What was that Supreme Court Ruling really all about on handguns?

So what was the Supreme Court decision on allowing handguns really about last week and who did it most affect? First of all it was another chapter written in the book called “Can Americans be trusted with responsible choices or not?”

Five of the judges stated clearly, yes to that question on Thursday as they viewed the right to own a handgun responsibly with respect.

As usual, four of the justices did not and decided that responsible American citizens should be treated the same as irresponsible ones who are committing crimes in this country.

Many have said that it is the number of guns causing problems in the country. I would side with those who would say that it is the intentions behind those guns that provide the problem.

This brings me to the answer to that second question; can Americans be trusted with responsible choices or not.

The answer is Absolutely.

They’ve been doing it since the founding of this country using, by the way, ideas and guns. If the ruling had gone against individual rights of gun ownership last week, who would have been most affected? Responsible American citizens would continue do the same things they’ve always done; respect law and make choices with it as part of their civic duty to the country , whether guns would have been taken away or not. We could trust their choices to be the same; responsible.

For criminals, we could also trust their’s to be the same no matter what the ruling; irresponsible and unlawful. The only difference now is that their prey may be armed, which could be a deterrent for them.

So,when they decide to invade a man’s home and castle, they would do well to remember Jesse Ventura’s famous plaque over his door: Forget the dog , beware of owner. “ The responsible owners of this country have rights, too. One ruling for them was cast last week! I’m Gary Sutton.

To think I'm anti-woman (or don't understand them)!

Remember the other day when a person nicknamed Hillary Forever said I’m anti-woman?

It really bothered me, as you can probably tell by now. I’ve studied women, and to the degree you can understand them, I have tried to do so.

For example, I have learned that when a woman says yes, it means no, and when she says no, it equals yes.

If she says maybe, it always means no.

When she blurts out I’m sorry, the translation is you’ll be sorry.

When she states we need, it means I want, while "We need to talk" is code for I need to complain.

Sure, go ahead means I don’t want you t, and I’m not upset is interpreted to mean of course I’m upset you moron.

This kitchen is so inconvenient in woman talk really is stating, I want a new house.

Do you love me is the precursor for I’m going to ask you for something expensive,

and Are you listening to me—well, too late, you’re dead.

Was that the baby crying tells you to get out of bed and walk him until he’s asleep.

Is my butt fat is a call out to Tell her she’s beautiful.

How much do you love me is the warning that she did something you’re not going to like, and I’ll be ready in a minute means sit down and find a good game on tv.

Finally, the answer to What’s wrong is “the same old things” which means “nothing” which is” really everything” which finally can be interpreted that her pms is acting up.

And to think I am anti-woman or don’t understand you. Huh.

GS

So, what now for Senator Clinton?

In the wake of her most recent lack of progress cutting into the Obama lead this past Tuesday, Senator Hillary Clinton now begins the final swan song tour that includes primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky which she will win.

She cannot win the nomination now, nor will she see the super delegates flock her way. For all intents and purposes, she will do what her husband did, which is decide what her legacy and her future will be from now until June 3rd when the final primary will be held.

My bet is that she will become a uniter, not a divider; she will talk more about the issues, especially healthcare, she wants to leverage into the party platform come August. Little negative will be said about Senator Obama, so as not to detract from the presumptive nominee. She will play cat and mouse with the Vice Presidential talk that is certain to run rampant as a super ticket is considered. Senator Clinton will come across as more human than ever before, so as to gain the mantle of Grand Dame of the Party, and return to the Senate in a position to gain even more power there. Finally, she will choose her moment to exit from the race as she should, but look for her to do it after a win either in West Virginia or Kentucky.

She will then go to work for the Democratic Party which will have defeated the Clinton Party for the nomination, and will help to get its nominee ushered into the White House come November 5th. For a family which has only known winning, and has forged its own niche for 16 years in presidential politics, it is a humbling moment that Democrats hope will be tenderly handled with care and grace. I’m Gary Sutton.

Lots of possibilities in today's primaries?

To use some tennis lingo, we are at match point again in the Democratic Primary process, at least according to the all-knowing prognosticators out there.

The popular thought is that Senator Clinton must snatch the primary from next-door-neighbor-favorite-son Barack Obama to continue in the race, and at the same time, close to about 5-6 points in North Carolina where she was down 20 at one time. The predictors seem to be babbling that the pressure is on her because she needs to record big wins to catch up in the numbers, therefore, her back is against the wall.

If that's so, it seems to me that she has the company of one Senator Barack Obama who can’t say he’s gotten his momentum back with that big weekend victory in the Guam Caucuses where about 4,000 people voted. Uh-Uh. No, Barack Obama has won every border state to Illinois so far and much of Indiana is located in the Chicago Media Market. If he can’t win there, even though there are Hillary enclaves located in the northern part of state, further doubt about will explode around the country as to whether he is their guy.

The elected numbers don’t matter anymore for Hillary because she won’t overtake Obama. What does matter is the tally of reasons called primary victories no matter how small that give super-delegates reason to pause on their choice or change before or at the Convention in August. In addition, it also makes dealing with the Florida and Michigan rules mess more palpable if she comes steamrolling into the convention close enough where it becomes a real question.

Either way you look at it, both need Indiana today to either keep the door open to victory for Clinton or slam it in her face if you are Obama. We’ll see at the end of this day who comes knocking. I’m Gary Sutton.

Obama's honeymoon is on the rocks

Barack Obama’s honeymoon with the media may well be over.

His rhetoric has turned into a double-edged sword which took him to great heights because of its regular man soaring possibilities, but has now become the kind of cryptic, almost Clintonian kinds of answers to troubling questions that leave us as a nation feeling unfulfilled.

For a man with an oratorical gift like the Senator, and one who constantly talks about clearness, and transparency, he missed a great opportunity portraying those qualities by not telling us what “earlier controversial comments” he had heard his pastor Jeremiah Wright utter. The fact that he understates the controversy of Wright’s remarks as simply a “distraction” instead of a defining moment that could help people trust him or not is an error in judgment for a man with a considerable intellect.

People walk away from that answer with a feeling that this is the same old political hack who holds an arrogance that we have seen emanating from Washington for years -- the same Washington that Barack Obama is trying to distance himself from, and the type of political hack he constantly criticizes.

Add to that the tortured oral bumbling in trying to explain how an association with William Ayres, a bombing member of the Weather Underground is nothing more than a “manufactured issue” and you have a candidate whose high-flying words have been grounded, at least for the moment.

It seems to me that what will raise his message back up is clear and plain talk about all issues, whether he thinks they are important or not. I’m Gary Sutton.

Pro and con racism -- some thoughts

So much has been written about and alluded to carefully about race and racism in this presidential campaign that I think it’s time for us as human beings to remove “carefully” and insert “starkly” into this conversation.

Racism is disliking , discriminating, and hating someone simply because of their color of skin. It’s wrong, it’s ugly, it’s narrow-minded, it’s despicable, and it’s ignorant. It’s also real though many of us would deny it. The problem of racism is that it has multiple ownership with many of those proprietors of hate not realizing the stake they have made.

Think about it; if you think Barack Obama is the best candidate , but you won’t vote for him because he is a black man, then you are a racist. Yes? So let’s offer another side to this and see how it fits. Suppose you think that Barack Obama is not the most well-qualified candidate in your mind and heart, but you vote for him because he is black whether you are or not. You are also a racist. Yes? Why? Because race is the only basis for your decision.

Racism is a convenient substitute for thinking because it is easier to resort to the primal stupidity, ignorance, narrow-mindedness and hate inherent in such a feeling. Our better angels tell us that the only thing that really matters in this election, or any event where race is involved is the content of character and leadership of a man or woman. If Barack Obama becomes the Democratic presidential candidate, and ultimately president, it should be only because of his qualifications.

Unfortunately, we’re not there yet; race is too important to too many, but when we break the barrier without discussing race as a barrier, then we as the human race will have matured beyond pro and con racism, and we all will win. I’m Gary Sutton.

The basis for all evil--Olav be damned!

Armageddon is coming and here's how I know it:

People not walking on the right as they pass you. This evil menace is a growing problem in this country -- and, potentially, the world community.

Walking on the right when you pass another creates order from chaos. Form from the Void. Sure, here at WSBA we are sometimes accused of being on the right. But think about it. You’re walking down a hallway on the right because that was how you were taught by your family and re-enforced by society. It worked in the hallways of the school, on the sidewalks, at the mall, walking down the aisles at church. It's a simple standard that makes life easier for all of us.

Everyone was happy and working together. No longer. Let's say I’m walking down the hallway on the right and you come walking down the left side. How do we resolve this problem these days?

First of all, we have to stop at some point and decide on the rules -- yours or mine. This obviously will determine conservative and liberal. We'll use the conservative label for people of believe in the established custom and liberal for those who want to change it. Clearly, passing people in hallways is the birthplace of these terms.

Now we now move into the win-lose mentality, because one of us is going to have to lose our sense that we were walking down the hallway correctly and succumb to the other. If one of us is white and one is black, we may well have a racism or reverse-racism situation where one of us has to be submissive to the other’s views.

Oh, it gets worse. We decide that the other person who is passing on the left was not raised correctly. Resentment and despair builds! Why doesn't that person pass on the right, as our forefathers intended?

Now what? If we're lucky, we just do the little shuffling dance in these situations. If we're unlucky, well, who knows how bad it can get? A stare down, a battle of words, or even a fight. And God help us if one or both persons are gang members, like those Red Hat Society ladies.

Suppose some bureaucracy gets upset over the fact that we can’t decide on the rule, so they make a new set of rules which leads to a decision that we’ll have to have an identity card that says we can’t walk in the same place at the same time, or different days will require walking on different sides of the hallway, or that we will have one way hallways which will be required as a regulation for every public and private building and will be funded at taxpayer expense to make sure it is compatible for all.

Halls in buildings where we are having problems will require a special walking fee (tax) which will be collected at the hallway toll booth and whose profits will go to educating children on the dangers of walking in hostile hallways without a friend.

A third lane will be created called an HOW lane which stands for High Occupancy Walkers which may alleviate the fact that we will ever have to pass each other.

Another problem that has now also been identified in this right-left confrontation has been those who sneak by us on the right and sneak by us on the left. This inconveniences us, and tears down the value of our walk by making sneaking the same as what we are doing -- which is just playing by the rules in society.

It’s bad enough that we have to deal with Mr. or Ms. Lefty over here who has stopped us — oh no, now we have someone else trying to push their way past us. Sounds like it’s time for the hallway border guard who if they catch these people not obeying any rules at all, sends them back to their starting point at the other end of the hall. Problem is, they’ll be sneaking by us again before we even know it.

By the way, according to government hall-walking statistics, there are approximately 12-20 million illegal hall-walkers in this country today. They have closed down at least 12 massive buildings because of their overwhelming stream past law-abiding walkers.

Obviously, when two of us are at a standstill in the hallway, and we’re both intent on winning at the expense of the other, yet we are not violent, we now have gridlock. That means neither of us will get to our place of work, and we’ll just do nothing but stand and face each other down while the real work awaits.

But wait, a Blue-Ribbon Commission is appointed to study the problem of hall-walkers, and all of the reasons we got to this point. Along with Congress, they will arrive at a date by which walkers must withdraw from the confrontation, stand off, and civil war they are experiencing when they meet on the right and left sides of the hall.

Perhaps, former Senator Lee Hamilton, and former President Jimmy Carter will be chosen to head this Blue-Ribbon Panel, which will then have right-side walkers screaming favoritism and politics because these guys most certainly will favor the left-side walkers.

You’ll also hear cries from people who say that in Europe, they also walk on the left, so why don’t we look at that instead of just unilaterally deciding that the right side of the hall is the only place we can walk. None of our global friends are walking on the right, so how can we be so pompous as to think that the right side walkers have cornered the market on how to walk the hallways?

This is much ado about nothing, you say. Okay. How far away can driving on the left-side of the road on a highway be? Think about the chaos , death and destruction that it will cause just because you wanted to drive where you felt like it.

This brings us full-circle to the beginning, where I have decided to stay in my office, and my home, and sneak out only after everyone has left or gone to bed. Yeah, you’ve got it — isolationism. I don’t know if it will work, but at least I can duck the problem of having to have my view of the world changed by left-side walkers.

Can Armageddon be far?

A soldier's response to being called part of a cult

This was the letter I read on the show from Major Joe DeCree in response to Jacqueitch's blog post on Wednesday of this past week. I hope it means something to you. It did to me. GS

I was not able to listen to the guest spot that he responded to but I heard your reading of his blog and I then read his post to make sure that I got it right. I read his blog comments and I am sitting at my desk shaking.

I at first got angry, of course. Such talk is outlandish and even dangerous. How dare that man who clearly aspires to little make light of a brave Navy SEAL who yesterday was awarded a posthumous medal of honor when he blew himself up to save his buddies.

Cultists do not die for their fellows. They certainly are not concerned with saving their fellows. How dare Jacque Itch diminish that man. I find such a man who would say those things as a man without honor. It's one thing to think of something in a moment of anger it is quite another to take the time to craft a lengthy message which is delivered anonymously and in cowardly fashion on a blog read by hundreds. Jacque Itch is such a man it would seem.

Jacque Itch, if you are out there you are a man without honor and I hope never to make your acquaintance. You cannot apologize enough for your statements. I can give nothing else you say credence perhaps in perpetuity.

