"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for the bills of rights." - The Federalist Papers No. 84 Alexander Hamilton.
I include the quote above, not to oppose the Bill of Rights, but as proof of the power not given to the national government, and which the Supreme Court of the United States agrees. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. the FEC to overturn parts of McCain-Feingold has been described as an affirmation of the First Amendment by some, and as a decision that favors big business over the individual by others. But those that see it as a decision favoring big business over the individual fail to understand the Constitution and the First Amendment. When the First Amendment was proposed as part of the Bill of Rights prior to the ratification of the Constitution, there was opposition to it. Alexander Hamilton wrote specifically about why he opposed bills for rights and used the First Amendment as an example. His quote above details the power of the national government with respect to speech and freedom of the press. The national government has no power. Hamilton's fear was that if an Amendment was passed protecting freedom of speech and the press, others would infer that the national government must have power to regulate free speech and the press, when it does not. Hamilton's own position justifies the decision by the Supreme Court.
By allowing the national government to prohibit businesses from speaking out on political issues, the national government is preventing both speech that is legitimate and truthful and speech that goes against the public interest. The national government's position was essentially that there is a greater interest to prohibit speech that can harm the political process than there is to allow speech that is helpful to the political process. In essence the national government places itself in the position of deciding which speech is good and which speech is bad. That is not a power the Constitution gives the government and it would be wrong to give government that power.
As to why it would be wrong to give government that power, let us consider an example. The Democrats and the President in particular have been saying that greedy banks that gave mortgages to people who couldn't afford them and traded those mortgages as commodities caused the housing crisis in this country. The banks were, until this ruling, prohibited from taking out ads pointing out the the crisis was not in fact their fault, but the fault of politicians in Washington, D.C. who for thirty years have passed laws forcing banks to make loans to low income people. They cannot point out that for thirty years, Congress has encouraged home ownership among the lower class and people with credit scores too low to qualify for a conventional mortgage. They are not permitted to point out that interest rates over the past ten years have been among the lowest in the nation's history. They cannot point out that they would not have been able to deny mortgages to people if they wanted to, because to do so could result in action against the bank by the government. So you have the Democrats and the President accusing the actions of the banks, but the banks cannot respond to those accusations. I that right? Is that constitutional? What is the result of this? The result is people hearing and believing the spin by the Democrats and the President without being presented with the facts from the group that is being attacked.
By allowing the government to decide who can speak and who can't, the government actually gives the advantage to the side that can speak to whatever it wants without the risk of being attacked. This can lead to one side twisting the truth, because they know the other side can't respond. That is why the national government does not have the authority to take freedom of speech from one group. To do so would threaten not just freedom of one group, but also our freedom as a whole.
Extremus
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Guantanamo - Why Closing it Won't Matter.
Shortly after Barack Obama signed an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The reason for the order, as the President has told us, and as we hear from people who want it closed, is that the terrorists are using it as a recruiting tool, thus making us less secure than we were prior to 9/11. That's right, by capturing terrorist and putting them in a detention facility outside the United States we make the country less secure than we were the day 19 radical Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes and flew two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into a farmer's field in Pennsylvania. Yeah. I'd like to know what the terrorists were using as a recruiting tool when they committed those attacks.
Closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay isn't going to make a difference. The detention facility itself and where it is are not the reason it is used as a recruiting tool. The fact that detainees are held at all is the reason. It doesn't make a difference to the terrorists where their comrades are held. It's that they are held at all. If the detention center is closed and the detainees are moved somewhere within the United States, then that location becomes the new recruiting tool for the terrorists. It won't matter that you give these people civilian lawyers and place them on American soil inside the United States. The terrorists will still say their comrades are being held by the Great Satan of America, that they are being abused, and that they must wage jihad to liberate their brothers. By moving the detainees to a location in the United States, you now make that location a target for terrorists which is more accessible than Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So the arguments that closing it will make us safer are false on their face. It is not going to matter. Instead the left is going to make the place these people are held a terrorist target, and spend millions more on security, just so that it will make us look good to the rest of the world. It's not going to make us more secure. The left does not respect the threat that terrorism poses. You need only look at their response to the Christmas bomber to see that.
There is no reason to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay that makes us more secure. None. Guantanamo Bay is United States territory. We can keep the detainees there and give them all the rights we want. They don't have to come to the United States for that. But go ahead, let's close it, do what you want. It's not going to make a difference.
