Saturday, February 03, 2007

Care to know what our soldiers think of the anitwar idiots?

(From War Rifles)

Warning: This video is not safe for work. It's not safe for your wife. It's not safe for your children.



But it freakin' rocks! The music's pretty good, too.

Of course, the 1st Bedwetter Brigade will complain that these guys are having fun killing people and oh how horrible that is. Wrongo. They're having fun killing our enemies, and that's just fine by me.

Would you rather be fighting them here, yourselves? Oh, I forgot--they'd just give up and be good widdle dimmies.

Be sure to get him a bib

(Via Drudge)

Because if he gets wound up, the spittle will be flying.

Gore to Testify on Climate Change

It's Coming

(From Timebomb 2000)

A map that shows the progression of avian influenza from December 2003 until now.

I had a little bird,
It's name was Enza.
I opened the window
and in-flu-enza.

Is that a little bird I hear, twittering in our collective ear?

Edit (2/3/2007, 1648) Scary. I visited Drudge Report, and I find this:

UK hit byfirst H5N1 bird flu outbreak in poultry

Friday, February 02, 2007

Compromise with gun grabbers?

Not if you value your rights, you don't.

GRNC has another update on the Sen. Boseman Gun Grab of 2007 that I posted on earlier. It seems that the heat that has been brought to bear is making it a bit hot in the Senate kitchen--although judging from the nature of the "compromise" she's offering, it isn't nearly hot enough. GRNC reports that Senator Boseman says

Because of concerns that retail outlets with playgrounds might fall under these provisions, it is likely that the playground provision may be removed from the bill during committee consideration.

Now let me see if I get this right: You've been catching some flack because your gun grab plan has went awry, and your idea of a compromise is that one of many odious parts of the bill "may" be removed in committee.

Senator, I may have been born at night, but it damn sure wasn't last night. No way is this an acceptable compromise. Let me offer you one:

Withdraw SB8 and SB9.

Now. There's a compromise that gun owners can live with. Keep the heat on Senator Boseman and on your senator as well, and let's get our kind of compromise for a change.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

How to win in Iraq

(Via Chaos Manor)

This will also work anywhere else we're fighting.

Untie Military Hands

Moonbats don't only infest Washington, DC

They're everywhere. We have on particular one of interest to readers in North Carolina, state Senator Julia Boseman.

As Grass Roots North Carolina points out (in their usual, over-the-top sort of way), Sen. Boseman is, either purposefully or inadvertently, mounting a direct attack on CCW holders in North Carolina. She is also proposing legislation that will bar victims of domestic violence from obtaining a firearm for self defense.

Let's look at the attack on CCW holders first. SB 8, titled (get ready for it):

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT to increase the "safe zones" near child care centers and school grounds regarding illegal drug sales from three hundred feet to one thousand feet, to expand the "safe zone" for public parks to include all public parks, not just those with playgrounds and to increase the distance of those safe zones to one thousand feet, to increase the penalties for carrying a deadly weapon on educational property, and to make it a criminal offense to possess or carry a gun, rifle, or pistol in a public park, in any child care center, or on any playground.

Now there's a mouthful....

Sounds like a piece of legislation that could at least be discussed, right? WRONG! This bill will add those public parks, child care centers and playgrounds to the already lengthy list of areas where your NC CCW is useless. As GRNC points out (in a later email alert that hasn't yet made it to their website):

Although Sections 1 and 2 of the bill deal with illegal drug sales and increase penalties for carrying weapons on educational property, Section 3 creates a new §14-269.5(b), entitled "Possessing or carrying firearms in public parks, in child care centers, or on playgrounds," which says: "It is unlawful for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any gun, rifle, or pistol in any public park, in any child care center, or on any playground."

Sen. Boseman wants us to cough up some more of our rights "for the children". Up yours, Senator.

SB 9 is allegedly supposed to protect victims of domestic violence by preventing their attackers from buying firearms. (Ps-s-s-t--Senator Genius. It's already illegal for them to do this under §50B-3.1(d)(1). Not only can't they buy any, that have to give up the ones they already own. It's also already illegal under Federal law--check a 4473 if you don't believe me. Question 12h.)

But not only is the law unnecessary, it's poorly written. Again, GRNC points out the flaw:

Defendants under protective orders are **already prohibited** from purchasing firearms under §50B-3.1(d)(1), which became law in December, 2003. SB 9 amends §50B-3(a) to say: "...a protective order may include any of the following types of relief...(11) Prohibit a party plaintiff from purchasing a firearm for a time fixed in the order."

WHAT IT MEANS: By striking the word "party" and substituting the word "plaintiff"-meaning the VICTIM SEEKING THE PROTECTIVE ORDER-it enables judges to bar victims from purchasing guns for self-protection.

