by ·Comments Off on What Do Alec Baldwin, Spike Lee and Rosie O’Donnell Have in Common?

Spike Lee, Alec Baldwin, and Rosie O’Donnell all have something in common. They don’t like the 2nd amendment . . . except when they want to invoke it to commit a violent statement against someone.

Alec Baldwin suggested shooting Henry Hyde’s wife and kids, Spike Lee wants to shoot Charlton Heston, and Rosie O’Donnell thinks Tom Selleck should be lined up with the rest. All because these men are trying to protect freedom guaranteed in the first and second Amendments.

Ironically, all these people believe that the same constitution protects the right of woman to kill her unborn child.

But what would the response be if the retort of Henry Hyde, Charlton Heston and Tom Selleck, had been as ugly and politically motivated?

For example, suggesting that Spike, Alec and Rosie have their brains sucked out after the base of their skull is punctured with scissors, as is done to live babies during a partial birth abortion? That would be considered outrageous, cruel, insensitive and just downright mean.

They are right, it would be… just as suggesting that people who support the 2nd Amendment and freedom, should be shot. This is Nina May challenging hypocrisy.

by ·Comments Off on What Do Alec Baldwin, Spike Lee and Rosie O’Donnell Have in Common?

Spike Lee, Alec Baldwin, and Rosie O’Donnell all have something in common. They don’t like the 2nd amendment . . . except when they want to invoke it to commit a violent statement against someone.

Alec Baldwin suggested shooting Henry Hyde’s wife and kids, Spike Lee wants to shoot Charlton Heston, and Rosie O’Donnell thinks Tom Selleck should be lined up with the rest.

All because these men are trying to protect freedom guaranteed in the first and second Amendments.

Ironically, all these people believe that the same constitution protects the right of woman to kill her unborn child… But what would the response be if the retort of Henry Hyde, Charlton Heston and Tom Selleck, had been as ugly and politically motivated?

For example, suggesting that Spike, Alec and Rosie have their brains sucked out after the base of their skull is punctured with scissors, as is done to live babies during a partial birth abortion?

That would be considered outrageous, cruel, insensitive and just downright mean. They are right, it would be . . . just as suggesting that people who support the 2nd Amendment and freedom, should be shot.

This is Nina May challenging hypocrisy.

 

 

by ·Comments Off on Should All Flags That Offend Even One Person Be Banned?

The best argument against the use of the confederate flag in state flags is that it “evokes visceral, emotional feelings.”

Remember the Vietnam days when the U.S. flags were being burned, cut up, desecrated as a few Americans were calling their own country imperialists? In their view, the American flag represented military oppression, murder, and aggression. Granted, they were a very small minority, but they were entitled to their opinion. And possibly, for a small number of veterans, who lived through the war, the flag still evokes “visceral, emotional feelings.”

They probably get a knot in their stomach when they see people saluting it as they remember the bodies of their dead friends floating in rice paddies under it. But does their bad experience, hate, and lack of respect for the flag mean it should be banned or outlawed?

No, what it means is that the flag protects their right to express their hate against it. Just as that same right is protected by those who hate the confederate flag . . . but that is not a good enough excuse to change history and destroy symbols that might “evoke visceral emotional feelings.” This is Nina May, still encouraging consistency in the law.

by ·Comments Off on When Third World Countries Show More Wisdom Than First World Countries

In Kampala, Uganda, there is a Gender Resource Center that deals with women’s issues such as reproductive rights. In their newsletter, Gender Alert, they discuss the issue of abortion and begin the discussion with the statement, “Scientifically, it is known that life begins as soon as conception takes place. At that moment a new being exists totally different from either the mother or father, with a different genetic make up and a complete set of 46 chromosomes. At this stage a human being is alive and capable of replacing his/her own dying cells, and at 18 days, the human heart begins to beat.”

It goes on to remind the reader that the Constitution of Uganda does not accord any person the right to take away the life of another person. By modern, international standards, certainly by American standards, Uganda would be considered a third-world country. But they are light-years ahead of first-world countries who won’t even acknowledge these basic immutable truths. And they have the courage to look at all the facts in a debate, even if the outcome isn’t what they would want.

Now, that’s enlightenment. This is Nina May at ninamay.com.

 

by ·Comments Off on Why is Money Always the Government’s Solution?

At a recent graduation ceremony, President Clinton mentioned the need for families to spend more time together. It was reminiscent of Dan Quayle calling for a return to family values.  Although the response to both was entirely different.

When Dan Quayle suggested it, he meant that the family should be responsible for instilling values in their children by monitoring the shows they see on T.V. that undermine these values. He was mocked and ridiculed.

Today, Bill Clinton suggests that families should spend more time together, and his solution, is to spend state reserves to pay workers for extra time off. Basically, the government will pay families to spend time together. The only reason there is extra tax money is because families are being taxed so much now that both parents have to work to create this reserve that the president so generously suggests giving back to them.

