About Me

Name: Kyle Singleton
Email: huskyonspeed@hotmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Democrat Congress + Obama = ?

Conventional thought suggests that the Democrat party will increase their majorities in both houses of congress in this election.  Depending on what polls you look at, they may even approach the 60 seat threshold in the Senate for invoking cloture on filibusters.  The question is: which presidential candidate to we want to work with the Democrat-controlled congress?  Let's take a brief history lesson.  Both the Clinton years and the Reagan years are generally considered to be "good times" with a strong economy.  Both of those presidents accomplished much of their along with the other party: Reagan with Tip O'Neill and a Democrat house, and Clinton with Newt Gingrich and a Republican congress.  In contrast, President Carter and a democrat congress in the 70's isn't remembered quite as fondly.  The point is, America is great not because of the greatness of one political party or the other, but because of the American people.  The 2 parties have shown the ability to work together when the circumstances require it, but it is my view that, in general, no government action is better than too much government action.  
Let's flash back to the present.  John McCain has shown the ability to work with Democrats on legislation (much to my disliking).  I think he has the leadership to work with a democrat congress, check their power when necessary, and work together with them when necessary.  Barack Obama, so far, does not have a record of bipartisanship or leadership, to be frank.  Maybe, as president, he will work with Republicans as well as Democrats on Capitol Hill.  Maybe he won't.  The choice is yours. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dino Rossi for Governor!

I'll admit, I don't follow state-level politics as much as the national scene.  But I had the opportunity to attend a rally for the GOP nominee, Dino Rossi, today, and even shake his hand.  His wife spoke as well and said that he only spends money on "needs" and not "wants".  I think we need more business-minded people like Mr. Rossi in Government!  As President Harding said, "we need less government in business and more business in government." I'm also supporting him because he says he will reverse a ruling by the state pharmacy board that forces pharmacists to dispense "Plan B" pills even if it violates their religious beliefs, which I feel is a terrible ruling by the board.  The mother of 2 of my friends is a pharmacist and is involved in a lawsuit about this ruling.  
I encourage any Washington State residents reading this to remember to vote for Dino!  He lost by only 133 votes last time, every vote is important!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Debunking liberal arguments about gun control (constitution style)

As we know, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution speaks about gun rights, saying, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  To most people of common sense, that speaks clearly to individuals being able to own guns without restriction.  But, some of our friends on the left bring up the "well regulated Militia" clause to justify restricting gun rights.  So, what exactly is a militia?  The constitution makes several other references to the militia.  Article 1, section 8, (the powers of congress) grants congress the power to "provide for calling forth the Militia... to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..." this shows that the militia has something to do with the organized military, but as you will see in section 8, the militia is separated from the army and navy, which congress has more direct control over.  Article 2, section 2 grants the president power of commander in chief of the army, navy, and the "militia of the several states, when called into actual service of the United States." So the militia is a state-based organization, like the national guard? Not exactly.  "No State shall, without the consent of congress... keep troops (article 1, section 10)."  So, the state doesn't have right to run it's own military, outside of congress's approval.  And, in fact, the constitution grants no party the authority to regulate the milita.  The militia was simply considered to be white men eligible to serve their country in combat.  Since then, we have extended equal rights and protection to women and minorities as well, so they are also in the "militia".  So who does get to regulate the militia?  Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Clearly, the people!  The second amendment simply says that adults can own guns, without exception.  Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »