were incinerated on September 11th by Islamist mass murderers, John Kerry can still tell the New York Times Magazine this week that "[w]e have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." How amazingly irresponsible and stunningly stupid. Deadly people with the means and commitment to inflict large casualties on U.S. citizens will never just be nuisances. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.

2. Most nations in the world look out for themselves. We cringe at the idea of a 'global test' because we know who's going to be grading the test. We know the anti-Americanism that exists around the world. We know the incompetence and corruption that dominates the UN. We know that leaders like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder are determined to take any opportunity to hinder the United States. We know that international media organizations, from the BBC to Al-Jazeera, are doing everything they can to whip up even more hostility toward this country. In short, we know that you would have a better chance at a fair hearing in an Olympic figure-skating competition than you would of getting a fair grade on a 'global test.'" George Bush knows this. The American people know this. American liberals don't.

3. America is not the world's problem--America is the world's solution. Tying down the United States--through international treaties like Kyoto or the International Criminal Court, or through imposing a "global test" on our ability to respond to problems-will not make the world safer. It will make the world less safe. Limiting U.S. power will not make the world better. It will lead to more pain, more death, more suffering. The United States is the only great nation in the world whose people are willing to make real sacrifices of blood and treasure for world peace. If we don't do it, no one will. President Bush knows this. The American people know it. American liberals don't.

American liberals are making the same mistake in the war on terror that they made during the Cold War.

They trust anti-American voices around the world more than they trust the American people. During the second debate, John Kerry was still touting UN sanctions as a viable way to contain Saddam, despite everything we have already learned about the oil for food pay-offs to foreign interests (in both France and Russia). Liberals believe that our responsibilities can be shoved onto the backs of other countries that have made it abundantly clear have no intention of helping us. (Although even Kerry had to admit last week that France and Germany will not send troops to Iraq even if he wins on November 2.) They believe in a moral equivalence between the United States and its adversaries. They were wrong in the 1980's, and they are wrong today. That is why Kerry cannot articulate a credible plan to win the war on terrorism. That is why Edwards looked and sounded so vague during his debate. Until American liberals overcome this fear of the American people--until they learn to trust us more than they trust their friends in Europe--they will flip, flop and flounder in their effort to take back the White House.

Laura Ingraham is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show and the author of the just released "Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America".

I realize that in an age when criminals go free on a regular basis...and pedophiles get 3 weeks of house arrest, many may feel its ridiculous to bring up John Kerry's criminal activity that should not only bar him from the Presidency, but should have kept him out of the Senate for the past 20 years.

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights (Ratified 7/9/1868)

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

In 1970 and 1971, Senator John Kerry (then a Lieutenant senior grade, US Navy Reserve) traveled to Paris twice to meet with both Communist delegates (Democratic Republic of Vietnam AKA North Vietnam and Provisional Revolutionary Government AKA Viet Cong) to the Paris peace talks to coordinate his anti-war efforts. Many, perhaps most, would view this as having given aid and comfort to the enemy (North Vietnam), in particular viewed that way by the American POWs held in North Vietnam.

This amendment was passed to bar former Confederate officers and officials from holding office after the American Civil War. The amendment's intent was clear. Keep those who betrayed our country in a time of war out of office.

I'm so tired of arguing with people who blindly follow Michael Moore.

They seem to have no knowledge of history and no respect for our country, our values or our troops. I find that quite disheartening, and frankly, alarming.
If one tries to disagree and pose a legit policy argument, they go mental and call you 'disrespectful'. So much for being an open minded liberal type...

If you are a Michael Moore fan, or a talking point zombie victim of the DNC, give this website a look. You just might learn something, at least it's another point of view. After a while, the cherry flavored Kool-Aid gets tiresome does it not?

http://www.centigrade911.com/

Also:

http://www.newsmax.com

http://www.drudgereport.com

http://www.saluteheroes.org

Vote for John Kerry and he will re-instate the draft...that's the plan.

Date:	2004-04-17 04:21
Subject:	Bravo! I love Ann Coulter
Security:	Public
Mood:	amused
Music:	Anchors Away

Thank you for choosing United, Mr. bin Laden
Ann Coulter (archive)


April 15, 2004 | Print | Send


Last week, 9-11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the policy (before 9-11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory." Hmmm ... Is 19 more than two? Why, yes, I believe it is. So if two Jordanian cab drivers are searched before boarding a flight out of Newark, Osama bin Laden could then board that plane without being questioned. I'm no security expert, but I'm pretty sure this gives terrorists an opening for an attack.

In a sane world, Lehman's statement would have made headlines across the country the next day. But not one newspaper, magazine or TV show has mentioned that it is official government policy to prohibit searching more than two Arabs per flight.

Meanwhile, another 9-11 commissioner, the greasy Richard Ben-Veniste, claimed to be outraged that the CIA did not immediately give intelligence on 9-11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar to the FBI. As we now know – or rather, I alone know because I'm the only person in America watching the 9-11 hearings – Ben-Veniste should have asked his fellow commissioner Jamie Gorelick about that.

