About Me

Name: Cuda
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

A Little Fable

Perhaps, this analogy has been done before, but let me explain the immigration situation in terms of a little story.
Once upon a time, there were two brothers, Phil and Tom.  Both lived in a fairly poor neighborhood, but dreamed one day of ownin their own bake shop.  Tom, being the older brother had the first opportunity.  He applied for a loan from the bank, but was rejected the first time due to some credit problems.  It was very frustrating for Tom, but he was patient and waited to fix his credit, and get all his papers together.  Phil, the more brash of the two brothers saw the difficulties his older brother had to go through to get a loan to open up a bakery.
So one day Phil bought a revolver from someone off the streets.  He put on a ski mask, and walked into the town's bank.  When he walked inside, he ordered everyone on the ground and pulled out his gun.  He told the tellers to fill the bags with money, and soon, they were bristiling with hundreds of thousands of dollars.  He ran out of the building.  The police knew about the problem, but their standing orders were only to apprehend bank robbers that actually fired the gun, so they didn't even chase Phil.   The police wanted to, they knew his description, they even could trace where he lived,  but it was policy not to do anything about it.
A little time goes by, and Phil now has enough money to purchase a bakery.  He becomes a good baker.  He's a hard worker, and the townsfolk all enjoyed his products.  In fact, other than the bank robbery, Phil never broke another law again.  Phil became rich off the bakery, and even donated to the community.  He built a park for the children, sponsored a baseball team, and even helped troubled youths stay out of paths of crime.
But not all of the townspeople were happy.   Many knew that Phil robbed that bank, and while he may have been an upstanding citizen, all his good fortunes were a direct result of that crime.
So some of the people protested.  They believed that a crime is a crime, and penatlies should be enacted.  Some even wanted to kick Phil out of his bakery.   Phil countered back that being a baker is a hard job, you work with ovens,  messy flour, and get up before the crack of dawn, and he said few people in the town would want to do such a job.  Many people agreed and defended Phil, saying these other townspeople were cruel and said Phil was just trying to make an honest living doing a job none of them would do.  (A small voice in the crowd said "I'd do it."  But no one seemed to hear Tom."
Back to our friend Tom.  He had still been waiting for loan applications to go through, and finally had enough money to open his own bakery.   But he realized that Phil had the advantage of already being there and taking up the best job.  Tom felt cheated.  He worked through the system, he dealt with the hardships and bureaucracies involved in opening a bakery, and here was his brother living the high life due to taking the easy way out.  Because Phil committed a crime, he got ahead in life, and Tom's fidelity got him nowhere.
Tom looked down, shuffled his feet, and said to himself bitterly  "Who said crime doesn't pay?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Catch-22?

What can we learn from the separation of church and state in terms of firearms?  Increasingly, entities such as the ACLU and other left wing groups are pushing for a separation of church and state in all public venues.  The First Ammendment states "

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  Now pay close attention to the wording "Congress shall make no law..." sounds pretty specific, right?  Yet congress is not involved when it comes to George Washington Elementary School's Christmas Play, that's something so minutely local it's not a concern of the federal government; that is, until the ACLU steps in.  What does this all have to do with firearms, you might wonder?  Ah, here's where it becomes interesting.  If the First Ammendment has such reaches as to affect local government, that sets a precedent for the other ammendments.  Therefore, the Second Ammendment "

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." also shall by that logic trump local jurisdiction.  So, if a town or county or state decided to make restrictions on gun sales, ownership, or use, the second ammendment would nullify that law.  Furthermore, the wording of the Second Ammendment is ironically more straightforward than the first.  "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  It does not mention congress, it says shall not be infringed.  And that boils down to the local level.  If the First Ammendment is enforceable on a local level, then all the rights in the bill of rights should be of equal importance.  The 13th Ammendment prohibits slavery.  If a town decided to legalize slavery, it would be considered Unconstitutional, in regards to the 13th Ammendment.  So why do we allow cities, towns, counties, and states to interpret the Second Ammendment to whatever definition best suits them?  We cannot have one without the other.  If even one of the ammendments in the Bill of Rights is foresaken, they are all null and void.  And moreso of the Second Ammendment than any other.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ingrates

According to this article I found on Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070802/wl_nm/afghan_hostages_dc the South Koreans blame us, not the Taliban and Islamofascists for the capture and executions of some of their people.  I'm getting just a bit tired of the world blaming America for everything.   If we do something proactive, we're branded as baby killers.  If we do nothing we're labeled as cold and uncaring.   We've been protecting, arming, training, supplying, and guarding the South Koreans since the 1950's.  54,246 of our American soldiers died protecting the South Koreans from the menacing North (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial).  Do those deaths mean nothing to the South Koreans?  What about the deaths after the cease fire.  For decades we have protected the South, and have fought minor skirmishes with the North, resulting in fatalities.  The South Koreans have become a very prosperous nation, and it is largely due to the fact that their jealous and insane relatives in the North are kept at bay with the help of our armed forces.   The anti-American trend is growing world-wide.  From Europe, to Africa, to Asia, South America, and of course the Middle East.  America is ever the villain, until someone threatens their own borders, then they beg us to help, and we rarely turn away.  Our goal is to always win hearts and minds, but some hearts are black, and their minds are absent.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »