Catholicism, Contraception, and How Freaking Stupid Are Progressives?

Since I have been driving in excess of 250 miles a day, every day, for the past week, I have had a good opportunity to hear the national news on the radio plenty of times. I have heard almost every network play this clip of the moronic Nancy Pelosi and her clown-like statement on the House hearing about Barry Obama trying to throw out the First Amendment and referencing a ridiculously stupid, WRONG statistic on how many Catholic women break doctrine on contraception.

Did you understand that last paragraph?

Ignore that Nancy states that the House was having a hearing on women's health, in fact the hearing was about whether or not the President could simply MAKE A LAW telling Catholics that they had to provide a service or item, that specifically breaks their doctrine, to all of the people that work for their church and the service organizations they run. Firstly, the President CANNOT make any laws, but he can come in and force people to do certain things by Executive Order (FIAT) or by getting one of his goon squad federal agencies to regulate those hideous things into existence. However, I want you to understand that Barry pushing this item on Catholics is exactly like what is going to happen when I am President and force all Muslims to have sex with dogs and pigs. I am going to do it, too! Of course, it won't be really hard to do because most Muslims already screw sheep and camels.

Anyhoo, here's the video. Take it away, Assclown!

VIDEO REMOVED FROM YOU TUBE.
Now, is there anyone on Earth that believes that 98% of Catholic women use birth control? If you do, I feel sorry for you because you are retarded. I wonder where in the mortal Hell that number originated? Oh, here's the pdf of the study from Guttmacher. You would think that it is a monumentally huge tome, huh? No, it is just eight pages and the first two are title and index.

Here's what I found about this study's findings. FROM READING IT.

1. The study did not specifically point out that the best means of contraception according to "Progressives" is homosexual men having anal or oral sex.

So, maybe the idiots in the national media, "Progressives," just took that study that was done for no purpose that I can find, (other than to attack Catholics, just read it.) and turned Gutt's silly numbers to attack the Republican controlled House of Representatives that are making baby steps to protect our BILL OF RIGHTS!!!

2. The only women that were polled were ones that had had sex in the last three months, who were not pregnant, postpartum, or trying to get pregnant. (p8, par 4)

Now, if you are "Progressive," the only reason you would get pregnant would be to have an abortion, remember? But, on the three months thingy, most media types would think that was 100% of all women because media types have sex regularly with multiple unknown partners like 176.67% of all stupid "Progressives." This is untrue in reality with PRACTICING Catholics though.

3. The women polled, who affiliated with Catholicism, did not have to actually PRACTICE the religion.

Of all women that have had sex in the last three months and were studied for this joke, 25% said they were Catholic. Of that number, 20% NEVER went to Mass, 26% attended less than once a month, 20% monthly, and 33% went to Mass once a week. (p4 first bulleted list, last item)

4. One thing that no one even mentions, never married women that actually PRACTICE a religion as a group do not throw that monkey around like "Progressive" women. (p4 second column, third bullet, 48% screw)

Guttmacher actually gives you ALL of the data to intellectually make Nancy's statement into the stupidity that it really is.

So, just to recap, of "Catholic" women in the study, who have had sex in the past three months, only one third went to Mass regularly. So, just to recap that, because I actually HAVE a brain, we ignore all Catholic women, 15-44, that are NOT SCREWING. If a single, Catholic woman actually FOLLOWS doctrine, she is NOT screwing to begin with, so Gutt doesn't count her. Wonder why? Because they cannot use those women to help erode our RIGHTS...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please take the time to comment.

Blackuary 12, 2012 - Black Presidents Suck

When President Obama first started running for office, the second after saying that he was unqualified, normal people knew that we were in for a monumental letdown. The national media told us that this guy was a young, dynamic, intelligent smarty-pants, but people that were not stupid knew otherwise.

