I just got off the phone with Saddam Hussein, and he says it's getting cold

Why shouldn't I believe him? See for yourself:


From Allahpundit.

The sweet smell of formaldehyde. Embrace it Republicans.

It has been obvious for sometime, but it's just now so unavoidably in my face that I feel that I have to correct what I said in a previous post.

I had argued that with McCain the likely nominee after his Florida victory, that the GOP will die. And I was wrong.

I had argued that since Republicans chose to make a liberal Republican the front runner and by extension, the preferred future President, the GOP no longer cares about conservative principles. And I was wrong.

The GOP as a party of conservative ideas is already dead. The GOP hasn't cared for conservative principles for years now. The heart and soul of the Republican Party is vacant, cold and dark. Not long ago, betrayal killed off most of what was once a vibrant healthy cardiovascular system. But a few stalwarts remained keeping the heart pumping, and then something happened.

Did the Republican Party die when truly conservative candidates couldn't even get enough support to make it to Super Tuesday? Is that the sweet smell of formaldehyde, when the only candidate conservatives could vote for was not too long ago, to the left of Ted Kennedy even?

Yes and yes. The head of the conservative beast has been severed. What remains are the limbs flailing about chaotically, and in vain, trying to regain itself. 'Tis truly a sad funeral, when the so-called 'last best hope' for a conservative candidate, is himself a long-time liberal, who is losing.

The best political ad I've ever seen...

All biases and political persuasions aside, this has got to be one of the best political ads ever:

Gender Bender

It's supposedly from an amateur Bloomberg supporter. That's some high quality amateurism.

Via Hot Air, who kindly linked me this morning.

You know, with McCain the likely GOP nominee, I want Bloomberg, Nader, and Ron Paul to all run third party campaigns. May the best man idiot bring this country down.

Hmm: Ron Paul "sure" didn't want to be president... wants to cut military by 80%

TAYLOR: I don't know you very well, but I think I know you well enough to believe you have no desire to ever become President of the United States.

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: That's for sure.

TAYLOR: Even so, many people who know you and revere your work would love to see that. But if you were President, what policies would you seek to implement to make America a freer, safer, fairer, and more prosperous place for its citizens?

CONGRESSMAN PAUL: It's the respect for liberty that is the problem. We don't have enough respect or understanding or confidence in liberty. That is the real problem. To cut back on government, you have to have the people understand the issue of liberty. So, my biggest goal has been in the area of education, as well as this little political effort I am involved in. But oh, I guess I would get rid of the Federal Reserve, get rid of the IRS, bring our troops home, and cut down to only about 20% of what we are spending on the military - those things would bring about a tremendous boom in this country, but it is just not going to happen. [emphasis added]

Here's the source. It's been buzzing around the tubes lately. I'm not certain, but doubtful it's a fake, so I'll do some searching to try and confirm it. By the way, the interview is from just a year and a half ago.

Confirmation... A simple Google search reveals that there is indeed a recurring link between J. Taylor and his Gold and Technology Stocks newsletter, and his often interviewed subject: Ron Paul.

Quotes of the Day

Tonight was a big win for illegal-immigration amnesty, remorseless socialization of health care, and big-government solutions to global warming...

The other quote is right here.

End of an era: GOP no more.

Well, it was nice while it lasted, but the Republican Party seems to be headed for certain death.

It looks like McCain is winning Florida, and it's rumored that Giuliani will endorse McCain. Huckabee is going to be on his way out soon as well, and I don't see any chance of him endorsing anybody but Johnny Maverick.

Pending a shocking and surprising upset in Florida for McCain, which is looking bleaker by the minute, McCain will most likely be the GOP's nomination. And the Republican Party will wither away, and if not, it will cease to stand for conservative principles, rendering it substantively meaningless.

Update: It's been called. McCain wins Florida.

Radical Muslim planned to kill British soldier. Reuters: Briton admits plot to behead Muslim soldier.

Beyond parody. I cannot honestly come up with anything more PC that utterly misrepresents the facts, while still being technically accurate.

That's Reuters for you. Amazing.

Blogs 4 Borders Video

Special edition...
The 100% 100% Preventable show!