For crying out loud, the Senator is an attorney by trade, and she doesn't understand the meaning of "plaintiff". (Potential clients beware.)

What can you do? Well, first, if you're from down Wilmington way, and Sen. Bozeman is your senator, write/call/visit her office and let her know that you're one of the people who can voter for her--or against, if she doesn't pull these bills. Be nice, be polite but be firm. Tell her that this kind of "work" on her part will lead you to actively campaign and vote for her opponent in the next election.

If you're from anywhere else in North Carolina, write your senator, asking them in a nice, polite but firm manner to actively work to defeat both these bills if they come to a vote.

If you're form elsewhere, pray for us that we can defeat the gun grabbers again.

Do you suck?

(Via War Rifles)

At the risk of pissing off a lot of people who probably need to be pissed off...

I'm still ticked at all those people who just had to "send the Republicans a message", or don't care for how Iraq is going. You stayed home, or worse yet, voted for the freakin' Democraps. Now we've got ourselves a raft of new anti-gun/anti-freedom legislation, and to some (probably large extent, IMHO), we've got you to thank for it.

I'm also ticked off at all the people (yes, on all sides) who are too sorry to become informed and get their sorry butts out and vote. Yeah it takes some time and effort. Get over it--it's your duty as a citizen.

Gun owners can be some of the worst for this sort of behavior. How many gun shows have you went to where the guys manning the NRA booth are just sitting there with nothing to do, because the vast majority of gun owners refuse to spend the cost of one afternoon's ammo per year for a membership?

Dillon Precision, makers of highly thought of reloading equipment, publish a nifty little catalog that doubles as a magazine, The Blue Press. It has lots of stuff for sale, pictures of pretty ladies with guns and always a few interesting articles. Case in point--before the 2004 election, author Peter Caroline took the position "If you don't vote like a gun owner, YOU SUCK!" Here's the first paragraph:

According to most estimates, there are between 75 and 80 million adult gun owners in the United States. That's more people than voted in the last presidential election. So why is it, when there are so many gun owners, that we are not the DOMINANT voting bloc in this country? Because most of that 75-80 million are stupid, lazy, hypocritical barfbags. Well, I'd like to say something to that group.

Now go read the rest of it. It's all as true now as it was then (with the exception that NRA membership has grown to a paltry 4 million). When you're done, you need to consider the subject of the 2008 election and the likely winners if gun owners don't start acting like they value their freedoms.

Yeah, the Republicans are far from perfect. Sure, they let years of being in power go to their heads. Yep, they made the stupid decision to abandon their professed principles in an effort to stay in power. We let them do it! When they started acting this way, we didn't stand up, write letters, publish blogs and make phone calls. We didn't put any meaningful pressure on them. We didn't hold their feet to the fire. It's as much our fault as it is theirs.

So the questions are:
  • Did you suck during the last elections?
  • Do you suck now?
  • Will you suck in 2008?
Or will you get off your fat whatever and work to keep the freedoms that remain and retake those we've lost?

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Blue Moods

Geek With a .45 points out that Kevin at Smallest Minority is in a funk. For the correct reasons, but a funk no less.

Go read the depressing truth about life in 21st Century America, but remember that things don't have to be this way. We can fix this if enough of us work together.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Who needs George Orwell

1984? You've got to be kidding. Who needs Orwell's 1984 when we have the Federal Bureau of Investigation:

The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed.

Instead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords.

I don't know what else to say except "Just f'ing lovely".

Monday, January 29, 2007

Wrong on Ron?

Well, it seems that I've stirred up some folks with my comments on Ron Paul (in this post). Here's a few outtakes from the comments:

You may want to check Ron Paul on the Open Borders thing. He's on the anti-immigration side of the issue. He's even considers the possibility of not granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. (Casey Khan)

----------

OOPs

Ron Paul parts with many Libertarians on several issues and Borders are one. Paul has been on the Border issue before it was popular. (Philly)

----------

Oops. I think you need to double-check your sources.

Ron Paul is NOT for open borders. That should have been immediately apparent if you'd done the slightest amount of research. (Mr. Republican)

One thing about the blogosphere, there are plenty of smart folks out there, and they don't hesitate to let you know their opinions.

Of course, I don't qualify myself as a drooling idiot either, so let's look at some of the items I've used to formulate my view about Dr.Ron Paul.

Americans for Better Immigration give Dr. Paul a 79% rating, which is a B by their standards. (They have a more detailed version of his record here.) Now I'll admit that's pretty good, especially if you look at how many are ranked below him. However, on this subject, I'd prefer a higher grade.

In a recent article on lewrockwell.com, he stops somewhat short of an outright call to secure the borders. To his credit, however, he slams such stupidities such as amnesty and birthright citizenship. He also calls for more resources to control our borders. But he doesn't come out and unambiguously call for slamming the door shut, and that's what I'd like to see.