Since the time that the United States of America elected our first "black" president, not one single metric has gotten better. We could go through his entire ideology to point out how he is wrong on everything he believes, but let's focus on just one topic instead.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am not sure when I first grasped the content of the First Amendment, but I think that I was in the third grade or thereabouts. Obviously, Barry Obama, the "Constitutional Scholar," has never seen this little thing contained in our country's legalese or either he has read it and determined it to be irrelevant to his governance.

Let's take a look at some other things that he could ignore instead.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You see, you either follow the law or you do not. You cannot pick and choose what laws you do or do not follow or else you open yourself to the CHANCE that all laws can be struck from the record.

Now, when the colonists, WHO WERE SLAVE OWNERS!!!, decided that they had had enough bullshit from the government in faggy, old England, they got together and kicked the shit out of their masters in the government. A few years later, those very people got together again and decided to finally do away with slavery in all its forms.

If we do the actual math, the newly formed United States of America had legal slavery from 1787 to 1865, a total of seventy-eight (78) years. By way of comparison, faggy, old England had legal slavery from around 927 to 1833, a total of about nine hundred six (906) years. England had legal slavery for about eleven times longer than the United States. Get that through your heads, y'all.

By the way, if you are remotely curious when the FIRST black member of Parliament was elected, that would be 1987, when three were elected. As far as blacks were elected to Congress, the first black REPUBLICANS were elected in 1870. The first black DEMOCRAT was elected in 1935, 65 years later.

Now, I told y'all all this history, of which "Progressives" know nothing, to explain to y'all what is happening in our country.

We have a president that has determined that the VERY FIRST amendment to our Constitution means nothing. That has ramifications that are going to cause many problems in the years ahead. You see, Democrats use race to determine everything. Since this horrible President just happens to have a darker skin color, his monumental failures are going to be assigned to the color of his skin by Democrats. Of course, ignore the fact that is the only reason he got elected in the very first place. Now, if history is any indicator of the future at all, Barry Obama's chances of reelection are very slim and that is a good thing.

NOT! because of his skin color, but because of his desire to undermine the Constitution.

Obama has made it perfectly clear that he is determined to FORCE the Catholic Church to administer contraceptives to their employees. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is unimportant to him and he has made that perfectly clear. This sets a dangerous precedent for the future when the typical Democrat gets elected again. If Obama is allowed to ignore the Bill of Freaking Rights, why would another Democrat President not be allowed to ignore the subsequent amendments?

Meet the New Democrat, same as the old Democrat!

Please take the time to comment.

Guns, the Supremes, and Idiots

Disclaimer: I am NO Constitutional scholar like President Waterwing Ears McDoofus, but the Second Amendment is really easy for me to understand. Here is a post of me understanding it to the hilt.

Please understand that the almighty federal government cannot EXTEND gun rights at all. Since the Constitution states plainly that everyone can have a firearm, then the ONLY thing that the federal government can do is RESTRICT firearm ownership contrary to what is affirmed in our Constitution. Do you want a Bradley Fighting Vehicle? Ownership is guaranteed by Number Two.

Salon posts that the Supremes ruled that local governments cannot ban guns. What actually happened is that at least five of the Supremes READ the Constitution. Obviously, four of them have not.

I do find it hilarious though that Scalia took the time to write a second opinion because he thought that Alito's did not go far enough in smacking that dunce, John Paul Stephens, around.

By the way, check out this RAAAAACIST dude that caused this case to come about.

Face it, folks, the reason that Democrats want to take away all of your weapons is because you might kill a Democrat voter when they are trying to steal your car or break into your home or business. What would happen to the Democrat Party if all of the criminals got dead all of the sudden? Who would there be left to vote for Democrats?

Please take the time to comment.

And What in the Hell Can You Say?

Corresponding with morons is hilariously funny to me, because you can get a moron to debate anything and be wrong. Plus, they never realize it. Most people would feel sorry for someone that can never accept the truth, but I just accept that about 95% of people are completely beyond any hope of ever looking at the dog bowl.

Issues of the day, what ya' got? Rising crime, lower test scores, bigger government, wasted tax money, all types of deviants walking the streets. What is the solution to one and all of these problems? Follow the damn Constitution. By that I do not mean to listen to idiots that have no clue what the Hell they are doing, I mean FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

Before you folks of darker than alabaster skin tone get all up in arms, you are protected BY THE CONSTITUTION, no matter what Whoopie Goldberg thinks. Amendments are part and parcel, PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, folks.

Now, this very short document is very easy to understand, it was written by very intelligent people, ALL OF WHOM BELIEVED IN G_D, and they kinda wrote it so the common man could understand it.

If you have a question on what to believe in regards to what your government should do, READ THE CONSTITUTION.

Abortion? Not there. Highways? Not there. Education? Provides for sixteenth section land for local government to do with as they will. Marriage? Not there. Separation of Church and State? Not there.

The answer is not in Washington D.C., it is within you.

Please take the time to comment.

The Barry Obama Fight Against Freedom of Speech

I think that most of you are aware that there are no good qualities to Barry Obama and his campaigns have always been surrounded by deceit, dishonesty, and corruption.

His presidential campaign is no different, why else would he nominate Joe Biden as VP if he didn't actively seek to be surrounded by corruption and dishonest people?

A private citizen in this country has purchased airtime on television for an advertisement that is 100% true and Barry's legal team has gone to court to stop its airing. Remember, Democrats cannot allow the truth to be known by their sheeple. The sheeple cannot handle to truth.

Watch and know that this is 100% true, there is no disputing it with facts, you can only attack the messenger.

VIDEO REMOVED FROM YOU TUBE.

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Democrat nominee for the President of the United States of America is vehemently opposed to the First Amendment.

Please take the time to comment.

MORE at Stop the ACLU. Michelle Malkin has MORE, too.

What I Can't Find in the Constitution

Having only read our great country's Constitution a minimum of 3.5 million times, I just don't have that much knowledge about it. I simply cannot find anything in that document regarding these items among many others:

1. Housing, except that the military can't demand it from a citizen in peace time
2. Killing children that are yet to be born
3. Free food
4. Education, including but not limited to Universal Pre-K - except that it is specifically NOT the business of the Federal gummint
5. Wind insurance for anyone, including Rep. Gene Taylor (Dumbass-MS)
6. Marriage - Normal or weirdo
7. Minimum wage or guaranteed wage
8. Healthcare
9. Free Stuff for criminals including people that committed crimes to be in this country
10. Protection of animals - not humanoid, but furry
11. Giving money for nothing to other countries
12. Baseball
13. Tearing down religious stuff on State's property

Just about everything that Congress debates and subsequently passes is against the wishes of our founding fathers and our Constitution. Add your objections in the comments. I mean it, comment on this damn post.

Dammit, I'm Sick to Death of This!

Again, the debate or claim that the Republican is the party of racists emerges. I guess that I can continue to expect that to happen.

On February 26, 2006 in our local dog trainer, Mr. Bill Minor had an opinion piece that was incredibly interesting to me in the fact that it was somewhat biased. Not that Mr. Minor was lying through his teeth, but obviously he kinda "forgot" the truth. His article was factual in its onset but the conclusions to which he arrived were false or dimwitted. Maybe the paper should try to get Mr. Minor to print the truth instead of rubber-stamping his obvious political bias. But I shall do their job for them, because I doubt that David Hampton, the Op-Ed editor, can police someone as powerful as Bill. One of my favorite pastimes is debunking Mr. Minor's articles and it requires very little time or effort. I guess that the Clarion-Ledger doesn't have that time, but if the paper continues its dive in distribution, they will realize that there are people that notice how far Left-Wing they have become.

