A sweeping legislation has been introduced in the Senate to give the President power to control the activity on both public and private networks all in the name of national security – a recent networkworld.com artcile cites. The marketing line of the bill states that it is in the interest of protecting computer system of the Federal Government as well as those deemed critical to national infrastructure. On the surface, that seems like a good idea in consideration of a computer virus outbreak or cyber attack; however, the bill reached much further than the soundbytes suggest. Here are a few quotes from the article:

“This is pretty sweeping legislation, says Harris. Seems the President could turn off the Internet completely or tell someone like Verizon to limit or block certain traffic, she said. There is a lot to worry about in this bill.”

“The bill was introduced by West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller….and Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine…” (I just have to comment here because in my experience, WV has one of the weakest wide-area technical infrastructures I’ve ever seen, but Maine on the other hand is strong even though rural.) Rockefeller says the legislation addresses the threat to private sector infrastructure such as banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, and telecommunications. But even Rockefeller said the bill was a starting point and not a finished product.” – in other words, they aren’t going to stop controlling things there.

All this power grab, control, and invasion of privacy ironically supported by the very people who wailed about the Patriot act. Hypocrites! The liberals are the very tyrannical, jack-booted thugs they keep warning you about. As for Senator Snowe (R) of Maine. She’s a RINO.

Radical and Right

Red State Radical

Resources:

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/040209-obama-cybersecurity-bill.html?netht=ts_040209&nladname=040209dailynewspmal

I am really getting tired of hearing the diversionary response of spineless politicians when asked if they support the Second Amendment of our Constitution.  Quite often they will say, and I quote, “I am in favor of protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen”.  This is a politicially-correct, pansified response.  You won’t hear this from the enviro-extremists or unashamedly fascist politicians who are against any guns, meat-eating, and people altogether.  You will hear this response from the moderates and anyone who doesn’t want to get a lot of grief mail or is seeking re-election because it upsets the smallest number of people, and unfortunately this actually placates many who are concerned.  What’s even worse is that it completely diverts attention from the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment.

I have an announcement to make:  “The purpose of Second Amendment of the Constitution is not focused on hunters and sportsmen, it’s focused on defense.”

The second amendment covers two lines of defense as derived contextually throughout the Amendment itself and the entire Bill of Rights.  The first line of defense is national defense.  After all, it is pretty fearsome for an enemy to attack a nation who not only has a well-armed defense force, but a well-armed citizenry.  The second line of defense is self-defense.  When national defense is not the issue, there is still a need for personal protection against predators, criminals, and yes “contextually speaking to the Bill of Rights” tyrants.  The Second Amendment protects all the rest.  It keeps a free people free. It does not talk about hunters and sportsmen, it talks about defense, and it’s about time that the politicians who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic live up to their oath and get behind the idea of preserving the right of personal defense of private citizens.  Hunters and sportsmen have been around since the creation of humans, and simply benefit from the advancement of weapon technology.

When asked about their support of the Second Amendment, their answer should be “I fully support the right of our nation to defend itself.  I also fully support the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms to defend themselves.”  if they don’t answer this way, they are in violation of their oath, they are bordering on treason, and they should be removed from office for not protecting or even working to violate our rights as citizens.

Radical and Right

Red State Radical

I find myself failing to understand why environmentalists are so concerned about the extinction of one particular species or another.  My reason is because this position conflicts with their own core philosophy.  Most of these people are evolutionists.  They believe in Darwinism.  They believe in “natural selection”.  They believe in “survival of the fittest”.  So why then do they fight what according to their core philosophy is a completely futile fight?  This is a paradox.  This is hypocritical.  If they truly believe what they say and say what they believe as far as evolution is concerned, then they should shut up and let nature take it’s course.  Why try to save something that isn’t fit to survive?  It’s a waste of time and resources that could be spent on things that are going to stick around.  The factis that most the the species that have gone extinct have done so without our help through natural not man-made changes in the global environment.

(more…)

Trees live on carbon dioxide
Trees are made of carbon
So why are we trying to get rid of carbon in the name of helping trees?

Maybe we should reduce the carbon footprint by cutting down all of the trees. We’d certainly be rid of the tree problem then, wouldn’t we? Hey, it’s what liberals do with unborn babies. So there’s the solution, we need to implement global tree abortion to rid ourselves of this concern.

For more great articles like this go to http://redstateradical.com/

Another one of my Humanities coursework discussion postings:

If one could attribute a theme to the history of humanity it would be this: “we can’t do this on our own”. If we just take western culture as an example, we see that humanity has washed, rinsed, and repeated revolutions of philosophical thought over and over again. We have gone through several micro-cycles of chaos, adjustment, and balance.

(more…)

By proud admission, the Ancient Romans were imperialists. They believed they had the ideal culture, and that it was their destiny to conquer and rule the world under their system. While America has certainly been accused of imperialism, the American way is truly different.

(more…)

This is a discussion posting I wrote for a Humanities course that I am taking. I decided to post it here for posterity.

I love what I like to call “mental morsels”. I am talking about those interesting little tidbits of information that you get when studying subjects like this where certain elements of cultural development and etymology are discussed. These kinds of thoughts that the mind can savor, are some of what makes history so important to me.

(more…)

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.

From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend

themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

(more…)

Alleged source:

WRITTEN BY A 15 yr. Old SCHOOL KID IN ARIZONA :

New Pledge of Allegiance (TOTALLY AWESOME) !

Since the Pledge of Allegiance
And
The Lord’s Prayer
Are not allowed in most
Public schools anymore
Because the word ‘God’ is mentioned….
A kid in Arizona wrote the attached

(more…)

In the past 60 years, where have we gone as a country. We’ve taken a bad turn from practical discipline and common sense, and gone to a new morallity that is sinking our country. The source of this is credited to a 2008 High School grraduate. God bless them and their parents!

For more great articles like this go to http://redstateradical.com/

(more…)

Newer Posts »