The burst is now available as a podcast! You can download it here.

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here.

Tags: illegal immigration, deportation, invasion, mexico, guatemala, murder, rape, vlog, podcast, border security, ms 13, gangs, drug cartels, suicide

Quote of the Day

From the comments on the Fark thread where I got that child support story:

Marriage in the USA is slowly legislating itself out of existence. There's little to nothing that a man gains from marriage that he cannot have outside of marriage. And people wonder why marriage rates have been plummeting for the past few decades and continue to do so.

Since a woman can choose at any time for any reason to end the marriage, and take 1/2 of the cars, houses, and other assets that you worked your whole life to acquire, AS WELL AS 30% of your paycheck each month for the rest of your life, and divorce happens 55-60% of the time, what incentive (for a man) exists to continue the fraudulent act of marriage?

Add to that the large drop in sex after marriage...

The rest goes downhill, but what I quoted was I think, spot on. Growing up, I thought of rule of marriage was what my parents had: a strong stable long-lasting relationship that was the foundation of a family. I don't see it that way now. If I see examples like that today, I think they're very lucky, and the exception to the rule. Damn that's depressing.

FBI: National Security is top priority; right after purging our malcontents.

If you had suspicion of moles in your organization, wouldn't you at least want to investigate the matter further? Well that is just not the way the FBI does things, according to this story from a busy blogger:

When she alerted her superiors and the special agent in charge of the investigation about what she found, no one wanted to hear about it. Shortly thereafter, not only was she fired, "her home computer was seized; her family in Turkey was visited by police and threatened with arrest if they did not submit to questioning about an unspecified 'intelligence matter.'"

The FBI never gave an explanation for her firing, but three months later admitted that Ms. Edmonds had been correct and... [her] valid complaints were a contributing factor to her dismissal.

Read the whole thing.

Absurd: Child support for another man's kid?

When a child's best interest (determined by a judge) outweighs your rights and responsibilities, pray that's where it stops:

Paternity doesn't count when it comes to a Hunterdon County man's bid to lower child support payments for a child that's not his.

An appeals court upheld a lower court which denied the man's request in 2006 after he said he discovered he was not the father of the 10-year-old girl.

I'll admit ambivalence here, because it may be that the guy took the girl as his own, and that any child deserves the best of situations. Still, the man shouldn't have to pay for his ex wife's infidelity and her extramarital decision to risk having a child with another man.

Tax dollars at work: Buying carbon offsets that aren't offsetting sh*%.

From the WaPo:

In November, the Democratic-led House spent about $89,000 on so-called carbon offsets. This purchase was supposed to cancel out greenhouse-gas emissions from House buildings -- including half of the U.S. Capitol -- by triggering an equal reduction in emissions elsewhere.

Some of the money went to farmers in North Dakota, for tilling practices that keep carbon buried in the soil. But some farmers were already doing this, for other reasons, before the House paid a cent.

Other funds went to Iowa, where a power plant had been temporarily rejiggered to burn more cleanly. But that test project had ended more than a year before the money arrived.

The House's purchase provides a view into the confusing world of carbon offsets, a newly popular commodity with few rules. Analysts say some offsets really do cause new reductions in pollution. But others seem to change very little.

Well, at least it makes people feel better about the environment. And that's really all that matters considering the environmentalists' willingness to confront China and its exponentially increasing army of smokestacks.

Via Allahpundit.

News: far leftist endorses far leftist. Video added

Actually, I think the only thing that makes this newsworthy is the fact that the establishment Democrats are not supporting the establishment-like Clintons:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy implored Americans on Monday to “reject the counsels of doubt and calculation,” as he extended his endorsement and placed the aura of his family’s name around the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama...

“He will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past,” Mr. Kennedy said. “He is a leader who sees the world clearly without being cynical. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.”

Mr. Kennedy, whose endorsement was aggressively pursued by all the Democratic candidates, praised Mr. Obama’s ability to motivate a new generation of leaders. Not since his brothers, Mr. Kennedy said, has he seen a politician possess the ability to inspire.

Video below the fold...