Extremus
Closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay isn't going to make a difference. The detention facility itself and where it is are not the reason it is used as a recruiting tool. The fact that detainees are held at all is the reason. It doesn't make a difference to the terrorists where their comrades are held. It's that they are held at all. If the detention center is closed and the detainees are moved somewhere within the United States, then that location becomes the new recruiting tool for the terrorists. It won't matter that you give these people civilian lawyers and place them on American soil inside the United States. The terrorists will still say their comrades are being held by the Great Satan of America, that they are being abused, and that they must wage jihad to liberate their brothers. By moving the detainees to a location in the United States, you now make that location a target for terrorists which is more accessible than Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So the arguments that closing it will make us safer are false on their face. It is not going to matter. Instead the left is going to make the place these people are held a terrorist target, and spend millions more on security, just so that it will make us look good to the rest of the world. It's not going to make us more secure. The left does not respect the threat that terrorism poses. You need only look at their response to the Christmas bomber to see that.
There is no reason to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay that makes us more secure. None. Guantanamo Bay is United States territory. We can keep the detainees there and give them all the rights we want. They don't have to come to the United States for that. But go ahead, let's close it, do what you want. It's not going to make a difference.
Extremus
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Gay Marriage - It's Okay to Be Against It.
Ever feel like there are people in this world that hate you just because you are who you are? For instance, are you a person of faith who attends Mass on a regular basis; a person who believes in what the Bible says and takes its words to heart? Are you a person who listens to your pastors sermon and try to do the best you can to live by God's Law? If so, there are people who will call you a bigot. They will call you things I just cannot write. They will insult your intelligence. I say, don't be intimidated by them.
There are good people, who know the difference between right and wrong, but who get intimidated into changing there positions, because they don't want to be thought of as a bad person or a bigot. Nobody wants to be called those things. But that's no reason to change your position when people say such things. Realize that they are the bigots, the extremists, the radicals, who simply hate us for who we are.
Take the issue of gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with opposing it on moral grounds or for reasons of tradition. Yet people will say if you don't support gay marriage that you are a hateful person. Not true. I don't support gay marriage, and I'm not a hateful person. Two consenting adults can do what they want for all I care. I will hold no ill will towards them. But I will not support gay marriage.
My position is this. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for the purpose of starting a family. It is a thing of nature, a thing of tradition that has been the foundation of our civilization for more than 2,000 years. Without the tradition of marriage, we would not be the society we are. It would be vastly different, a society without morals or values. It is a thing of nature because a man and a woman are meant to be together. God made animals male and female, and designed them such that their union is essential for the survival of their species. Two people of the same sex can produce no fruit. They can't procreate. That is why society in general recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, because their union produces a benefit to society in the form of children.
Gay marriage produces no benefit to society. None. If two people of the same sex want to live together and build a life and do what they want to do in the privacy of their own home, that's fine by me, but society does not need to give a certificate of approval for two people to do that. That's how I see it, and that's why I'm opposed to gay marriage.
Don't be intimidated into giving up your values. There is nothing wrong with them. Anytime someone calls you a bigot, or an extremist, just point back at them and call them the bigots and the extremists. They are the radicals trying to change your world to fit their view. Stand up to them.
Extremus
There are good people, who know the difference between right and wrong, but who get intimidated into changing there positions, because they don't want to be thought of as a bad person or a bigot. Nobody wants to be called those things. But that's no reason to change your position when people say such things. Realize that they are the bigots, the extremists, the radicals, who simply hate us for who we are.
Take the issue of gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with opposing it on moral grounds or for reasons of tradition. Yet people will say if you don't support gay marriage that you are a hateful person. Not true. I don't support gay marriage, and I'm not a hateful person. Two consenting adults can do what they want for all I care. I will hold no ill will towards them. But I will not support gay marriage.
My position is this. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for the purpose of starting a family. It is a thing of nature, a thing of tradition that has been the foundation of our civilization for more than 2,000 years. Without the tradition of marriage, we would not be the society we are. It would be vastly different, a society without morals or values. It is a thing of nature because a man and a woman are meant to be together. God made animals male and female, and designed them such that their union is essential for the survival of their species. Two people of the same sex can produce no fruit. They can't procreate. That is why society in general recognizes marriage between a man and a woman, because their union produces a benefit to society in the form of children.
Gay marriage produces no benefit to society. None. If two people of the same sex want to live together and build a life and do what they want to do in the privacy of their own home, that's fine by me, but society does not need to give a certificate of approval for two people to do that. That's how I see it, and that's why I'm opposed to gay marriage.
Don't be intimidated into giving up your values. There is nothing wrong with them. Anytime someone calls you a bigot, or an extremist, just point back at them and call them the bigots and the extremists. They are the radicals trying to change your world to fit their view. Stand up to them.
Extremus
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Congratulations Scott Brown, Go Scott Go, Gas Up the Truck and Take it to Washington.
On January 19, Massachusett's voters shocked the nation and did something they haven't done since 1972. They elected a Republican to the United States Senate. I wish to congratulate Scott Brown. His election takes away the Democrat's filibuster proof majority. While we can only speculate the effect this will have on the Democrat's agenda, the election is definitely significant. I thought I would leave you with video of his victory speech, courtesy of Fox News. Just a note, the length of the speech is over 20 minutes and may take a little time to spool on your computer, so please be patient. The only other thing I can say is, gas up the truck! Gas up the truck! Gas up the truck!
Monday, January 18, 2010
The 2nd Amendment and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
This year the Supreme Court will be reviewing a case involving the 2nd Amendment, McDonald v. Chicago. The central question to be decided in this case will be whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. In my opinion it should.
The 2nd Amendment says, "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." Through it's expression, "the right", the 2nd Amendment is stating that right is a pre-existing right. It doesn't create the right to exist, it declares that the right does exist. In the absence of law, Man has certain natural rights. Among those are the rights to self-defense and self-preservation. In order to exercise the rights to self-defense and self-preservation one must have the means to exercise them, and thus must have the right to keep and bear arms for ones protection. The 2nd Amendment, therefore, declares the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits that right from being infringed.
However, one may ask, "why does the 2nd Amendment reference the militia?" I believe to answer that one needs to look at the Constitution and consider how the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution. When the Bill of Rights was drafted James Madison had wanted the first 10 Amendments to be inserted into the Constitution. However, this did not happen. Instead the Bill of Rights was tacked on at the end of the Constitution rather than having the individual Amendments inserted in various places within the Constitution. So, the way I see it, one needs to look at where the 2nd Amendment may have been inserted into the Constitution.
The place to look is Article 1, section 8. which states "The congress shall have power, To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." If you add the 2nd Amendment to that clause it would look like this; "The congress shall have power, To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. 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." Seen in that manner, I believe it makes more sense.
The militia section of the 2nd Amendment explains the importance of the militia in protecting a free State, it does not mandate membership in the militia to keep and bear arms, but rather protects the right to keep and bear arms in order that the Congress should be able to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. If states and their municipalities were able to take away a person's right to keep and bear arms, then the ability of Federal Government to call forth, organize, discipline, and arm the militia could be put at risk. As section 8 says, states are limited to appointing officers and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. It doesn't give states the right to take arms away from the people who would make up the militia. From this perspective my belief is that the 2nd Amendment is related to Congress' authority to organize the militia and it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Extremus
The 2nd Amendment says, "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." Through it's expression, "the right", the 2nd Amendment is stating that right is a pre-existing right. It doesn't create the right to exist, it declares that the right does exist. In the absence of law, Man has certain natural rights. Among those are the rights to self-defense and self-preservation. In order to exercise the rights to self-defense and self-preservation one must have the means to exercise them, and thus must have the right to keep and bear arms for ones protection. The 2nd Amendment, therefore, declares the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, and prohibits that right from being infringed.
However, one may ask, "why does the 2nd Amendment reference the militia?" I believe to answer that one needs to look at the Constitution and consider how the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution. When the Bill of Rights was drafted James Madison had wanted the first 10 Amendments to be inserted into the Constitution. However, this did not happen. Instead the Bill of Rights was tacked on at the end of the Constitution rather than having the individual Amendments inserted in various places within the Constitution. So, the way I see it, one needs to look at where the 2nd Amendment may have been inserted into the Constitution.
The place to look is Article 1, section 8. which states "The congress shall have power, To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." If you add the 2nd Amendment to that clause it would look like this; "The congress shall have power, To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. 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." Seen in that manner, I believe it makes more sense.