Mr. Minor's diatribe starts with the facts about the documented racism of the Democrats. Just so you'll know, in 1964, Fannie Lou Hamer led a delegation known as the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to the Democrat National Convention in Atlantic City. They were trying to force the Mississippi Democrat delegation to recognize the Black folks that the Democrats had always ignored and still do. And then quickly dissolves into innuendo as Mr. Minor states that this led to Whites fleeing the Democrat Party and hooking up with the Republicans and that is why the Republicans are now the racist party instead of the Democrats.

Remember, Mr. Minor is an opinion columnist. His is not a recounting of actual events, but just what he thinks and therefore wants everyone else to think. That First Amendment and all. I shall dissect his points here, which oddly enough is quite possibly the easiest thing that I have ever done. You see facts are easily discovered that completely PROVE that he is at best mistaken and at worst a big, fat, bald-faced liar. For perspective, keep in mind that Bill Minor has always been a Democrat and in my opinion a Socialist or even worse, stupid.

A brief background first for all of you that have been indoctrinated by the public school system. Way back in the early days in this country, slavery was legal. Not only were Blacks enslaved, but a good number of Whites were as well. The circumstances surrounding both races servitude were quite different however. Most of the White "slaves" were actually indentured servants that paid for passage to the greatest country on Earth by promising their services for a certain period of time. Blacks were sold by their families and captors into perpetual slavery with very little chance of gaining their freedom.

On with the show. Most people will recognize the name of Abraham Lincoln and also know that he was our sixteenth President. Most folks probably know that he was a Republican. What most folks fail to know is that he was not the person that freed all of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not accomplish this feat. What the Emancipation Proclamation did was free the slaves only in the states that had seceded from the Union. Slavery was still legal in the border states and the states that stayed in the Union.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution freed ALL slaves with its ratification by thirty states on December 6, 1865. The amendment was subsequently ratified by a few other states after the fact with Mississippi finally ratifying the amendment on March 21, 1995. Yes, that IS 1995. Anyhoo, Andrew Johnson was President at the time of ratification and strangely enough, he was neither a Republican nor a Democrat. He was a member of a now defunct group known as the National Union Party. So technically neither of our two remaining (viable) parties can claim success for freeing the slaves. So both the Republicans and the Democrats can blow me if they want to claim that as one of their successes.

Now on to the race-baiting. One always hears that the Democrats splintered way back in 1948 into two factions. The Democrats nominated Harry Truman and the States Rights Party (Dixiecrats) nominated a little known guy named Strom Thurmond. The Dixiecrats carried four states and garnered less than three percent of the popular vote. The four states were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. Every single person involved in the States Rights Party maintained their Democrat affiliation after the States Rights Party fell apart. Strom Thrumond went on to switch parties in 1964 to the Republicans, as did Jesse Helms and John Oliver Emmerich before that, but the remaining forty-eight stayed with the Democrats until death or are still Democrats.

A little side note: John Oliver Emmerich fought for Black students' enrollment to Ole Miss against the Democrat Party that was firmly entrenched at the time. And that was from 1958 until 1962 when James Meredith was enrolled.

As far as the 1964 Presidential election is concerned, there could be a myriad of different reasons that Mississippi voted overwhelmingly for Barry Goldwater and more than a few of them could be about race, but I tend to think that is not the case. You see, Mississippi is a relatively poor state and the Democrats and Lyndon Johnson were for redistribution of wealth. I find it really hard to believe that there were enough racists in this state to actually jump from the only party that had ever shielded racists to one that had never stooped to that depth. But, in the same vein, Mississippi's delegates voted for Harry F. Byrd, a known segregationist, for President in 1960. And he was a Democrat. And in 1968, George Wallace was our choice for President and he was a Democrat and a racist.

