Conservative Rumblings

Has Mayor Micheal Bloomberg made a little jaunt across the country? Unfortunately not; another nanny government city council is to blame for this ridiculous plan.

The one-year moratorium, proposed by Councilwoman Jan Perry, is aimed at attracting restaurants serving healthier fare to the area, where a study found 30% of children are obese.

A law that would bar fast-food restaurants from opening in South Los Angeles for at least a year sailed through the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday.

The council approved the fast-food moratorium unanimously, despite complaints from representatives of McDonald’s, Carl’s Jr. and other companies, who said they were being unfairly targeted.

So now we’re not just attacking what is in the foods, but we are physically taking the choice away from people (basically a ‘government-knows-best’ strategy).

We are citizens in a supposedly free country, governed by a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that say a citizen cannot “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

What if my life, my happiness, involves eating grotesque and grease-filled fast-food sandwiches? (it does, for the record). What right does the government have to tell me what I can or cannot eat? They have absolutely no right to do it. In this case, they are forcing people that want this food to go somewhere else, causing inconveniences in order to get a convenience food.

This is the beginning of food zoning. Governments now think that they can withhold food from adults simply because THEY decide it is unhealthy.

The government (be it local or Federal) needs to get it through their thick heads that we can make decisions for ourselves. We don’t want the government sanitizing our life and ‘protecting us from ourselves.’

This is a wholly unacceptable situation. People need to take responsibility for their actions; it’s not the government’s fault or their responsibility that people are fat. If parents don’t want to their kids getting fat off of McDonalds every day, then get control of your kids and don’t let them eat it! That’s not a hard concept to wrap your brain around! But no, but no…we can’t do that. We need laws and zoning requirements and moratoriums on new fast-food restaurants in order to fight this fat issue.

Now, to be fair, I don’t actually think that fast food restaurants are to blame for much of this. Rather, the sedentary lifestyle adopted by today’s kids is what is hurting that situation more. This again stems back to their parents. When I was a kid, I didn’t get a video game system until I was 12, and then I could only play for one hour a day and only AFTER I had finished my chores, my schoolwork and spent time outside.

That sort of regulation by parents is now unheard of. But, pointing the ray of blame back at themselves is too painful, so they wave their arms at the Burger King out the window and demand that the nanny government step in and help make their kids un-fat.

Unfortunately, the nanny government in Los Angeles is now listening.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, leveled a ruling about guns and the 2nd. Amendment. Shockingly, given their recent history of decidely liberal interpretations of things, they have sided with gun owners and struck down the D.C. handgun ban.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “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.”

This is purely amazing and possibly the most important decision they have made since Roe v. Wade. A 4-5 ruling would have led to a bevy of restrictive gun laws being proposed across the country almost instantly. Kennedy, who is usually much maligned on this blog, sided with the conservatives. The liberals, as usual, were tools, especially Breyer:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

Scalia’s majority opinion:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because “it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”

This is disgusting.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.

This decision is an absolute slap in the face to the prison, as well as the soldiers who worked to put those terrorists there. Obviously, I am a big fan of Guantanamo Bay, and this takes much of the purpose away from the place. If we can’t try enemy combatants as enemies, what is the point?

These men are not in any way shape or form guaranteed the rights of American citizens and it is deplorable for the Supreme Court to rule that they do. They are the enemy, with most of them captured on the field of battle while trying to kill American soldiers! I can just imagine the justices’ thought process: “Sure, let’s give them the rights of habeas corpus, what’s the worst that could happen???”

We are now living in a world where the average American citizen’s rights are being trampled on in the name of political correctness and national security, but we are going to make sure that the captured terrorists, who would try to kill us in a heartbeat if given the chance, are being afforded rights that they neither have claim to nor deserve.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is “at war with radical Islamists” and that the court’s decision “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

So, with the four conservatives voting to still consider the enemy, well, the enemy, it’s easy to figure out who wanted to give them rights: the liberals.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined [Anthony] Kennedy to form the majority.

So basically, we had the conservatives versus the liberals, with Kennedy, yet again, providing the activist swing vote that helped these lunatics to attack the Constitution and contribute to the ever-growing mountain of political correctness and radical Islam acceptance that is pervading the country. Now all we need is the Hamas-endorsed Obama as president and the transformation into a official apologist country for Islamofacism will be complete.

When a Islamic group informed Craig Baker that the pigs he was raising on his farm, a farm that had been owned by his family for 200 hundred years, had to go, Baker fought back.

Pig races! PIG RACES! Ladies and Gentlemen, pure genius is really the only way to describe that; I tip my hat to Mister Baker, for standing up for himself, his family and his rights.