The militia section of the 2nd Amendment explains the importance of the militia in protecting a free State, it does not mandate membership in the militia to keep and bear arms, but rather protects the right to keep and bear arms in order that the Congress should be able to organize, arm, and discipline the militia. If states and their municipalities were able to take away a person's right to keep and bear arms, then the ability of Federal Government to call forth, organize, discipline, and arm the militia could be put at risk. As section 8 says, states are limited to appointing officers and training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. It doesn't give states the right to take arms away from the people who would make up the militia. From this perspective my belief is that the 2nd Amendment is related to Congress' authority to organize the militia and it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Extremus
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Individual Insurance Mandate - A Threat to Liberty
One of the features of the health reform legislation in Congress is the individual mandate that requires everyone to have insurance. The Senate bill justifies it by discussing the impact insurance has on the economy and the risk the uninsured have on the industry. Therefore the Senate bill justifies it through the commerce clause of the Constitution. But is this right? Can the Federal Government order you to buy a product because your failure to buy it can affect interstate commerce? I would argue no.
Article 1 section 8 says, "The Congress shall have power, To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The primary reason behind giving the Federal Government power to regulate commerce among the several states was to protect exporting states from other states their products would have to pass through in order to reach foreign or domestic markets. James Madison provided a cursory review of it in Federalist Paper Number 42. "A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruption of the public tranquility." So, the purpose of the power was to protect the goods of other states when they cross over state lines from the power of other states so as to maintain public tranquility. No where in that power does it give the Federal Government the power to force you to buy a product to maintain that tranquility.
If the Federal Government were to have the power to order you to buy a product, consider what this would mean to liberty. The health reform legislation requires that you purchase minimum insurance where they will decide what that minimum is. If you do not purchase that insurance, then you will be subject to fines by the IRS. Fail to pay the fine, and you will be subject to sanctions from the IRS, such as garnished wages, or lose of property, you could possibly even go to jail. This is an abuse of power by the Federal Government.
If the Federal Government has this power, what is to limit them from telling you that you need to buy something else because failure to do so would negatively impact interstate commerce. Consider the bail out of the auto manufacturers. Could the Federal Government order you to go and buy a car made by General Motors, in order to save the company and other companies contracted with General Motors. Let's take it back to insurance, will they be able to regulate what you eat, or how much you exercise because they argue that failure to eat right and exercise could impact interstate commerce? If the commerce clause gives the Federal Government such authority, what does that do to our freedom when the Federal Government has the authority to order us about without limit.
The commerce clause does not give the Federal Government the authority to order you to engage in a commercial transaction. They may create the conditions to encourage you to engage in a commercial transaction, but can't make you do it. That is a decision you must make for yourself, and if you don't want to make that decision, that is your right. This is a nation founded on the principles of freedom and individual liberty. I believe that health insurance reform in its present form, threatens those freedoms and liberty.
Extremus
Article 1 section 8 says, "The Congress shall have power, To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The primary reason behind giving the Federal Government power to regulate commerce among the several states was to protect exporting states from other states their products would have to pass through in order to reach foreign or domestic markets. James Madison provided a cursory review of it in Federalist Paper Number 42. "A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruption of the public tranquility." So, the purpose of the power was to protect the goods of other states when they cross over state lines from the power of other states so as to maintain public tranquility. No where in that power does it give the Federal Government the power to force you to buy a product to maintain that tranquility.
If the Federal Government were to have the power to order you to buy a product, consider what this would mean to liberty. The health reform legislation requires that you purchase minimum insurance where they will decide what that minimum is. If you do not purchase that insurance, then you will be subject to fines by the IRS. Fail to pay the fine, and you will be subject to sanctions from the IRS, such as garnished wages, or lose of property, you could possibly even go to jail. This is an abuse of power by the Federal Government.
If the Federal Government has this power, what is to limit them from telling you that you need to buy something else because failure to do so would negatively impact interstate commerce. Consider the bail out of the auto manufacturers. Could the Federal Government order you to go and buy a car made by General Motors, in order to save the company and other companies contracted with General Motors. Let's take it back to insurance, will they be able to regulate what you eat, or how much you exercise because they argue that failure to eat right and exercise could impact interstate commerce? If the commerce clause gives the Federal Government such authority, what does that do to our freedom when the Federal Government has the authority to order us about without limit.
The commerce clause does not give the Federal Government the authority to order you to engage in a commercial transaction. They may create the conditions to encourage you to engage in a commercial transaction, but can't make you do it. That is a decision you must make for yourself, and if you don't want to make that decision, that is your right. This is a nation founded on the principles of freedom and individual liberty. I believe that health insurance reform in its present form, threatens those freedoms and liberty.
Extremus
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Thoughts and Prayers to Haiti
I give my thoughts and prayers to the people of Haiti. The devastation and tragedy are much to bear, but the people of the world are with you. In response to the earthquake that has struck that nation, I have chosen to forgo any political commentary tonight, as it has no place this day. Instead I've decided to provide you with a list of organizations you can reach out to, and contribute to, to aid the people and country of Haiti. This list comes from Fox News and you can find the original article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582902,00.html.
American Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/
CARE: http://www.care.org/
Catholic Relief Services: http://crs.org/
Direct Relief International: http://www.directrelief.org/EmergencyResponse.aspx
Habitat for Humanity: http://www.habitat.org/
International Medical Corps: http://www.imcworldwide.org/Page.aspx?pid=183
International Relief Teams: http://www.irteams.org/index.htm
Lutheran World Relief: http://www.lwr.org/
Operation USA: http://www.opusa.org/
Salvation Army: http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf
Save the Children: http://www.savethechildren.org/?WT.mc_id=1109_hp_logo
Unicef: http://www.unicefusa.org/
World Concern: http://www.worldconcern.org/disasters/haiti-flooding.htm
World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org/
World Vision: http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?funnel=&item=1958776§ion=10324&go=item&
Americares: http://www.americares.org/
Partners in Health: http://www.pih.org/home.html
The International Rescue Committee: http://www.theirc.org/
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee: http://www.jdc.org/
Yele Haiti: http://www.yele.org/
American Red Cross: http://www.redcross.org/
CARE: http://www.care.org/
Catholic Relief Services: http://crs.org/
Direct Relief International: http://www.directrelief.org/EmergencyResponse.aspx
Habitat for Humanity: http://www.habitat.org/
International Medical Corps: http://www.imcworldwide.org/Page.aspx?pid=183
International Relief Teams: http://www.irteams.org/index.htm
Lutheran World Relief: http://www.lwr.org/
Operation USA: http://www.opusa.org/
Salvation Army: http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf
Save the Children: http://www.savethechildren.org/?WT.mc_id=1109_hp_logo
Unicef: http://www.unicefusa.org/
World Concern: http://www.worldconcern.org/disasters/haiti-flooding.htm
World Food Programme: http://www.wfp.org/
World Vision: http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?funnel=&item=1958776§ion=10324&go=item&
Americares: http://www.americares.org/
Partners in Health: http://www.pih.org/home.html
The International Rescue Committee: http://www.theirc.org/
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee: http://www.jdc.org/
Yele Haiti: http://www.yele.org/
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Why the title to my blog?
So, you may be reading this right now, and asking yourself, "Why the title Another Right Wing Extremist?" To confess, the title is more of a spoof on myself. I don't consider myself a right wing extremist, but my views may cause some to consider that I am. I consider myself a normal person, raised in a lower to middle class community. I am Roman Catholic and do not support abortion or gay marriage. I'm a member of the Knight's of Columbus, a member of the NRA, and a registered Republican. I don't always vote Republican in general elections though, but it's been years since I've voted for a Democrat. I support lower taxes, and economic policies that reduce dependence on welfare and spur growth and job creation. So, I don't doubt that some of you reading this will think, "this guy is an extremist." So, that explains the title. It's a spoof on what others may think of my views and opinions, and that's fine. I have no problem with that. If I'm an extremist because I believe life begins at conception, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that people have a right to keep more of what they earn, and that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, then so be it. I'm not afraid of the label. I'm not intimidated into being a liberal for fear that someone may believe my views are out there. I believe my views are what has been the basis behind the rise of Western Civilization over the last 1,000 years, and there is nothing wrong with that.
The reason I started this blog was to create a forum where I can express my own views. Which is another reason for the title "Another Right Wing Extremist". There are plenty of conservative bloggers out there, and I'm just one more of them. My goal is to talk about the things they don't talk about, or give a different view than the one they give to discuss aspect of an issue I think they may miss. I am not looking to be the farthest one on the right, nor am I looking to capture the middle. If you agree with me, that's good, and if you don't, that's too is okay with me.
Extremus
The reason I started this blog was to create a forum where I can express my own views. Which is another reason for the title "Another Right Wing Extremist". There are plenty of conservative bloggers out there, and I'm just one more of them. My goal is to talk about the things they don't talk about, or give a different view than the one they give to discuss aspect of an issue I think they may miss. I am not looking to be the farthest one on the right, nor am I looking to capture the middle. If you agree with me, that's good, and if you don't, that's too is okay with me.
Extremus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)