If There Are Any Unruly Mobs In Baltimore

… or Pittsburgh; if there are any dumpster fires; if any cars are overturned this weekend, the blame for all that rests squarely on the shoulders of one Terrell Suggs.

When asked to expound on his comment in an interview with “ESPN First Take” on Monday, Suggs said that for the Ravens, the matchup is taking on biblical proportions.

“This is World War III to us. This is definitely Armageddon,” Suggs said.

With violent rhetoric like that, who can resist the urge to go out and destroy private property or hurt innocents?

Christina Green’s Father Speaks Out

Christina Green was born on 9-11, the tragic day Islamic Terrorists hit the US. She died 9 years later by the hands of Jared Lee Loughner. It would be understandable if her father, John Green, were to speak out in a rage. But he didn’t. Instead, despite his great anguish, he still showed a strong belief in a free society.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It shouldn’t happen in this country or anywhere else but in a free society we’re gonna be subject to people like this so– I prefer this to the alternative.

Very few people can even come close to understanding what he and his whole family are going through emotionally. My second daughter was murdered, but I won’t claim to understand what he’s going through. For him to stand up for a free society and against the alternative so quickly after his own tragic loss says a lot about his own honor.

As Ed Morrissey said, “Addendum: Kudos to Meredith Viera for her sensitive and supportive handling of the interview.”

Two proposed amendments

Pretty much what I’d expect from the editors of :

From yesterday’s editorial:

Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit. That was before the Tucson rampage. Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.

Yet, earlier in the editorial, the editors noted that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was the one who read the text of the First Amendment on the House floor, noting that the right to assemble was included in that. The respect for the First Amendment is strong among the editors of the Times, except, of course, when it comes to speech they don’t like, such as speech by corporations.

And the distaste of the editors for the Second Amendment is even more palpable.

There was, of course, Washington Post staff writer Ezra Klein and his famous statement that we couldn’t really understand the Constitution because it is over 100 years old:

Actually, it seems that the Constitution is pretty easy to understand. Oh, some spellings in English have changed — chuse is now choose — but it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the very plain English in which the Constitution was written

And looking at the first two amendments, the ones the editors of the Times don’t seem to like, is looking at some very simple English.

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.

What, I have to ask, is so difficult to understand about the provision that “Congress shall make no law . . . ?” The First Amendment lists six things, and says, very simply, that Congress shall make no law restricting those things.

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.

What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is so difficult to understand? Does “shall not be infringed” have some meaning other than what it says?

I have mentioned this before, but will do so again: if some of our friends on the left think that the actual words of the First and Second Amendments are so outmoded that they just don’t work very well for our 21st century society, why are there never any serious proposals to change them?

Those amendments exist precisely because of the concerns of the original thirteen states, that the power of the government being created by the Constitution was overly broad, and needed to be limited. Several of the states forwarded appeals for several amendments, specifically a Bill of Rights, to protect the people from the power of the federal government. The Framers had included an amendment process, and the First Congress did as the states ratifying the Constitution requested: they amended the Constitution.

So, I shall endeavor to help our friends on the left, with two proposed constitutional amendments:

Amendment XXVIII

  • Section 1: The First Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
  • Section 2: Freedom of speech, publication and broadcasting is guaranteed, save that speech which incites hatred, animosity or violence based on race, ethnicity, non-Christian religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identification may be prohibited.
  • Section 3: The free exercise of religion is guaranteed, save that no individual expression of religious faith may be professed in public. No religious belief which would discriminate against any person based on race, ethnicity, non-Christian religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identification is protected by this amendment, or may be protected by any statute of any level of government.
  • Section 4: Neither the United States nor any political subdivision therein may recognize, promote or protect any form of religious institution, belief or opinion. The Congress and the states shall have the power to enforce this provision through appropriate legislation.
  • Section 5: (a) The freedom of speech applies solely to individuals. No company, corporation or other organization, save those which exist as representatives of working people, or certified journalistic sources may claim the right to unrestricted speech under the provisions of Section 2, nor may any organization other than a registered campaign organization or political party, engage in any speech or spend any money in support of or opposition to any political candidate.
    (b) No individual member of any organization, save those which exist as representatives of working people, or certified journalistic sources, may claim individual status to circumvent the provisions of Section 5 (a) unless certified by the Federal Election Commission.
  • Section 6: The Congress may enact any legislation required to enforce the provisions of this Amendment.

Of course, it’s more than just our First Amendment which just can’t be intended to apply to us today!

Amendment XXIX

  • Section 1: The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
  • Section 2: (a) Private ownership of operable firearms is hereby prohibited. The Congress may allow individual, registered collectors to own and possess registered antique firearms, if they are in a permanently disabled condition.
    (b): Neither the government of the United States nor any of the governing subdivisions therein are required to pay compensation for firearms confiscated and destroyed under the provisions of Section 2 (a).
  • Section 3: The manufacture, possession, purchase or sale of operable firearms of any type is prohibited within the United States, save for those registered companies manufacturing firearms for the Armed Forces of the United States, or authorized federal, state and local law enforcement agencies certified by the Department of Justice.
  • Section 4: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment through the passage of appropriate legislation.