Giuliani's Real ID

This is old news, but it's circulating on Digg and I haven't really blogged about it, so I might as well. We don't need a national biometric ID card any more now than we did 100 years ago. And this is why:



Sure, he's talking about newly immigrated folks in the clip, but if the state has to make sure you're legal just to get online, or to receive basic services, then we'd all have to be checked. And we'd all have to have that new national ID. If the state licenses aren't tamper-proof enough for immigrants, how are they good enough for others? Tamper-proof is another word for more-expensive-yet-to-be-forged-ID. If people can't provide their Social Security Card and/or birth certificate, then they don't need to be working. And if it turns out to be a forgery? That is what ICE is for.

Oh yeah, ICE isn't doing its job, so lets just make more laws and throw more money at it. Works every time.

Back in the day, I wanted to be a Cop...

And this is why:

A Middletown police officer spent his last day on the job writing tickets for 14 patrol cars that had expired inspection stickers.

Cpl. Frank Holden says he was just doing his job.

Awesome. I would've worked double-overtime doing stuff like that.

Advice of the Day

Regarding the $800 tax rebates comes another quote from CoyoteBlog:

Far be it for me to presume to tell people how to spend their own money (what do I look like, a Congressman?) but here is a bit of advice: Save it. Because this is not a grant, it is a loan.

Bonus:* Also via CoyoteBlog, individual sovereignty: New York style.

[*I guess that's not really a bonus, but I just wanted to throw it out there in case you're feeling too happy]

Big Brother now your personal trainer

Is it me, or is this a little too Orwellian?

Obese and overweight adults in England could be paid to lose weight under plans being considered by the Government. The new strategy to tackle poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyles includes the suggestion that people should receive financial rewards or shopping vouchers for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight.

The £372 million strategy reiterates a target set last year to cut the proportion of overweight and obese children by 2020 to levels in 2000.

Via InstaGlenn.

Life and Choice...

An amazing story of a woman who had to choose:

Four months into her pregnancy, Lorraine Allard was devastated to learn she was in the advanced stages of cancer.

Doctors advised her to have an abortion and start chemotherapy straight away.

Instead, with steadfast courage, she insisted on waiting long enough to give her unborn son a chance to survive, telling her husband Martyn: "If I am going to die, my baby is going to live."

Read the whole thing.

Frum on the Conservative coalition...

A pretty good & quick read, and as far as what's on the minds of conservatives, I'd say he's got it down:

Why aren’t economic, social and political conservatives pulling together during this primary season the way they have in the past? To understand, let’s imagine that we had three conservatives in the room with us — and that they said exactly what was on their minds.

Go read it, and judge for yourself not only the viability of Frum's advice, but if it'd work if earnestly applied. He's right on one part; we conservatives could use a little more togetherness right now, but the half-liberal, half-conservative candidates we have currently share a lot of the blame, not to mention the missteps and betrayals from the Bush administration. I fear the only thing that can save the conservative coalition this election is a dues ex machina.

Video: John McCain, the Democrats' favorite

This is too good not to share:



It's pretty obvious this is the guy Rush is talking about here.

Maybe it will be more tolerable to live in Utah

Maybe:

A Utah state House panel yesterday gave its approval to a proposal that would impose a statewide ban on ticket quotas. Representative Neil Hansen (D-Ogden) brought back the bill which had passed the full House last year, but was blocked by Ogden Police Chief Jon Greiner -- who also happens to be a state senator serving on the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee. Hansen hopes his legislation will clear the Senate roadblock this time.

"This issue is not a new issue," Hansen said. "All this (bill) is doing is putting in statute that they cannot tell their officers to go out and write a certain number of tickets within a specific time.... It more or less lets law enforcement go out and do their job."

Hansen testified that officers had contacted his office to complain that they were under continual pressure to write traffic tickets instead of warnings. To avoid the word "quota," police management used the term "performance based evaluation." Hansen's bill would prohibit municipalities, counties, sheriffs and police chiefs from requiring officers to issue a certain number of tickets in a given amount of time.

So where do the police stand?

Police officials testified against a ban on a practice that they denied has ever existed.

I see.

South Dakota to Pre-empt Campus Gun Bans

Lawmakers in South Dakota have introduced some good legislation. Hopefully it passes:

A bill introduced Tuesday would bar the regents from outlawing firearms on state university campuses.

HB1261 says the universities cannot expel or discipline anyone who legally carries a gun onto campus.

The news is skimpy on the details so I'll do some googling. So now it's Utah and potentially South Dakota (am I missing any?). I would like to see this become a trend.

Update: Found the bill, and it has got a lot of sponsors behind it. And it appears to be much better than the Utah law, which if I understand correctly, gives professors discretion over allowing firearms inside their classrooms. Sponsors and full text of the bill below...

Introduced by: Representatives Brunner, Cutler, Howie, Jerke, Kirkeby, Koistinen, Noem, Olson (Betty), Rhoden, Steele, and Van Etten and Senators Schmidt (Dennis), Apa, Greenfield, Kloucek, Maher, McNenny, and Napoli


FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to regulate the right to carry a firearm on the campuses of public institutions of higher education.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. No public institution of higher education may regulate or restrict the right to carry or possess a firearm in accordance with state law. No public institution of higher education may expel, dismiss, or penalize any person who carries or possesses a firearm in accordance with state law. However, any public institution of higher education may require that any firearm in a campus dormitory of a public institution of higher education not in a person's immediate possession be stored in a locked gun safe.

Section 2. For the purposes of this Act only, the term, public institution of higher education, means any public postsecondary educational institution under the Board of Regents or any public postsecondary technical institute under the Board of Education.

Sounds like it was a good time...

Sailor Curt at the anti-gun rally, who were outnumbered by the pro-gun side:

Several of the speakers were very, very angry and one of them played the "guilt" card, telling us how ashamed gun rights supporters should be for insulting them by daring to be present at their public demonstration.

Royalty

Yeah, that is spooky.

Apparently, it's better than voting for the GOP nominee, whoever that may be.

Straight from Karl Marx...

And into a study the media can propagate as scientific evidence.

It would be nice if these "journalists" would link to their source once and a while; and you'd think it'd be especially the case coming from a "Web Producer".

Hoplophobia update

So a citizen went through the security check at the airport with his gun. Apparently realizing his error, turns around and hands it over to the TSA guys. The good-intentioned man then gets charged with a misdemeanor. The news report continues:

This latest breach at Reagan National has air travelers disappointed but not discouraged. Passenger Rob Padgett said, “Their security is tight, it's tighter than it's ever been, so whatever the number of incidents is, it's not many, so, I trust it and I feel safe.”

So a good guy has in one instance not only proven security to be faulty, he has disarmed himself. And that makes it feel safe? This kind of backwards thinking has got to end.

So Fred's out, now what?

Well, I'm not sure... yet. But here's what I am sure of:

It is quite stupid to vote for the greater evil as a means of protest, in hope that your party will learn something. Fact is, parties have been not learning anything for the past 200 years. Why else do we have such a broad ideological range of candidates? Because issues don't sell in America; style and persona does. What else explains the Huckaboom? GOP primary voters don't typically vote for big nanny-state liberals, but they sure did in Iowa.

As for me, I focus on the issues. Not just one, but several that are important to me. Which is why I'm leaning toward Mitt Romney, a bitter-sweet candidate strong on the economy and defense, shady on gun rights, and questionable on other social policies since he'll say virtually anything for a vote. So why in hell would I support Mitt Romney?

Because we rarely get exactly what we want in a candidate, so we either play it smart and vote for those most compatible while lobbying him and the party to become more in line with your views. Or you can help ensure more life-time appointed federal judges very similar to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. -Yeah, that sounds like a plan.

I'm not saying I'm supporting Mitt as of now, but I am saying I could. I don't trust him when it comes to gun rights or abortion, but I do trust him on the economy, immigration, and defense. And that's more of my trust than any other candidate has right now.

Quote of the Day

Just how draconian the intervention is ebbs and flows from decade to decade, but the reality of the long-term trend is undeniable: more taxes, more regulation, more bureaucracies, more regimentation, more public ownership, and ever less autonomy for private decision-making. The federal budget is nearly $3 trillion per year, which is three times what it was in Reagan's second term. Just since Bush has been in office, federal intervention in every area of our lives has exploded, from the nationalization of airline security to the heavy regulation of the medical sector to the centralized control of education.

With "free markets" like this, who needs socialism?

An Argument Against Democracy

Blogs4Borders Video

In this weeks edition:

Slavery in Florida! Wait 'til you hear who it was!
100% Preventable! More children sacrificed to open borders!
Deporting criminals? Are you sure it's a good thing?



This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here.

Tags: illegal immigration, deportation, invasion, insanity, rape, crime, mexico, latin America, podcast, vodcast, blogs for borders

Respect for the elderly.

Some people have it, others apparently, do not.

South Carolina

Well, I'm glad the vote for Huckabee all but destroyed his chance at the nomination. Naturally, I am quite upset about Fred's performance, as I had been throughout his campaign, or lack of one. Given the realities, I fully expect Thompson to withdraw soon, that is unless Huckabee stays in and he really plans on helping out McCain.

As for McCain, I would rather sharpen pencils with my teeth than see him as the GOP nominee, but I do take comfort in the fact that he is somewhat better than Romney on gun rights, not much, but it's something. Then again, Romney is far superior to McCain on economic policy and immigration, a skill and mindset sorely needed in the years to come.

Who knows, should a pleasant decision come down from the Supreme Court in a few months, gun bans and gun control may become untouchable for any future presidents. But that's wishful thinking. I guess I'm just thinking out loud.

Iowahawk kills me.

And if he doesn't, the media just may.

Some context: You may recall the NYT story about 121 Iraq and Afghanistan vets involved in homicides after returning home; the same story which sensationalized these military tragedies that occur with less frequency than of the general population.

Okay, go read it.

Impressive

Via Say Uncle

Quote of the Day

Liberals will say that the comparison is unfair, because Mr. Bush is so much worse than Mr. Clinton ever was. Yes, Mr. Clinton may have been imperfect, but Mr. Bush -- whom people on the far left routinely compare to Hitler -- is evil. This of course destroys the liberal stereotype even more eloquently than the data. The very essence of intolerance is to dehumanize the people with whom you disagree by asserting that they are not just wrong, but wicked.

Linking, not thinking.

I haven't really had time this week to think through the news and provide any meaningful or insightful commentary, coupled with the fact that I picked up a nasty cold, I frankly don't feel like it. That's how it'll probably be for the next few days.

Nonetheless, interesting stories are interesting stories, so for your reading and viewing pleasure:

The NYT faithfully does its part for the anti-war crowd.

Global Warming also causes cold weather, just so you know.

The nanny-state protecting you from idling cars.

Voter disenfranchisement top priority for Democrats; for Hillary, not so much.

Surprise: Chris Mathews has a mancrush on Obama.

AP: writing the news of tomorrow, today.

And a video for you internet junkies (language warning).

Porn is relative...

Unfortunately, I share a religion with these well-intentioned people. To whom I ask, wouldn't the logical thing be not to watch, and if you can't seem to do that, stop going?

Quote of the Day

It's actually a few days old, but I just came across it.

Coyote Blog:

People who owe their jobs to the government are always a lot more vigilent about protecting their turf than they are about providing service.

Neighborly Mayor

I don't know why, but I thought this story was interesting. Probably because I've never thought of a mayor having an identical twin, or stealing a puppy, or filing false police reports, or all of the above.

Fred rejects Solicitor General's Amicus Brief

Good, and about time:

Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General’s request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for “fact-finding”, the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was “overlawyering” and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More at RedState.com.

Notice anybody else standing in opposition to the Bush administration on this? I didn't think so.

Via HotAir.

Reasons why government should run our lives, #486,271

Because open, honest, transparency is good for everyone*.

SS#'s On Mailing Labels in WI for 3rd Time...
The news comes after a vendor for the state wrongly sent out 260,000 brochures earlier this month with the Social Security number of addressees on the front.

*Not including state, local, or federal governments.

Stick it to the Man, part II, eh!

This guy is great, and I sincerely hope he reaches his objective through his own civil disobedience:

The man who saved the town.

That's how the story was written. Huge overreaction.

