Another good one passed on you me by a good friend. Originator is unknown.

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
This one is a little different…
Two Different Versions!
Two Different Morals!

OLD VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing,
‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’

Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, ‘We shall overcome.’
Rev. Jeremiah Wright then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ants food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

Radical and Right,
Red State Radical

I’ve been silent on this mostly because the sheer volume of fodder and foolishness renders me writer-blocked. But the little ditty below was something floating around in cyberspace that a friend forwarded to me. The simplistic, unencumbered satire says it all:

“Let me get this straight. We’re going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn’t read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke. ”

Radical and Right,
Red State Radical

Since when do you get a prize – a Nobel Prize none-the-less – for intentions? Well, U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama just did. Read Article. Now it’s official, the Nobel Prize is meaningless. It pains me to say that because I feel sorry for the people who have truely merited such an honor. In Obama’s case, this award is based on what he PLANS on doing rather than what he has done. Unlike most other honorees, his award had no accomplishment behind it, just the empty promises of ‘hope’ and ‘change’.

I have to wonder about the motivating forces behind the award. I have to wonder about the behind-the-scenes influences that drove such a specious accolade. Perhaps someone, somewhere, with influence who is behind Obama (or perhaps driving him as some might think), perhaps this person held sway over the Nobel Committee and saw this as an opportunity to boost his sagging popularity ratings. (Interestingly enough, it took only 150 days of Obama’s presidency for his ratings to plummet to a level that took George Bush’s ratings 5 years and a lot of main-stream media anti-Bush marketing.) Who knows who or what motivation really behind the award? We can’t know for certain without evidence. What we can know for certain is that there’s no meritorious accomplishment on Obama’s part that has made him deserving of the honor; furthermore, this action in an of itself now makes the Nobel prize worthless. This is an insult to those who have done great things to earn the honor, and the committee should bear shame for what they have done.

Radical and Right
Red State Radical

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1103ap_eu_nobel_world_reaction.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5981JK20091009

A recent Fox news article talks about a case coming before the Supreme Court regarding local gun control laws. According to the article the question at hand is one that did not get answered in the historic Heller case. The premise behind the question is “since the DC is a federal zone, federal law applies”. The question being raised now is if this ruling applies to States. More fundamentally they are going to decide whether or not the Bill of Rights applies to States and not just the federal government. Immediately one should think it lunacy if the Bill of Rights did not apply to States, for where could a US citizen then live and have all of their constitution rights be fully protected?

Should states be able to infringe upon freedom of speech or the press? (Amendment 1) Should states be able to infringe upon freedom of religion or establish a State religion? (Amendment 1) Should states be able to infringe upon freedom to petition government? (Amendment 1) Should states be able to infringe upon freedom to peaceably assemble? (Amendment 1) Should states be able to quarter troops in your house without your consent? (Amendment 3) Should States be able to search your property without warrant? (Amendment 4) Should states be able to not give you due process, trial by jury, legal representation, impose double-jeopardy, or force you to incriminate yourself? (Amendment 5-7)

The answer to these questions is a resounding “NO” probably enhanced by expletives. Yet there are those that believe that our rights in Amendment 2 are open for interpretation, regulation, and infringement. What many fail to realize is the Amendment 2 is what secure the rest for the average citizen whether infringement were to come by foreign or local tyranny.

I am not a proponent of violence, but I am certainly a proponent of personal defense of myself, my property, my loved ones, and those around me. To take away this freedom opens the door for fascists in dark corners to then take them all.

Radical and Right
Red State Radical

Resources:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557840,00.html