Perhaps you think that this is a long-winded form of satire, but I assure you, it is not. When I read what so many of our friends on the left have written, in so many places, it seems to me that what I have proposed as amendments to our Constitution pretty much fall right in line with what they really want, but seem unable to say.

It seems to me that it is time for them to be honest about things. The editors of The New York Times cannot claim to support our constitutional rights and then turn right around and try to twist or redefine or simply ignore the specific, written provisions of the Constitution to satisfy their policy preferences. Having the courage of their convictions ought to mean standing up for what they believe, honestly and forthrightly.

I suggested that Charlie Company muster and build a snowman . . .

. . . and then put First Sergeant stripes chevrons and rockers on it; PFC Pico suggested that might not be a terribly good idea.

Snow at Fort Gordon

SPC Pico told PFC Pico that she had known some people who did BCT at Fort Leonard Wood during the winter, and the soldiers in training got mustered out with snow shovels to take care of a foot of snow.

Apparently Charlie Company was the only one which fell in to formation outside this morning; PFC Pico was getting snowed on. :(

Congresswoman Giffords Shot UPDATE: Obama Reports She Has Opened Her Eyes

US Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D -AZ) was shot earlier today. Here’s Hot Air’s headline:

Breaking: Congresswoman, five others shot in Tucson, AZ; Update: NPR reports six dead; Update: KOLD reports Giffords still in surgery; Update: Federal judge dead; Update: Gunman identified; Update: Giffords expected to pull through

The bad news, and it’s really bad news, is that the Congresswoman, a Federal judge, several others were shot; some have died. The good news, which isn’t as good, is that the Congresswoman is expected to survive, the gunman was captured and identified.

This man needs to be executed.

And I pray those who were shot and have so far survived do have a full and speedy recovery.

UPDATE: Hot Air has posted what appear to be the culprit’s YouTube “manifestos.” Likely, they won’t last long. Here’s one of the three:

The guy sounds very much like a serious nutjob and a serious anarchist.

UPDATE 12JAN2010: HT aotc

The House of Representatives will vote to repeal ObaminableCare

From :


House takes step on health repeal

It’s a symbolic move, as Senate Democrats will block any move. But governors opened a new front.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press

WASHINGTON – House Republicans cleared a hurdle Friday in their first attempt to scrap President Obama’s landmark health-care overhaul, yet it was little more than a symbolic swipe.The real action is in states, where Republicans are using federal courts and governors’ offices to lead the assault against Obama’s signature domestic achievement, a law aimed at covering nearly all Americans.

In a postelection bow to tea partyers by the new GOP House majority, Republican lawmakers are undertaking an effort to repeal the health-care law in full knowledge that the Democratic Senate will stop them from doing so.

Republicans prevailed Friday in a 236-181 procedural vote, largely along party lines, that sets the stage for the House to vote next week on the repeal.

Shortly before the House vote, GOP governors representing 30 states opened up a new line of attack, potentially more successful.

In a letter to Obama and congressional leaders, the governors complained that provisions of the health-care law were restricting their ability to control Medicaid spending, raising the threat of devastating cuts to other critical programs, from education to law enforcement in a weak economy. It’s ammunition for critics trying to dismantle the overhaul piece by piece.

Moreover, a federal judge in Florida is expected to rule shortly in a lawsuit brought by 20 states that challenges the law’s requirement that most Americans carry health insurance. A judge in Virginia ruled it unconstitutional last month, while courts in two other cases have upheld it. It is expected that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the issue.

The move may be symbolic, but it is also the keeping of a promise: most of the Republican congressional candidates promised to work for repeal. Continue reading ‘The House of Representatives will vote to repeal ObaminableCare’ »

Dick Durbin Declares Ten Commandments Perfect Law

Senator Dick Durbin (D – IL) declared the Ten Commandments to be “the only perfect law.” Not only that, but he suggested all Senate Democrats deemed the Ten Commandments “the only perfect law.” But Durbin demoted Moses in the process, showing his lack of understanding of history, especially government history.

From The Daily Caller:

“[Republicans] shouldn’t expect the Senate to go along with this kind of wholesale repeal,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said. “A majority in the Senate still believes in health care reform. We also believe that the only perfect law ever enacted was carried down the mountain by Senator Moses. Every other effort has needed some visitation, reconsideration, and this will too.”

I’m sure leftists like OfA, CAP, Media Matters, PuffHo, Open Society, SEIU, NPR will be all over Durbin for his absolutist Judeo-Christian stance.