The Border Patrol Mission

It's a little old, but new to me (and probably most others). Courtesy of Jake, my harder-working co-founder of Blogs4Borders.

Listen carefully:


That was Chief Border Patrol Agent Carillo.

Domestic Spying... online.

We all know privacy does not truly exist online (unless you're a 14 year old guru living in your parents' basement), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't:

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a "walk in the park"...

Maybe I should amend my previous post to say something like: National Security still top priority, right after knowing what you bought on eBay.

National Security still top priority, right after shortening the line at the DMV.

Apparently:

Federal inspectors have detailed yet another security breach at one of the nation's oldest nuclear weapons plants.

There may have been dozens of security violations involving the use of unauthorized laptop computers being brought into secure areas of the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, according to a report released by the Department of Energy's inspector general...

...inspectors discovered that as many as 37 additional laptops may have been brought into the plant's limited area without following proper security protocols.

Nine of those laptops were later taken out of the country, including two of which were taken to countries on DOE's sensitive countries list.

According to the report, the contractors involved in the incident were immediately removed from the facility and their unclassified e-mail accounts were suspended.

The laboratory has suffered at least two other security breaches in the last year.

Sadly, this is nothing new. Remember The Alamos. Well, at least we know how to fix it, more government. Seriously, aren't there more competent private security firms, and wouldn't it be worth it?

Blogs 4 Borders Video

In this weeks edition...

Open borders groups demand: Don't tell the truth about the invasion!
100% Preventable! More Americans sacrificed to open borders.
And civil rights: who gets'em?



And yes, that is one of our smoke detectors beeping in the background! Apologies if it's annoying.

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here.

Tags: illegal immigration, deportation, civil rights, rape, murder, mexico, invasion

Huffington Post on propriety and class.

Honoring the dead and their surviving family:

..."hate" for unions, snobs, phonies, mom and us kids. Think of him as a kind of grown up Holden Caulfield, crossed with Hitler. Hitler Caulfield. The Catcher in the Rhine. This guy in the front row, he gets it!

Ann Coulter might not be a saint, and she might not be polite to the Left, but nobody deserves this. What they criticize Coulter for, they are too quick to engage in.

Via HotAir

I lied...

I said I wasn't going to blog today, but things happen. I was going to go check out a gun show, and since I still have time, I'll be on my way.

Back tomorrow. Until then, I ask you, does stuff like this qualify as vigilante justice, or awful parenting?

'Strict Liability' established for malfunctioning firearms.

The precedent has been made.

An executive organization, the ATF, not only legislates with policy, but has proven those laws to be essentially vague and over-broad, and has now jeopardized thousands, if not millions of gun owners.

And what's the punishment you ask? Up to $10,000 in fines and 10 years imprisonment.

So much for stare decisis.

Via WoG.

Train Wreck

I'm glad we learned our lesson, or at least I hope, regarding the U.S. government's foolhardy throwing of the wrench into the machinery of the market back in the 70s, when OPEC didn't know its head from its rear end, ultimately causing a global mess and long lines at the gas pumps.

China, and apparently much of Europe has not. From the comments at Coyote Blog:

...most germans are not even ignorant to economic mechanisms, but they also get taught in public schools that those mechanisms don't work or don't apply.
Also, there are no economics courses in high school, the best I had was "Gemeinschaftskunde", means something like social and social class education. In these classes the imperative of the superiority of Keynesianism against free market (deemed American Style economics) is still common sense. It is taught that prices can be regulated and set though the actor in setting prices changes between a depression (government) and a haute (entrepreneur).

It's unsettling to see that ignorance is bliss and given that Gymnasium (high school plus first two years of college) is the highest form of non-University education in Germany, this is even tragic.

Perhaps education might be partly responsible for the high turnout of socialist economic policy not only in the government, but also in the mind of the people.

I think that's the attitude of an increasing number of young Americans when they begin to form stronger political opinions. That is, until they experience real life without dependence on government or their parents, or until they take Economics 101. It should be a required course for every student in high school.

Weekend Images.

I'm taking the rest of the weekend off. I'll be back Monday for more, but until then, enjoy:

The ultimate one-stop wedding shop.

More below...

Rules are rules:
Job security:

Wait, what?
I knew guns could kill, but the thought of them bringing the dead back to life?
Just so nobody is confused:
The question is, should they?
Hmm.
Drive-by home-ec education:

Stick it to the Man, eh!

Canadian style:


Via HotAir

Wow.

I'm still upset about the previous post. Thankfully, rare stories like this prove that not all Americans are as stupid as the DOJ.

The guy almost deserves the cash. That takes some serious forethought, and well, balls.

Are you kidding me?

And I was willing to think Maximum Mike Sullivan's nomination was just a fluke, a political payoff or what have you, but this is beginning to look like a pattern of betrayal:

Government files amicus -- on DC's side!

Beyond the pale. Thank God the judicial branch, at least the Supreme Court, isn't suffering from the same deterioration both Congress and the executive currently are.

It's late, I skimmed through it and it's chocolate-covered horseshit. The DOJ defends the fact that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, but defend the hell out of the government's right to reasonably restrict it for virtually whatever reason they can think of, including the Commerce Clause. A few choice paragraphs:

Like other provisions of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms because those persons have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms...

When, as here, a law directly limits the private possession of “Arms” in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice, the Second Amendment requires that the law be subject to heightened scrutiny that considers (a) the practical impact of the challenged restrictions on the plaintiff ’s ability to possess firearms for lawful purposes (which depends in turn on the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives), and (b) the strength of the government’s interest in enforcement of the relevant restriction...

The court of appeals, by contrast, appears to have adopted a more categorical approach. The court’s decision could be read to hold that the Second Amendment categorically precludes any ban on a category of “Arms” that can be traced back to the Founding era. If adopted by this Court, such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns.

So maybe they'll be careful when they decide. Unlike the DOJ, I have a little more faith in the Supreme Court to make wise decisions, rather than virtually insult a branch of government's intelligence.

Indeed, the court’s unqualified determination that “handguns are ‘Arms,’ ” at 51a, does not exclude certain automatic weapons covered by 18 U.S.C. 922(o) that fall within the D.C.-law definition of “pistol.” And because automatic rifles like the M-16 are now standard-issue military weapons for rankand-file soldiers, the court’s reference to the “lineal descendant[s]” of the weapons used in Founding-era militia operations, see Pet. App. 51a, on its face would cover machineguns and other firearms that represent vast technological improvements over the “Arms” available in 1791...

Yes just like television, radio, and the internet are still legitimate means for the exercise of freedom of the press.

The question remains whether the restriction is reasonable. The right protected by the Second Amendment is a right to “keep and bear Arms,” not a right to possess any specific type of firearm. A ban on a type or class of firearms, such as machineguns, is not unconstitutional just because it is categorical. A number of factors—including whether a particular kind of firearm is commonly possessed, poses specific dangers, or has unique uses, as well as the availability of functional alternatives—are relevant to the constitutional analysis...

Even the GOP is scared of citizens with guns. I think the Supreme Court should tell President Bush and his DOJ where to go, and I think Scalia is aptly suited for that job.

Update: There would be no harm in contacting your preferred presidential candidate and urge him to denounce this move by the Bush administration.

[Edited slightly to correct last night's hastily posted errors]

Reuters takes down Debusmann 'Gun Culture' article. Update: Found the new and improved article.

Remember the gun bloggers various posts thoroughly debunking Debusmann's 'gun culture' article including his sources? Well, I think Reuters took notice, as the page is no longer found.

You stay classy Reuters.

UPDATE: Oh nice, check out the new location of Debusmann's fine display of professionalism, with the following addition:

Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Funny thing

So Ace, in his own way, sincerely asks supporters of Ron Paul to make their case, in a concrete way.

The first comment:

If they were serious about making smaller government a reality, they'd be Frederalists.

I tried not to laugh, but I couldn't help it.

Zero beheadings...

I predict very little to no violence as a result of this.

If that were a statue of Mohammed, however...

Phobias.

Are you scared of long words? If so, tell your doctor you suffer from hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.

Yeah, no kidding. That's cruel.