The whole country voted for Nixon (R) in 1972 except for Massachusetts (remember George McGovern (D) was a Socialist and he sucked, coupled with the fact that the frontrunner for the Democrat nomination was George Wallace, an avowed segregationist, and he got shot in May) and in 1976, Mississippi went for Carter (D). Of course, after Carter and his idiotic policies and statements about "malaise in this country", Republicans have always carried this state and I doubt that it has to do with race. Hooray for Mississippi and our above average intelligence!

Okay, Mr. Minor's opinion piece is now officially shot to Hell. And to add fuel to the fire, the only known KKK member that is still holding elective office is Robert Byrd (D) from West Virginia. What is perplexing about Byrd is that even though he was a Klansman and still uses the word "nigger", he receives a 100% rating from the NAACP. Bizarre.

Most "Progressives", like Mr. Minor, believe that this country has an obligation to make sure that everyone is equal in everything. What people like me believe is that everyone should have equal opportunity. Equal opportunity has not always been available to people of color, but in this day and age it is. For someone with the position of Mr. Minor to make assertions of racism in the political climate of today and not mention the FACT that the Democrat Party takes advantage of the overwhelming voting bloc of the Black race is dishonest. I firmly believe that for someone to see racism in everything shields them from the success that could be theirs if only for the removal of those rose tinted glasses.

If Mr. Minor can screw these facts around to state that Mississippi and the Republicans are the racist party today, I wonder if I can get him to invest in some property that I have. Candy from a baby, you know.

An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights-Amendments Nine and Ten

Alrighty Moonbeam, we are concluding this little experiment into the Bill of Rights. So far, there's nothing about Late-Term Abortion, a Right to Privacy, or a Right to Cry "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. I'm guessing that those must be hidden in number Nine or Ten. Here we go....

Amendment Number Nine: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Oh, that's easy and it covers the partial birth abortion slant. This means that just because rights are not specifically called out, that means that you still have them. Oh, bring on the all-night abortion clinics. But, wait, doesn't that mean that I can have sex with four year old boys, too? Dammit, that living, breathing document done thoed me a curve. Damn, dead, white guys you really screwed up with that one.

Amendment Number Ten: 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.

Hey, this one clears that last blunder up. This means that if something is not specifically called out in the Constitution, the Federal government cannot do a damn thing about it. This means that Roe v. Wade is actually unconstitutional. Wow. Go figger. Those Right to Lifers have been right all along.

ANY POWER NOT DELEGATED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE FED IS RESERVED TO THE FOLKS BACK HOME. Get it? How in Hell has our country gotten so screwed up? Well, in my opinion it is because those Senators and Congressmen have run rough-shod over the Constitution. What say you?

An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights-Amendments Seven and Eight

And from the vault of "How Can You Feed Yourself, Hippie?" comes the continuation of the Bill of Rights.....

Amendment Number Seven: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I think that this amendment has to have been updated. I just can't see that anyone would go to court over twenty dollars, except for my mother that drives to seventeen different Walgreens to find a pack of gum that is on sale for eight cents off.

Anyhoo, this amendment means that if you have a civil suit worth more than twenty dead presidents, you can get a jury. I wonder what the jury would think if you made them sit through four hours of hearings for twenty bucks? I bet they would give the chair and I personally feel they would be jusitfied in their decision.

Amendment Number Eight: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Even the most coked up lunatic can probably understand this. Bail is set according to the crime for which the defendant is charged, his ability to pay, and the flight risk. This means if you are charged with the rape of a six year old boy, and are a millionaire, bail will be set at seven (7) dollars.

In the same vein, if you are an unemployed, black man charged with selling a little ghanja, there will be no bail. You will stay in jail until trial.

I do understand that cruel punishment thing to mean that no one will be subjected to naked pictures of Rosie O'Donnell, but I just don't know what "unusual" means. I guess that means that no one will be required to a fellate a blind, albino midget riding a shetland pony. In my mouth, I up threw a little.

An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights-Amendment Six

Hey, it's time to know your Constitution again! For all you 'Splodeydopes, I bring you Amendment Six.

