Thursday, July 01, 2010

Are There Any Oathkeepers in the Corrupt Chicago Political Machine?

In a post titled The Face of Fascism, Ed Rasimus points us to this news out of Chicago.

With the city’s gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun…

The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :
—Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
—Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
—Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
—Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
—Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Ed notes the following, in response to this news.

This is government run amok. This is absolute power which was seized and not constitutionally established. This is destruction of the rights of a people and denial of the basic principles enshrined by the Founders of our republic.

America is Running Out of Options for a peaceful resolution to the issues noted by Ed, above.

Mayor Daley Lays Out Strict Gun Rules for Chicago

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 03:52 PM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Huge Tent City in Hawaii, Big Deal

Drudge links to a story at StarAdvertiser.com with the headline Huge homeless tent city takes root in Hawaii… wherein readers can find this information, which is the sub-headline to the story.

Homeless camps cover 50 acres, from Waipio Point, around Middle Loch to Pearl City

Big deal.  There have been tent cities in Hawaii for years.  When I was stationed at Pearl, from 1980 through 1984, there were tent cities on every island I visited, and the individuals living within the tent cities were more free than almost every other individual living in Hawaii at that time.

The remainder of the “huge tent city” story is all fluff, mentioning Pastor Joe Hunkin’s pastoral work, Duane “Dog” Chapman’s bounty hunting island adventures, and an inane comment from some flunky from Oahu’s Affordable Housing and Homeless Alliance.

Huge tent city in Hawaii, big deal.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 01:47 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Patriotism Quotes

Dr. Samuel Johnson is credited with stating “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” and this is indeed correct, if one considers that the statement, as Boswell points out, is meant to denote false patriotism, as elucidated by Johnson in this statement.

“Let us take a patriot, where we can meet him; and, that we may not flatter ourselves by false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive; for a man may have the external appearance of a patriot, without the constituent qualities; as false coins have often lustre, though they want weight.”

Johnson expanded on the definition of the false patriot in this statement.

“A patriot is necessarily and invariably a lover of the people. But even this mark may sometimes deceive us.  The people is a very heterogeneous and confused mass of the wealthy and the poor, the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad. Before we confer on a man, who caresses the people, the title of patriot, we must examine to what part of the people he directs his notice. It is proverbially said, that he who dissembles his own character, may be known by that of his companions. If the candidate of patriotism endeavours to infuse right opinions into the higher ranks, and, by their influence, to regulate the lower; if he consorts chiefly with the wise, the temperate, the regular, and the virtuous, his love of the people may be rational and honest. But if his first or principal application be to the indigent, who are always inflammable; to the weak, who are naturally suspicious; to the ignorant, who are easily misled; and to the prfligate, who have no hope but from mischief and confusion; let his love of the people be no longer boasted. No man can reasonably be thought a lover of his country, for roasting an ox, or burning a boot, or attending the meeting at Mile-end, or registering his name in the lumber troop. He may, among the drunkards, be a hearty fellow, and, among sober handicraftmen, a free-spoken gentleman; but he must have some better distinction, before he is a patriot.”

I consider myself a patriot, and proudly, but of the variety described thusly by Johnson.

In the first (1755) and fourth (1773) editions of his Dictionary, Johnson defines “patriot” as “One whose ruling passion is the love of his country.” In the fourth edition, Johnson adds: “It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government.”

I’d like to think that those individuals I am aware of whose ruling passion is the love of America, and who factiously disturb the government and rail against it, have a bit of the Scottish Highlander spirit of patriotism in them also.

It affords a generous and manly pleasure to conceive a little nation gathering its fruits and tending its herds with fearless confidence, though it lies open on every side to invasion, where, in contempt of walls and trenches, every man sleeps securely with his sword beside him; where all on the first approach of hostility come together at the call to battle, as at a summons to a festal show; and committing their cattle to the care of those whom age or nature has disabled, engage the enemy with that competition for hazard and for glory, which operate in men that fight under the eye of those, whose dislike or kindness they have always considered as the greatest evil or the greatest good.

This was, in the beginning of the present century, the state of the Highlands. Every man was a soldier, who partook of national confidence, and interested himself in national honour. To lose this spirit, is to lose what no small advantage will compensate.

What type of patriot are you?

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 07:11 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages