You are viewing radarrider

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous
RadarRider's Journal
Stalking the Net Fantastic
Share
As many of you who don't live here have probably heard, the Puget Sound region got some snow yesterday.  We had a couple of inches - more in some places - which is a pretty big deal given our relative lack of infrastructure and equipment for dealing with it.  I'd say most of Seattle's workforce that commutes in from the 'burbs is staying home today.  I made it in (it wasn't that hard, actually) and took some pictures during my walk from the parking garage to the office.  You can take a look at them here.

Snowpocalypse 2010 photos

Here's a sample:

Snowy city>

This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/612357.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
Via the Patriot Post.

Read this and then, if you oppose conservative policies, ask yourself if this describes you. If it does, perhaps it's time to reevaluate the nature of your opposition.

"I recently wrote about leftists' hatred for conservatives as people, not merely for conservative ideas. Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here's a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 -- retaining the man-woman definition of marriage -- was an act of hate.) A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say 'There are good people on both of sides of this issue.' From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case. In the left's worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks -- opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays. This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say 'There are good people on both sides of the issue' because we actually believe it." --radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/612301.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
From the Republican Study Committee. It contrasts Ronald Reagan's message in his famous "A Time of Choosing" speech with actual statements from the current Democrat leadership and nicely illustrates the difference between a government in accordance with the Constitution and a government that has gone mad.



This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/611927.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
As most, if not all, of you reading this are probably already aware, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that the amendment to the California State Constitution, passed by the voters of that state as Proposition 8, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.  Specifically, it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.  It is also interesting to note that Judge Walker was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan.

This brings up an interesting issue, namely what happens when the Constitution of a state conflicts with the Constitution of the United States.  Clearly, the Judge ruled that the US Constitution takes precedence and I concur.

Full disclosure:  I did not support Proposition 8, nor would I have voted for it had I been a resident of California.  But it's not because of any opinion on whether or not two people of the same gender should or should not be allowed to enter into the legal relationship known as "marriage" as sanctioned by the states.

It's because of what Constitutions are supposed to do.  The way I see it, a Constitution's purpose is to describe the structure of a government, allocate certain specific powers to that government, and define specific limits on that government.  What a Constitution is not supposed to do is tell individual citizens that they cannot do something.*  It is up to the legislature to determine whether any actions should be proscribed and the executive to carry out the implementation of those laws.  Should a state legislature determine that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry, that's their purview, subject of course to challenge on the grounds such legislation is in violation of the State or US Constitution.

*It has been argued that there is one provision in the US Constitution where a private individual is prohibited from a specific action.  That is the Thirteenth Amendment which essentially says one person cannot own another.  However, I interpret it as an effective enumeration of the right not to be owned by another and thus on the same level as most of the Bill of Rights which enumerates other specific individual rights.
This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/611696.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
Here is a set of quotes that do a pretty good job of explaining why this mosque should not be built at that location.  Some I agree with more than others but all are worthy of consideration.  However, the two that I think do the best job I include below.

In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right. -- The Anti-Defamation League

If you read no further, know this: RedState supports the Anti-Defamation League in its opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.” The ADL is right on all counts: in its rejection of bigotry, its affirmation of American religious freedom, and its declaration that common decency demands the end of this effort. As the ADL notes, this is “not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.”

...The fact is that the groups behind the “Ground Zero mosque” / Cordoba House / Park51 chose the site explicitly for its proximity to Ground Zero, and then spent months boasting about it in the press.

...A “Ground Zero mosque” — even if only near Ground Zero, even if a “community center” rather than a mosque — is the opposite of reasoned restraint. It tramples upon the principle of a public square marked by democratic consideration. It displays a grotesque lack of generosity, while demanding extraordinary generosity toward itself. It insists upon rights — which no one disputes — and ignores responsibilities. It is, in short, a bitter vindication of the critics of American democracy at our nation’s Founding. -- The Directors, Redstate

Remember, the flipside of rights is the responsibility that comes with them to exercise them wisely and with care.  We are demanded to show sensitivity, especially when it comes to religions other than Christianity.  Why should not the people intending to build this structure be held to the same standard?
This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/611575.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
Alfonzo Rachel, a person with high melanin content in his skin who actually attends Tea Party rallies, knows why this is:

I think it’s safe to say that I’ve been to more tea parties than any of these race baiters, and if they were out to get us, Ida’ been got by now.