Amendment Number Six: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

More of the damn legal stuff. But this one is easy.

The accused (indicted criminal) gets to go to court quickly and loudly. This allows him/her/ambiguous a forum to hear the facts of the case against him/her/ambiguous. Granted, the court is paid by the same folks that pay the police, but no system is perfect.

The jury is chosen from registered voters in the place where the alledged crime took place. Under extreme circumstances, the jury can be pulled from another place if needed due to pre-trial publicity and stuff like that. You gotta keep in mind that the only people that actually have to serve on a jury are the same folks sitting at home and watching Oprah. Yep, they are NOT the sharpest tools in the shed. (Think O.J.)

The accused (indicted criminal) gets to hear the state's case and to glare menacingly at the witnesses. (Think Tookie.) He/she/ambiguous also gets to present their witnesses to rebut the state's case. Funny thing about criminals, they always have an alibi from some of the most upstanding citizens in the free world.

And to add insult to injury, we (taxpayers) have to pay for all this.

Just remember, if you have a beef against someone, you can press charges and have them arrested for that. Then you have to pay for their legal expenses, their housing, food, exercise equipment, and drugs.

So, do think twice about calling the law dogs on that dude that robbed you blind. It might be cheaper in the long run to just go buy new stuff.

An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights-Amendment Five

I know that y'all are chomping at the bit to understand the rest of the Bill of Rights, so I will not disappoint. The Primer for Moonbats continues...

Amendment Number Five: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You say, "Holy crap! That's one hundred eight words! I'll never understand that many words, Two Dogs!"

Rest easy, Rainbow, and easy on the exclamation marks. I'm gonna straighten it out for you. Let's break this one down for ease of understanding. It's really easy after dividing it into four parts.

Part Uno: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

This little blurb means that before you can be charged with a crime, the government must first present the case against you to another group of citizens. After these folks have heard the argument from the government, they can indict you for those crimes. If you happen to be in the military, you have no such recourse. The military takes care of its own trials. Coupled with the fact that soldiers are technically property of the government, your chances rest with your owner.

Part Dos: nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

Simple. If you have been acquitted, you cannot be retried for the same crime. Times have kinda changed on this one. Remember OJ getting acquitted and then tried in civil court? To me, this IS double jeopardy.

Part Tres: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This simply means that if you are tried, you cannot be forced to testify and the jury cannot take that into consideration. Furthermore, the government cannot keep you from enjoying your stuff while you are still innocent.

Part Quatro: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Uh, I think that this got trashed not too long ago. It seems that the government can now take every damn thing you own if you get caught making crystal. Also, the Supremes say that local governments can steal your property to build Wal-Marts. But, that is actually a different story altogether.

An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights-Amendment Four

Here's the fourth installment of Read the Constitution, Dumbass!

Amendment Number Four: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probably the most misunderstood of all the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, but I shall tackle this one too.

Most hippies think that this means that you can do anything at all in your own home. Well, it doesn't. Most thinking people understand that if you come home in your Trans-Camaro with seventy-two boxes of cold medicine, you are probably up to no good. And trust me, Kemosabe, there are plenty of people in the trailer court that are keeping an eye on you and your mullet.

You see, the po-lice really do have to prove probable cause when they pull you over, but it is relatively simple to do. If you have a Gore bumper sticker, that is a good indication that you are a mouth-breather and probably are holed up at home with a fat spliff.

Even better still, if you have a Panic sticker on your Microbus, chances are really good that you are dining on the field parasols and are what they call "freaking out" right now.

Oh, the Amendment means that Johnny Law has to have a reason to bust in your door, go to a judge and get what is known as a "Search Warrant", and then come kick the door down. Remember the key word here is "unreasonable". I'm guessing that is pretty easy to get around when the police and the judge get their check from the same place.

If you understand anything that I am talking about, pay no attention to the guy on the pole across the street, he's probably just turning off your cable. But why is his van unmarked?

