piratepatriot's Blog

When I came across Amendment 1, I heard that it was intended to remove a decades old "Jim Crow Law" from the Florida Constitution. So, I took a few moments and reviewed the language of the Article 1, Section 2:

SECTION 2.  Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.

The Amendment seeks to remove "except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law,"  because proponents say that it is racist and was intended to keep Asians from owning property in the early 20th Century. The problem with this argument is that no matter what the original intent MAY have been, the reality is that the language DOES NOT refer to anyone's race. In fact, the very next sentence says "No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability."

The reason to vote NO on Amendment 1 is to prevent illegal aliens from owning property in a country they are not supposed to be in to begin with! The language also uses the legal term "may" instead of "shall," which means the government can decide when and if to exercise the law. Not only can this law prevent illegal aliens from owning property, but also potentially terrorists, drug trafficers and others who seek to hurt Americans.

Don't be intimidated into voting yes for this. VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm going to vote today, so I sat down to fill out my sample ballot. There are some very important decisions in this election and I want to share them with you.

1. John McCain - Experience we know is better than Hope (or Hype) we don't. The Army Times released a poll that says 73% of Active Duty service members are voting for McCain. Considering they are the ones fighting, their opinion means more than those who have never fought for their country, period.

2. Eddie Adams - I'm not sure if he is the right man for the job, but he can't be worse than Kathy Castor. In her first term as a Congresswoman, she has backed the vast majority of liberal agendas in Washington. She also backed expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program by taxing the Cigar Industry. Wanting to help kids is always a good thing, but wanting to unnecessarily tax a historic industry from your hometown is just plain silly. I am not a cigar smoker, but targeting one specific industry to finance a social agenda is wrong.

3. Yes to FL Supreme Court Chief Justice Wells. He was appointed by Gov Chiles, but has shown himself to be a deep legal thinker and was the loudest dissenting voice during the 2000 Election Debacle. He wrote that "prolonging of judicial process in this counting contest propels this country and this state into an unprecedented and unnecessary constitutional crisis."

4. Yes to Judge  Chris W. Altenbernd - Admired by his peers and has distinguished himself on the bench.

5. No to Judge Carolyn Fulmer - An Activist Judge that is too eager to legislate from the bench.

6. No to Amendment 1. Proponents have tried to dress this up as a "Jim Crow Law," but the Amendment currently reads as "Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law." What's wrong with wanting to regulate the property rights of people who are ineligible for citizenship? And to try and dress this up as racism is totally deceitful and a pathetic scare tactic.

7. Yes to Amendment 2. I am ok with gay couples wanting Civil Unions and all the priviledges that come with it. I do have a problem with them wanting to call it marriage. If they want to visit their partner in the hospital or be able to make health care decisions, then they can enter into a Health Care Surrogate Agreement. They can also enter into Powers of Attorney and have Wills.

8. No to Amendment 8. I am not into subsidizing additional education programs. There are plenty of places to get money for college. You just need to take the time and look for it like I did.

9. No to County Mayor. There is already enough beaurocracy. Adding another layer will just cost more money and cause more problems.

10. Yes to City of Tampa Amendment 1. Pam Iorio has used the City Attorney to try and bully the City Council in matters involving the Hillsborough River and the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. Since the Mayor appoints the City Attorney, the Council does not have a legal advisor that has its interests in mind. It will cost the city more money, but the Mayor can cut her salary back to what it was to pay for a portion of it.

This is my view and how I'm voting.

I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO thankful the Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s handgun ban this morning. Finally, our 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms has been affirmed! Justice Scalia is absolutely correct in his opinion that the "right to bear arms is supported by 'the historical narrative' both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. All anyone has to do is read some on the writings between the Founding Fathers to see that......

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
 Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington

The Founding Fathers were VERY CLEAR in their demand that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. What's amazing to me, is that the Liberal Justices on the Supreme Court want to ignore or deny that basic right. I cringe to think how this would have turned out if Gore or Kerry had been elected.