The majority of people attending tea parties are white, but it’s not because people of color aren’t welcome. There are no signs that say whites only or no coloreds allowed.

Democrats are the ones who made those signs of segregation legal.

The reason there aren’t that many people of color at tea parties isn’t because of the hostility they’ll face from the people on the right attending, it’s because of the hostility they’ll face from the left who don’t.

It’s because of their respective ethnic group that will disqualify their authenticity if they dare participate.

It’s because of all colors on the left beset on convincing people that the tea party is where angels fear to tread and it’s no place you’d ever want to be.

It’s prejudice on the part of the left that makes for the scarceness of people of color at tea parties.



This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/611313.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
This just showed up in my inbox.



 


SAF SUES IN NEW YORK TO VOID 'GOOD
 CAUSE' CARRY PERMIT REQUIREMENT

 

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against Westchester County, New York and its handgun permit licensing officers, seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of a state law that allows carry licenses to be denied because applicants cannot show "good cause."

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both Westchester County residents whose permit applications were denied. Kachalsky's denial was because he could not "demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public." Nikolov's was denied because she could not demonstrate that there was "any type of threat to her own safety anywhere." In addition to Westchester County, Susan Cacace and Jeffrey Cohen, both serving at times as handgun permit licensing officers, are named as defendants. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains Division.

Attorney Alan Gura is representing the plaintiffs, along with attorney Vincent Gelardi with Gelardi & Randazzo of Rye Brook, NY. Gura recently represented SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association in their landmark Second Amendment Supreme Court victory over the City of Chicago.

Under New York Penal Code ||167|| 400.00, handgun carry permit applicants must "demonstrate good cause for the issuance of a permit," the lawsuit alleges. This requirement violates the Second Amendment, according to the plaintiffs.

"American citizens like Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov should not have to demonstrate good cause in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right," noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Our civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, should not be subject to the whims of a local government or its employees, just because they don't think someone needs' a carry permit. Nobody advocates arming criminals or mental defectives, but honest citizens with clean records should not be denied out of hand.

"Thanks to our recent victory before the Supreme Court," Gottlieb stated, "the Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs'."

The case is filed as Kachalsky v. Cacase, U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 10-05413

 

 

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.



 

 

 


< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >

Copyright © 2010 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@saf.org
 


To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to subscriptions@liberty.seanet.com with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. This email was sent to nevadah@hotmail.com.
To ensure your alerts are delivered to your inbox (and not inadvertently diverted to a bulk or junk email folder by spam filters), be sure to add saf_alerts@liberty.seanet.com to your email address book or contact list.

 



This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/610949.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
Here is the complete text of Mark Alexander's essay that was sent to subscribers of the Patriot Post today via email.

Alexander's Essay – July 15, 2010

Barackracy, Part 2

Reversing Course and Restoring Liberty

"The people of the U.S. owe their Independence & their liberty, to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprised in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching against every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings." --James Madison
In Part 1 of this essay, "Breaking the Back of Free Enterprise," I noted, "Barack Hussein Obama's macro agenda to accomplish the 'fundamental transformation of America' is to break the back of capitalism and, in the ensuing crisis, use government intervention to replace it with a more refined socialist economic framework than the one currently in place."
I then posited the question, "Is there still time to restore the primacy of free enterprise over Socialism and turn back Obama and his Leftist ilk?"
The short answer is yes. I believe there is still time to implement political solutions to reverse course and restore Essential Liberty, constitutional Rule of Law and its economic expression, free enterprise. But that window is closing.
There is an economic catastrophe on our horizon, (the Obama Plan), one whose full force will likely be felt in the next few years. It will bring with it massive increases in taxation and income redistribution accompanied by inflation of the cost of goods and services and, ultimately, centralization of the economy through complete regulation of every economic sector. This scenario will be modeled after Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies, but it will be so massive as to fully institutionalize Socialism on a national scale.
That's the bad news.
The good news is there exists a solution, short of civil disobedience and revolution, to dispense with the Obama Plan. That solution is a revitalized national movement to restore constitutional integrity. That effort is now well underway bearing the Tea Party label -- not a political party, per se, but the advocacy of a set of principles to restore Rule of Law.Read more...Collapse )

This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/610707.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
Via the Patriot Post.

The Foundation

"I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington

Opinion in Brief

Anna Chapman -- one of the Russian spies arrested by the FBI

"When the FBI announced the arrest of 10 Russian spies living in deep cover for years, aka sleeper agents, Moscow's feelings were hurt. As if it were the announcement, not the arrests, that was the big problem. To quote the Russian foreign ministry: 'We don't understand the reasons which prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to make a public statement in the spirit of Cold War spy stories.' Why make a scene? Hasn't the new, enlightened American president just reset relations with the Soviet Union -- excuse me, Russia? ... Despite the spy-story trappings, this is scarcely a return to Cold War days. The Cold War was serious. This sounds more like one of Maxwell Smart's battles with KAOS; it's less John LeCarré than Mel Brooks. ... What were these sleepers supposed to be doing over here anyway, besides enjoying the American way of life? ... It seems even Soviet agents are hooked on the American Dream -- a cushy job, an SUV, and a townhouse in Cambridge conveniently near Harvard, or maybe a bungalow out in the leafy suburbs. In short, the good life. ... If there was anything suspicious about those arrested, it was that they were more American than the Americans. Which figures. They were American for all intents and, according to the FBI, subversive purposes. But there's no evidence, not even a whisper, of espionage. What would be the point? This is an age when state secrets are splashed all over the front page of the New York Times -- not just with impunity but with Pulitzer Prizes to follow." --Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editor Paul Greenberg

Re: The Left

"Attorney General Eric Holder and the rest of the open-borders DOJ team have invoked a 'preemption' doctrine based on the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause to attack Arizona's anti-illegal immigration measure and oppose local and state enforcement of federal immigration laws. Never mind that the Arizona law was drafted scrupulously to comply with all federal statutes and the Constitution. You gotta love Obama's fair-weather friends of the Constitution. When a state acts to do the job the feds won't do, Obama's legal eagles run to the Founding Fathers for protection. When, on the other hand, left-wing cities across the country pass illegal alien sanctuary policies that flagrantly defy national immigration laws and hamper cross-jurisdiction enforcement, the newfound federal preemption advocates are nowhere in sight. The Obama DOJ's lawsuit against Arizona is sabotage of the people's will and the government's fundamental responsibility to provide for the common defense." --columnist Michelle Malkin

 

Read more...Collapse )

The Last Word

"In his major addresses, Obama's modesty about his own country has been repeatedly on display as, in one venue after another, he has gratuitously confessed America's alleged failing -- from disrespecting foreigners to having lost its way morally after 9/11. It's fine to recognize the achievements of others and be non-chauvinistic about one's country. But Obama's modesty is curiously selective. When it comes to himself, modesty is in short supply. It began with the almost comical self-inflation of his presidential campaign, from the still inexplicable mass rally in Berlin in front of a Prussian victory column to the Greek columns framing him at the Democratic convention. And it carried into his presidency, from his posture of philosopher-king adjudicating between America's sins and the world's to his speeches marked by a spectacularly promiscuous use of the first-person pronoun -- I. Notice, too, how Obama habitually refers to Cabinet members and other high government officials as 'my' -- 'my secretary of homeland security,' 'my national security team,' 'my ambassador.' The more normal -- and respectful -- usage is to say 'the,' as in 'the secretary of state.' These are, after all, public officials sworn to serve the nation and the Constitution -- not just the man who appointed them. It's a stylistic detail, but quite revealing of Obama's exalted view of himself. Not surprising, perhaps, in a man whose major achievement before acceding to the presidency was writing two biographies -- both about himself. Obama is not the first president with a large streak of narcissism. But the others had equally expansive feelings about their country. Obama's modesty about America would be more understandable if he treated himself with the same reserve. What is odd is to have a president so convinced of his own magnificence -- yet not of his own country's." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/610372.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Share
  • 10:18 Mainstream media coverage slim on NASA and Black Panther stories. Whoa, big surprise there. bit.ly/bVNvWv #
  • 12:50 @RogerHedgecock Probably not. I bet there will be opposition because horses might get hurt. #
  • 15:45 @johnhawkinsrwn Yeah, you've been missing out. L4D2 is even better. #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter

This entry was originally posted at http://radarrider.dreamwidth.org/610275.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
profile
RadarRider
Name: RadarRider
calendar
Back November 2010
123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930
page summary
tags