An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights-Amendment Three

Ah, back on track with the next Lesson for Complete Morons.

Amendment Number Three: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This means that you cannot be forced to offer a soldier food and lodging at any time unless Congress continues to write bad legislation or the Supremes continue to erode our INDIVIDUAL rights. And you know, most good people would never decide not to house a soldier for any reason. But, remember, about 49% of this country are not good people.

An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights-Amendment Two

In a continuation of yesterday's theme of Dammit, You Morons, Quit Pissing on My Parade, comes the next installment of An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights.

Amendment Number Two: 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.

I shall dissect the argument against uncontrolled purchases of firearms here. Most of the wetbrains for gun control argue that this amendment only serves to maintain a "militia". For all of you that cannot or will not pick up a dictionary, a "militia" is the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service. According to that, women are NOT allowed to own firearms, and since women can't own them, no one can. I guess that argument is better than any other for outlawing guns. But I digress.

I guess that you could also make the argument that all guns must be owned by the "people" too. That would mean that ALL guns would belong to ALL people. Hey, try to come get your part of our gun from my house. Hilarity ensues.

Anyhoo, since our Founding Fathers were serious dudes, most people would interpret this amendment to simply state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That means that you can buy any gun or ammunition, at any time that someone would sell it to you. No where do I read anything that remotely says that these firearms must not have detachable magazines or any other such nonsense.

Now, to apply more granite-solid wisdom to the debate, is there honestly anyone out there that has a legitimate argument for banning any type of firearms? I know that most people would not agree to allow a paroled criminal to own a gun or even vote for that matter, but that is covered in reams of State legislation.

Anyway, from my read of Amendment Two, it is patently unlawful for Congress to pass any bill that restricts our individual rights to own guns. So, Chuck Schumer, sit down and shut up.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's lesson on where that damned military can bunk.....

An Idiot's Guide to the Bill of Rights-Amendment One

It has come to my attention that there are an increasing number of morons that DO NOT understand our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so I am here with an elementary primer to clear up the confusion. This ain't rocket surgery, Lester.

Amendment Number One: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Okay, Punkin', this should be simple, but for most this is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation ever passed. I'll break it down for y'all.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...This means that Congress shall NOT draft any legislation that establishes a religion. This does NOT mean that every State legislative body cannot do just that. If California wants to pass laws that say only Wiccans can live in California, the United States Congress cannot and must not interfere.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...Congress cannot tell the States that they have to do away with any religious symbols on the courthouse lawn. The Supreme Court has increasingly trampled on this Right in cases lately, but Congress has the Constituional duty to smack the Supremes down on this issue.

or abridging the freedom of speech...Congress cannot pass any legislation telling individuals what they can and cannot say. There have been a couple of attachments to this and explanations but, Congress has no power to stifle what people say, no matter how stupid.

or of the press...This is a little tricky, but nevertheless simplistic in its complexity. If you are the press, Congress cannot regulate what you have to say. There are other recourses to follow if you have been abused by the press, but Congress is NOT one of those.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...The key word here to me is "peaceably". Cindy Sheehan did not follow the peaceably description, so in my mind, it was cool for the policemen to release the hounds. Moonbats rarely "peaceably" assemble, they are violent and should be stopped.

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...Simply put, the people are able to go to their government and say, "Dammit, boy, you done screwed up big-time!" And then start the proceeding to have all Democrats tied to lampposts and flogged.

I hope that this has cleared up any confusion regarding the First Amendment. Tomorrow, I shall drag out the cluebat for all the Sara Bradys in the country. Stay tuned for more from your One Stop Shop of Information.

UPDATE: It seems that I have been somewhat remiss in adding to this post. In Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971, the Supremes kinda watered down the First Amendment in regards to State's Rights. Wikipedia has some stuff HERE. It seems that the Supremes took it upon themselves to dictate from the bench.