In this article by Reason, Brian Doherty notes that Dr. Paul is "not afraid of aggravating even parts of his libertarian constituency when he thinks it’s the right thing to do, as on immigration (where he’s against amnesty and birthright citizenship, and for increased border control". Further along in the Q & A part of the piece, Dr. Paul states

I believe in national borders and national security. My position is, take away incentives--why are states compelled to give free education and medical care? I don’t endorse easy automatic citizenship for people who break the law. They shouldn’t be able to come reap the benefits of welfare state. I don’t think libertarians can endorse that. I think removing the incentives is very important, but I don’t think you can solve the immigration problem until you deal with the welfare state and the need for labor created by a government that interferes with the market economy. We’re short of labor at the same time lots of people are paid not to work. Take away [illegal immigrants'] incentives. I do believe in a responsibility to protect our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that’s a reasonable position

Dr. Paul is a fine man. I would vote for him if he was nominated, reservations aside. However, he isn't as strong on the border as I want to hear. I'm looking for "We're going to slam the border shut like the door at Cheyenne Mountain during a drill." Now if you Dr. Paul defenders want to take issue with that, go ahead, but it's my view.

Also, although I didn't raise this in the original post, Mountain Man (When are you going to get your own blog, boy?) brings up an important point--electability. Can Ron Paul be elected to the Presidency?

But that's a topic for an entirely different post. Perhaps another day.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

At least someone got the real message

(Via Drudge)

It would seem someone in the Republican part has received the real message that was sent in the 2006 elections:

It's important for us to realize we lost, and there are significant reasons that happened, but it isn't because conservatives were rejected. But it's because we rejected the conservative philosophy in this country.

The pity of it is that those are the words of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who's name has previously been mentioned in connection with a possible Presidential run. While his conservative credentials are pretty good (even though I disagree with him on a few things), he stands exactly a zero chance of getting elected even if he changes his mind and decides to run--at least any time in the near future. His brother has pretty well seen to that. Smart fellow that he is, he has realized that and is not wasting his time trying.

As you might imagine, I move in a fairly conservative circle. While we all don't agree, if you took all my close friends and associates as a group, we lean way to the right/conservative/whatever you want to call it end of the political spectrum. Also as you might expect, the subject of "OK, we got our butts kicked, so where do we go from here?" has come up--a lot.

One thing we pretty much agree on is that there isn't a candidate who has announced for President who really seems all that good. We're ambivalent to the lot of them.

My personal philosophy is that if a candidate is friendly to the Second Amendment, then that candidate is likely to have a pretty good stand on most Constitutional issues, and is pretty likely to be a fiscal conservative. Those are pretty much my litmus tests for supporting someone who is running for office.

Kim du Toit has a post, drawn from work by Dave Kopel, that summarizes all announced candidates' stance on our right to keep and bear arms. Allow me to summarize the summary--the only candidates that are worthy of consideration based on that criteria and my philosophy are:

Ron Paul (R-ish)
Sam Brownback (R)
Duncan Hunter (R)
Jim Gilmore (R)
Mike Huckabee (R)
Tom Tancredo (R)
Tommy Thompson (R)
Bill Richardson (D)
Newt Gingrich (R)
Chuck Hagel (R)

I've looked at all of these guys, and while most of them are probably more conservative that any president since Reagan, I can't get warm and/or fuzzy about any of them. I'm unconvinced that any of them are truly principled conservatives.

Bill Richardson is out based on his membership in the Democrat party and the fact that he was Comrade Clinton's Energy Secretary. 'Nuff said.

Ron Paul is out because he's a Libertarian, not a libertarian. I don't do open borders. Good fences make good neighbors, as the old saying goes.

Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo are unelectable as things currently stand. That's a pity, since both men might actually make a decent President, if they could tone down their rhetoric enough that Joe Average would listen to them for a minute.

All the rest are pretty much career politicians. While that doesn't automatically rule them out (Hey, experience in politics is a necessary factor for the job.), it doesn't endear them to me, either. I'm afraid that a system such as ours is becoming will eventually compromise them, if it hasn't already. Since it seems to me we desperately need a man or woman of principle, I just don't know if I feel they can be trusted to do the right thing at a time in our history when it seems imperative that we don't make more mistakes.

So having said that, I know that you're going to be asking "OK, smart guy, so who should we vote for?" Yes, I know my readers... :-)

I've always been partial to Fred Thompson. He's electable, he's friendly to the Second Amendment and to conservative principles in general (although I'll note he isn't perfect). He's had his moments (such as supporting John McCain), but the man does seem to be a fairly principled man of conservative bent.

Will he run? Probably not. He seems to have pretty much retired from political life to continue his career as an actor. But perhaps he could still be prevailed upon. And face it--the last actor we had as President did a pretty good job.