Our moronic representatives

OK, so let me see if I have this right. Some of the duly elected members of congress, elected to represent WE the people and to help uphold our rights, have decided to hold a sit-in. To throw a temper tantrum because other members of congress won't let them vote to further restrict the rights of Americans?

Really?

A friggen sit-in? What is this 1964? What are they 14 years old?

Let us not forget what this sit-in is about. It is about those that have been elected to protect our rights wanting to impost their desires on all Americans. What are those desires? They want to deny an American citizen their God given right to a firearm based on that individual being listed on a secret, government list. A list you would not know you were even on until you tried to take a flight or purchase a gun. A list you would not be told why you were on it, in fact they won't even acknowledge that you are even on this list that is preventing you from buying a gun. There is practically no way for you to get yourself off of this list as in part the government will not admit that you are on it. You broke no laws, you didn't do anything, you are just on this list. You are on this list because some bureaucratic somewhere thought you maybe, might be someone or friends with someone that might be suspicious. Or they checked the wrong box on a form. Or they mis-spelled some actual terrorist's name. Regardless, done, finished, over for you. No due process, no court hearings, nothing. Your ability to fly and your gun rights are just gone.

Do you want that? Here in America?

I don't. WE DON'T DO THAT HERE.

You want to do something? STOP LETTING THESE TERRORISTS ENTER THE COUNTRY! Why not start there? Don't let these vile Imams in. Don't let terrorist sympathizers in. Don't let someone running for President of the U.S.A. accept donations from countries and groups that promote terrorism!

Do all those things first and if we still have issues, we can talk BUT secret lists that strip citizens of their rights is NEVER OK.

This is also yet another reason why we should have a much weaker Federal Government. Such unserious people should not have so strong a say in normal citizen's lives. If an individual state wishes to elect these folks to state office, fine. I don't care. You generally get the government you deserve. But with these folks at the Federal level and with so much power, the rest of the country is forced to suffer for the idiocy of just a few states.

Oh and don't forget:

Your 'Right" to health care

What he said and it goes for all of these other "rights" that people are constantly prattling on about. I hate to break it to you but you have no "right" to affordable anything, whatever affordable means. You also have no right to air travel, a cell phone, cable, a seat in any restaurant or to shout your opinion to anyone else and not have them shout right back at you.

Bill of No Rights

This counter argument to the ever creeping liberalism and ever growing list of so called "rights" was spot on when I first read it in the mid-90s and still nails it on the head today. The only "real" right this country gives you is the right to fail. You win or loose on your own in this country. That is the price of personal responsibility. The ability to make right and wrong decisions.

If you care about the Internet...

If you care about the Internet, unrestricted speech and browsing, you will go to this site, read it and follow along, before it is too late...

1 large person + 1 small plane = big trouble...

OK, here we go again. The background is (please feel free to follow the link and review for your self) a large woman is upset at Southwest for requiring that she purchase a second seat ticket before they would let her board the plane. Part of her complaint is that the policy is applied in a non-uniform manner (valid) and that the decision to require or not require the additional seat is made by the gate attendant (not valid and I will tell you why) and that the policy was difficult to locate on their web site (valid). What really got me though was this passage:

But you know what? I didn’t choose the plane. The airline did. This situation is caused by the space, not by my body, just like access to public spaces for people with mobility impairments is impeded by curbs and stairs and narrow bathroom doors, not by the wheelchair itself. Of course, the airline is under no obligation to design a plane that suits me, but if they are offering a particular service which I purchase a ticket for, and I am willing to suffer temporary discomfort for the benefit of traveling swiftly to a distant destination, isn’t that my decision, not theirs?

What? “This situation is caused by the space, not by my body…” You mean to say that you are one of those rare individuals who actually have a glandular disorder and it is through absolutely no actions on your part, that you are the size you are? If that is the case, you may have a point and please accept my apologies and you can stop reading now.

Then there was this gem: "Why is any other passenger’s comfort and right to travel affordability more important than mine"?

OK, first off, the ability to freely travel is a right, but there is no right to air travel. Today, most people assume it is but it is not. You use the airline at their discretion and they have the right to refuse service to anyone. If you do not feel that it was fair that they refused you service, you have the right to sue them for redress. Also, you are not the only one on the plane. There will be others there as well that will need to maneuver in the same area that you do. Someone will need to sit next to you (if you do not purchase a second set) so what about their expectation to be able to make use of all of the space that they have paid for? If you are of a size that a belt extender is needed, that means that you will not easily fit into the set dimensions. You will “over flow” to the sides. That means that the person that is seated next to you will not be able to have full use of their space. How is that fair to them? I have had the occasion to ride on an airplane next to a larger than average person on more than one occasion and it is NOT fun. I am not referring to the individual persons, I am referring to being turned into a sardine in MY seat, the seat that I paid for and do not get full use of. The extra seat (you did not want to buy) was to give everyone ample (or at least their expected) room.

As to your issue with the gate attendant making the call as to the need for a second seat, the gate attendant is the guaranteed last person to see the passengers before the plane leaves. They are in the best position to know the capacity of the plane and the availability of seating. They should make the call.

Rights

This column contains one of the best descriptions of a real “rights” that I have run across recently:

…a right is something that exists simultaneously among people and imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech, or freedom to travel, is something we all simultaneously possess. My right to free speech or freedom to travel imposes no obligation upon another except that of non-interference. In other words, my exercising my right to speech or travel requires absolutely nothing from you and in no way diminishes any of your rights.

ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT! Thank you so very much! Coming across this column and this passage was like finding an oasis in the desert. I am just so very tired if hearing every single special interest group in the world prattling on about this or that so-called right. The right to a place to live, a living wage (what ever that is), medical care, food, Internet access, WiFi access, ad nauseam. It is like grand sale day at John’s Bargain Store with all the claims for these rights.

I FEEL that everyone should have all of these things but I also FEEL that they should have them as a result of their own EFFORTS, not as a result of a third-party agency (i.e. the government) taking something away from one person to give to another, that the other already has equal access to (just not the means to buy it). For example, the prescription drug benefit that is getting all kinds of attention right now. It is decried as not doing enough to help old folks with their medicine. I am sorry but why is it a mandatory requirement for me to help someone else pay for their medicine? I have insurance that helps pay for mine. I have insurance because I have a job. I do a good enough service for a company that they continue to employee me and pay me money every week. I use this money that I earned to pay for things I want and need. I also set money aside for when I am old and/or out of work. This is called planning for the future. I do all of these things because I am a responsible person and wish to make decisions for myself and take care of myself. If I don’t happen to have enough money for all the things I want or need then I have to make choices, set some priorities and live with the consequences of those choices.

Because not everyone is like me and actively taking responsibility for today and tomorrow, the government takes some of the money that I earn and gives it to others that are less prepared for today and the future. The government does other things to help the country to operate but it seems to spend less and less time, effort and MY money doing what it was originally designed to do and instead is spending more and more time, effort and MY money trying to be grandma to everyone.

The only real right everyone in this country actually has is the right to FAIL. The right to try to make a life for yourself and your family and to fall flat on your face in that effort. You also have the right to pick yourself up, dust your self off and try again. You do not have a right to expect anyone to help you or for the government to give you anything because you don’t think something is fair. Life is not fair but generally speaking, it is what you make of it.