I am setting up this post as a location to transfer some off topic discussion that has ensued about Ron Paul as it relates to the war question which stemmed from the abortion question. I don’t have much to add here other than a link to the video that spawned this thread, posted by Jim here at the Helvidus, a Pachyderm site. I am transferring the posts on my blog and cross posting a couple off topic comments at the Helvidus blog to this location to be on topic.
Post Debate Fox Interview of Ron Paul: HERE
If you live in Baltimore and you engage in vandalism and defacement of property you might receive praise from Robert Murrow, a spokesman for the city’s Department of Public Works. Gee I remember when city officials were the first to condemn the defacement of private property. But I guess it is ok now so long as it is related to the destruction of Conservative matters. You see this praise came after a vandal threw a can of paint on a billboard advertising the Rush Limbaugh show. Just what did Mr. Murrow say about the antic? He said, “It looks like they took globs of paint and threw it on his face. It looks great. It did my heart good,” Well if you are the advertising agency that owns the Billboard you can’t expect to receive “equal protection under the law” in Baltimore now can you?
My opinion is that the left have become the defacers of society in general and this is just another piece of their work and city officials approval thereof. Don’t look for any arrests due to this vandalism, but maybe they will issue a civic award. On the other hand maybe this is approved behavior now, so I encourage you to forward this post to your friends in Baltimore urging them to deface property of the Baltimore Department of Public Works. Apparently they won’t mind. But maybe on the other hand freedom of speech is only for the liberals and their pets that they like to protect such as the Jihadists.
MORE: Baltimore Sun
Can you imagine that the City of Council of Washington DC passed an ordinance prohibiting the use of handguns or any firearm for “lawful” self-defense. The Federal Appeals Court correctly struck it down, but I hope that the DC Council appeals this so that this decision can pick up the weight of the Supreme Court of the United States along the way and we can start talking about this as “settled law” such as the Roe v. Waders.
By: David Nakamura and Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A01
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the District’s longtime ban on keeping handguns in homes is unconstitutional. The 2 to 1 decision by an appellate panel outraged D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and other city leaders, who said that they will appeal and that gun-related crimes could rise if the ruling takes effect. The outcome elated opponents of strict gun controls because it knocked down one of the toughest laws in the country and vindicated their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language on the right to bear arms. The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the nation’s first federal appeals court to overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess firearms. One other circuit shares that viewpoint on individual rights, but others across the country say the protection that the Second Amendment offers relates to states being able to maintain a militia. Legal experts said the conflict could lead to the first Supreme Court review of the issue in nearly 70 years.
MORE: Washington Post