Ok Everyone.....I made a remark in my other blog that poses an interesting question. If you could bring back any President to serve for the next 4 or 8 years, who would it be and why? For me, it's a toss up between Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

Right now, Teddy's "Talk softly but carry a big stick" mentality would be ideal in these dangerous times.  Being the original "Trust Buster," I think that he would put the Oil  Industry and other corrupt corporations in check. Teddy says what he means and means what he says!

The Gipper, aka Ronnie,  would also be great because America really needs a President that can lift our Spirit and give us hope as a nation again.  Also, the Middle East knows from past experience that the Gip would have no problem turning them into a parking lot if they don't get their act together!  China would also think twice about messing with the Gip!

What about the rest of you? Who would you pick?

After last night's embarrassing results, Hillary is once again trying to "re-create" herself as the "youth" candidate instead of Obama.  It is another pathetic example of how the Clintons change their opinions and beliefs based on the political winds.  Her campaign threw everything it had into the Iowa Caucus, to include Bill, Chelsea, her mom, several high profile Democratic figures and a lot of money.  Even with all that, 70% of Iowa Democrats rejected her and her ideas.

Unfortunately, many people will fall for her latest attempt to rebrand herself.  She claims that she is the most experienced Candidate, even though she spent most of her life in Bill's shadow.  What is most offensive to me, is that she claims that she is ready to be Commander in Chief on her first day in office.  I remember the 90's, when most of us in the military referred to Bill's Administration as the "Dark Times."  Morale was very poor, money was scarce and I suspect it would be even worse under Hillary.

Anyone But Hillary!!! (or Edwards or Obama)

I saw on the Yahoo page today that Sean Penn is visiting Venezuela as an "independent journalist." He actually had the nerve to say that "I came here looking for a great country. I found a great country." Are you kidding me? Anyone with half a brain KNOWS Chavez is a DICTATOR!!!!!! It's very scary to me that the Militant Left actually believes mainstream America agrees with him.  This just shows how much of a whacked out ultra liberal he is...along with Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte and Cindy Sheehan. Well....everyone knows how much a whacked out ultra lib she is!

 
 

 

 

Ok....

 Cathy Castor has been in office for nearly 7 months now and what has she actually accomplished? She has done some good things, but she has also been a contributor to the gridlock in Washington. Both sides are guilty of "towing the partyline." That is because the vast majority of people in national politics are professional politicians.  Would anyone other than me be willing to support someone who is not a professional politician next year?
 

It continues to amaze me - no, sicken me - how Homeowner's Associations, Condominium Associations and Landlords ignore the rights afforded to our citizens through Florida Statutes.  (See, Fla. Stat. §§ 720.304(2) & (3), 718.113(4) and 83.67).  These statutes specifically allow homeowners, condominium owners and tenants to display a US flag, regardless of these groups' attempts to prevent otherwise by passing "anti-decoration" provisions.  I hope Brandon Davis is able to find an attorney who will help him enforce his rights and stick it to his homeowner's assoc.  As far as I'm concerned, he earned the right to fly the US flag outside his door. 

No one can possibly deny that the shootings at Virginia Tech were nothing short of tragic.  However, after reading the remarks made by some foreign governments and newspapers, I became VERY annoyed.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said that his country "took action to limit the availability of guns and [we] showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."  Italy's newspaper,  Corriere della Sera, particularly annoyed me with its story,  "Guns at the Supermarket." they wrote....

... "The latest attack on a U.S. campus will shake up America, maybe it will provoke more vigorous reactions than in the past, but it won't change the culture of a country that has the notion of self-defense imprinted on its DNA and which considers the right of having guns inalienable." ...

It amazes me that a culture would think the Right to bear arms and self defense was an offensive or less-evolved belief.  It's that very Right that has prevented a Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Kim Jong Ill from coming to power here in the United States. The founding fathers believed the Right to bear arms was essential in deterring tyranny. I for one, agree 100% with them!