In his testimony this week, John Ashcroft explained that the FBI wasn't even told Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the country until weeks before the 9-11 attack – because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995. The FBI wasn't allowed to put al-Qaida specialists on the hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi – because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995. Indeed, the FBI couldn't get a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer – because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995.

The famed 1995 guidelines were set forth in a classified memorandum written by the then-deputy attorney general titled "Instructions for Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations," which imposed a "draconian" wall between counterintelligence and criminal investigations.

What Ashcroft said next was breathtaking. Prohibited from mounting a serious search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, an irritated FBI investigator wrote to FBI headquarters, warning that someone would die because of these policies – "since the biggest threat to us, OBL (Osama bin Laden), is getting the most protection."

FBI headquarters responded: "We're all frustrated with this issue. These are the rules. NSLU (National Security Law Unit) does not make them up. But somebody did make these rules. Somebody built this wall."

The person who built that wall described in the infamous 1995 memo, Ashcroft said, "is a member of the commission." If this were an episode of "Matlock," the camera would slowly pan away from Ashcroft's face at this point and then quickly jump to an extreme close-up of Jamie Gorelick's horrified expression. Armed marshals would then escort the kicking, screaming Gorelick away in leg irons as the closing credits rolled. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in 1995.

The 9-11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9-11 commissioners. Maybe between happy reminiscences about the good old days of Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Elian Gonzales raid, Ben-Veniste could ask Gorelick about those guidelines. Democrats think it's a conflict of interest for Justice Scalia to have his name in the same phonebook as Dick Cheney. But there is no conflict of interest having Gorelick sit on a commission that should be investigating her.

Bill O'Reilly's entire summary of Ashcroft's testimony was to accuse Ashcroft of throwing sheets over naked statues rather than fighting terrorism. No mention of the damning Gorelick memo. No one knows about the FAA's No-Searching-Arabs counterterrorism policy. Predictions that conservatives have finally broken through the wall of sound coming from the mainstream media may have been premature.

When Democrats make an accusation against Republicans, newspaper headlines repeat the accusation as a fact: "U.S. Law Chief 'Failed to Heed Terror Warnings,'" "Bush Was Told of Qaida Steps Pre-9-11; Secret Memo Released," "Bush White House Said to Have Failed to Make al-Qaida an Early Priority."

But when Republicans make accusations against Democrats – even accusations backed up by the hard fact of a declassified Jamie Gorelick memo – the headlines note only that Republicans are making accusations: "Ashcroft Lays Blame at Clinton's Feet," "Ashcroft: Blame Bubba for 9-11," "Ashcroft Faults Clinton in 9-11 Failures."

It's amazing how consistent it is. A classic of the genre was the Chicago Tribune headline, which managed to use both constructs in a single headline: "Ashcroft Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Clinton." Why not: "Reno Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Former Deputy Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Bush"?

Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration is that it failed to unravel the entire 9-11 terrorism plot based on a memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

I have news for liberals: Bin Laden is still determined to attack inside the United States! Could they please tell us when and where the next attack will be? Because unless we know that, it's going to be difficult to stop it if we can't search Arabs.


Ann Coulter is host of AnnCoulter.org, a Townhall.com member group

Smith & Wessen .44 Magnum. You are old school. Fat
Sheriff Deputies fancy you. Reliable but not
too practical.


What handgun are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Date:	2002-11-26 03:12
Subject:	Randy's Rock Band Identity...
Security:	Public
Mood:	giddy
Music:	kmfdm

Which Metal Band Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Here's the deal...
Our typings are being censored if you are in the twin cities group. Come outta this shadow, say what you want to without being censored!

Happy Birthday To Randall Page!

Happy Bithday to the light of my life-my beautiful boy!

Date:	2002-08-26 04:06
Subject:	Today is your Birthday!
Security:	Public
Mood:	crazy

Happy Birthday to you Kristin Lee Stantini!

My wishes to you for a wonderfully fun day and Happiness always-You deserve the very bestest!!!!!!!

Date:	2002-08-14 09:34
Subject:	More swipage
Security:	Public
Mood:	amused

Date: 2002-08-05 08:44
Subject:
Security: Public

The Bill Of No Rights

The following has apparently been attributed to State Representative
Mitchell Kaye from GA.

"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help
everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots,
keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of
debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren,
hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense
guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other
liberal, bed wetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are
confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No
Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any
other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but
no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is
based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You
may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but
the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a
screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool
manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans
are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in
need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after
generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the
creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be
nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in
public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If
you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if
the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you
rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be
surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where
you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of
leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk
their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate
oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to
fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and
do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little
tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to
have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you
to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training
laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means
that you have the right to PURSUE happiness -- which by the way, is a lot
easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created
by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights,"