The second feeling I experienced after reading that was overwhelming despair. I made the military my life. I read the Constitution regularly because I swore an oath to uphold it. I re-read my oath of office frequently for the same reason. I missed my families birthdays. I missed my anniversary every year because I married in June and the Army is always in the field in June. I missed a few Christmases. I missed retirement parties, I do not know my brother's children because I was always gone. I missed my oldest daughter's last 3 years of high school because I was overseas for almost that entire period. The deployments nearly cost me my marriage. And , oh yeah, I got shot at -- a lot.

Why did I and thousands like me go through all of that? I did it for the Republic. I did it for my brother's children, I did it for my own children. I even did it for Jacque Itch. I did it so that we get to be what we want.

I did not care about Usama bin Laden. I knew I would never see him in the flesh so any personal attachment to that man is pointless. I did it for my men who under 8 years of the Clinton's went from a proud fighting force to buying the diesel fuel for military vehicles with their own money so we could make training exercises. Doesn't sound much like a cultist to me.

But today Jacque Itch set me straight. I spent 22 years being an automaton. I spent 22 years not trying to teach young men and women how to be better than what they were, but simply brainwashing more automatons. I did not defend the Republic. I instead apparently wasted my life and lived a lie. Words fail me, I cannot describe what I am feeling right now I only hope never to feel it again. Screw you, Jacque Itch.

-- Maj. Joe DeCree, US Army (Ret.)

Rant: Protecting children on the web

(This is an edited version of my rant last Monday. Yes, the sassy cutie to the left has little to do with this post, other than the fact that I used "children" in the title. But she's my god-daughter and I get to post pictures of her if I want to.)

I heard a caller on the show who saw an advertisement on a website that he thought was inappropriate for young people.

Now, I rarely see ads when I’m surfing the web -- I block them with AdBlock Plus, free software that comes with Firefox, my Internet browser.

The suggestion made to the caller was to go back to the site, write down the names of all the other advertisers and ask them to force the site to remove the one ad he didn’t like. Later in the show I got the feeling that a lot of people think the federal government should be taking care of this problem.

Let me ask you this:

Suppose I decide not to lock the doors to my house. I decide not to set my alarm system. I decide to allow strangers into my home. I do this for a while and pretty soon, there are cigarette butts on my carpet, the toilet’s clogged, and, worst of all, someone hung a Dallas Cowboys banner in my living room.

If I complained about this to you, what would you say?

Would you say: Jay, contact your neighbors and tell them what’s going on. Ask them to stop troublemakers from coming into your neighborhood. And let’s get the federal government on this. Let’s get a platoon of Marines stationed in front of your house to stop this. Would you say that?

Or would you say: Jay, why don’t you lock yours doors, set the alarm and don’t let strangers into your home. And if you don’t want to be responsible for what comes into your home, then it’s your problem.

Later in the show, I heard complaints about adult content on the rest of the web.

Again – I have to ask – why not just prevent that stuff from coming into your home? Software that filters the internet is widely available.

I did a little research one night. And by "research," I mean I spent 5 minutes typing keywords into google and viewing the results. Here’s what I learned.

If your internet service provider is Comcast, guess what? They give parental control software away for free. How about AT&T? Free. Verizon? Five bucks a month.

It took me about 5 minutes find a bunch of free – or close to free – options to control the content that comes into the home. (You can find some links and info here.)

But you know what? I’m convinced – I don’t want to spend any time or any effort to control what I let into my home. I don’t want to be responsible for what I let into my home. Let’s get the federal government involved instead.

Let’s see, some people suggested creating a new domain on the internet for adult content. We have .com, .gov, .edu; so let’s make, I don’t know, .xxx.

Let’s move pornography over to .xxx. Some of those men’s magazines have pretty racy pictures, so let’s send Maxim Magazine and FHM over there, too. Sports Illustrated has to go – that annual swimsuit issue can be revealing. Websites that explain breast health and cancer awareness might show naughty bits, so they’re out.

The Onion is a pretty funny parody of online news, but they use bad words, so they’re out. Speaking of bad words, I saw some blogs that occasionally drop the f-bomb. They’re gone too.

Now, someone needs to be in charge of reviewing web sites, managing the new .xxx domain, and handling disputes. Let’s form a new federal bureaucracy to deal with this called the Bureau of Naughty Websites. It’ll have to be pretty big – there’s a lot of new web content published every second.

Of course, none of this will work. Why? Even if we move everything offensive to someone over to the new .xxx domain, we still have to block those sites from coming into our homes.

And we already decided that we don’t want to spend any time or effort into blocking stuff coming into our homes that we don’t want.