Here is a solution: Mr. President… lower taxes so that taxpayers can voluntarily, without compensation or award, spend time with their families. Now wouldn’t that be a novel idea? I wonder what all the presidential candidates think of that? Call them and ask them.

by ·Comments Off on Animal Rights Activist Thinks People Should Act More Like Animals — They Already Do!!!

I heard a very well-meaning animal rights activist tirade about how brutal and inhumane people are and that we can learn a lot from the kindness of animals. Sort of a Blanche Dubois take on society.

I asked her what she thought about the recent report of two chimpanzees at a national zoo that were part of a “teenage gang” as the zoo keepers described it. They terrorize the other chimps and one day, ripped a baby chimp from her mom’s arms and stomped her to death.

Without missing a beat, she explained this act by saying that animals will kill each other if their territory is threatened, or they don’t have food, or they don’t like another animal, or are hungry or they voted wrong in the last election. The list was quite long . . . and I agreed with every point on it. But what were humans supposed to learn from this again? That the ends justifies the means? Or that if they behave a lot more like animals than the world would be better place for all of us?

I guess we should be thankful that at least humans don’t eat each other.

This is Nina May for the Renaissance Women at ninamay.com.

by ·Comments Off on State Sponsored Stupidity in California’s New Domestic Partnership Law

The State of California, in its haste to appease the homosexual community has passed a law that says state employees will get domestic partner health benefits. Instead of looking at this as “anti-family,” “pro-gay,” we should see this as a great opportunity to get a lot of people on state-sponsored health care that otherwise would not qualify.

For example, if a state employee lives in a house with several other friends, these friends should qualify for benefits. The new law says the couple “should have a close and exclusive relationship in which each is responsible for the common welfare.” Well if sharing rent, meals and phone bills doesn’t qualify what does? It doesn’t say anything about having a sexual relationship. And the fact that they use the word “couple” should be challenged by, say a fraternity house, that can claim their brotherhood is as close as any couple’s.

I encourage every creative individual to take full advantage of the cowardice and lack of principle by the majority in the Californian Legislature and find a roommate that works for the state and let your tax dollars work for you for a change.

by ·Comments Off on Should We Pass More Laws, or Just Obey the Ones God Gave Us?

In the wake of yet another school tragedy, the politicians race to pass legislation that will pin the blame on an inanimate object. A gun.

Even though when students were asked by the President what could be done, and their response was put prayer back in school, politicians still think more anti-gun legislation as the answer.

The truth is, 20 of these laws alone were violated at Columbine High School. That is 20 out 20,000 laws concerning guns.

One more law on the books would not have deterred these two boys because society does not reflect the spirit of the law. Violence is glorified in movies, there is no respect for authority, the laws, adults, or teachers in any show on T.V.  Religious leaders are ridiculed and believers are called extremists. Children raise themselves, and the ACLU, along with other search and destroy groups, refuse to allow Internet blocking for kids who surf the net looking for violence and pornography.

The answer is not passing more laws, it is just obeying the ten that God has given us. If we did that, we wouldn’t even need politicians.

by ·Comments Off on Why Don’t Knifes and Other Weapons Have Waiting Periods and Background Checks?

I saw a show the other night that features unique video of real life events. One of the scenes, shot by a surveillance camera, was of a robbery in a jewelry store. What was interesting is that the three men who robbed the store and escaped, after intimidating the shop keeper and customers, did this all without any guns.

They had clubs and sticks and long knifes, that they smashed the cases open with. They had ski masks on so you couldn’t identify them, but not a single shot was fired… no one was really harmed… just scared.

I was amazed that I did not read anything in the paper about congress rushing to pass laws about the possession of clubs and long knifes during robberies, or the wearing of ski masks out of season in the act of committing a crime.

They are so eager to blame the weapon instead of the criminal I was certain there would be waiting period for the purchase of knifes.

But criminals aren’t on trial in the court of public opinion… 65 million law abiding gun owners, guns, and the Second Amendment are.

by ·Comments Off on Al Gore vs. Dan Quayle

If Al Gore can be considered a viable candidate for President, then so should Dan Quayle. T

hey both have identical resumes, except for ideology. Both served as U.S. Senators, and as Vice Presidents. The distinction is . . . Quayle was never Bush’s “Yes Man”, or enabler as Gore has been for Clinton.

When Bush waffled on family values, Quayle stepped out to the end of the branch, stated the truth, and both parties cut it out from under him.

He was right, and was the only one who had the courage to speak the truth.

Gore claims he invented the Internet and no one, including the real inventors, questions the obvious lie.

Quayle spells potato the way public school teachers have written it on a card and he becomes the butt of endless jokes.

Gore claims the earth is warming to the point where we should ditch our fridges and air conditioners and he is heralded as a genius . . . except by the real experts who think he’s wacky.

Dan thinks families are important and is called an extremist.

So if Gore is a viable candidate for President, then so is Quayle. And we all owe Dan an apology because he was right.

If you doubt it, just look at the headlines of the past few months.