Fox News GOP Debate 1/10/07

My thoughts: Fred Thompson won hands down, followed by McCain. Here's a choice clip of Fred taking on Huckabee, who "caught flak" primarily from Fred:



Strangely, Ron Paul was the only one who took on McCain, and Paul would have gone away performing better than usual, but he slipped up big time:


A pretty good debate, and I've watched them all. The only mud flinging was from Fred to Huckabee, and a little from all to Paul, but Paul, other than his slip up, fought back fairly well.

For those who missed the debate you can catch it all here. Or here.

Support for Gun Control, on the rise? Fisking Debusmann and the biased NORC

Via the War on Guns, comes this Reuters "news article" by Bernd Debusmann on the decline of America's gun culture:

Is America, land of shooting massacres in schools and public places, slowly falling out of love with guns?

The answer is yes, and it runs counter to popular perceptions of the United States as a country where most citizens are armed to the teeth and believe it is every American's inalienable right to buy an AK 47-style assault rifle with the minimum of bureaucratic paperwork.

But in fact, gun ownership in the United States has been declining steadily over more than three decades, relegating gun owners to minority status.

At the same time, support for stricter gun controls has been growing steadily and those in favor make up a majority.

Debusmann cites the "University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC), which has been tracking gun ownership and attitudes on firearms since 1972, the longest-running survey on the subject in the United States." Strange, because Gallup has been doing almost the exact same thing since at least 1959.

In this "news article," Debusmann goes on to back up his claims that public support for gun control is growing "steadily" based on NORC's research:

The number of households with guns dropped from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006, according to NORC, and the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun has shrunk to just under 22 percent.

ETA: Compare with Gallup percentages: 43% say they have a gun in the home in October '06. Also from Gallup, October '05:

Overall, 30% of Americans say they personally own a gun and 12% say some other member of their household owns it.

Of course, this has little, if anything to do with Debusmann's assertion on gun control.

Lets just take a look at public opinion over the years, shall we:


Now, as you can see, this apparently inferior research by the Gallup organization shows the opposite, of course only if you have any faith in this Gallup organization. The trend is quite clearly moving toward declining support for "more strict" regulation. Odd, that.

What's more strange, is that the statistics for his claim that support for stricter gun control is "growing steadily" aren't even cited. Rather Debusmann relies on a statement from the anti-gun VPC (surprise!) and this chart from NORC, take a look for yourself:

(Click image to expand)

My oh my, what a trend. Looks like the heart rate monitor on my pet rock. He also relies on other "trends," but the thing is, they are for very specific reasons:

[S]upport for specific measures to regulate firearms has been strong and stable or even gaining ground in recent years.... backing for making the penalty for illegally selling guns tougher than for illegal drug sales was unchanged from 55% supporting this in 2001 and 54% backing it in 2006 and support for criminal background checks for all gun sales, including private sales between individuals increased from 77.5% in 2001 to 80% in 2006 (Table 1 and Smith, 2001)

Let's see, according to NORC, support of punishment for gun crime more than drug crime actually fell 1% in this time frame, while support for criminal background checks increased a whopping 2.5%.

So basically Debusmann's "news article" asserts that America's gun culture is fading because of what the VPC said, and because public opinion has changed on a few specific areas only a few percentage points, opinion gathered by NORC.

What you've read so far is not the half of it. Have you ever heard of NORC, especially in regards to public opinion on gun control? I haven't, and probably for good reason. If my old PoliSci professor caught me asking these questions in pursuit of an accurate representation of public opinion, I'd have failed the course.

Here's a question from NORC on the one-gun-a-month proposal:

Some states have passed laws limiting handgun sales to one per month per customer.Some people favor these laws as a way to prevent people from buying large quantities of handguns and selling them to criminals or teenagers. Other people oppose these laws because they say the law interferes with the right of law-abiding citizens to buy guns. Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose a law that prohibits citizens from buying more than one handgun per month?

Nice, put the image of criminals, teenagers, and large quantities of guns in the mind of the guy being polled, and your desired response is practically guaranteed.

Another question:

Most states require a special license to allow people to carry a concealed firearm. Should licenses to carry concealed firearms be issued to any adult who has passed a criminal background check and a gun safety course or only to people with a special need to carry a concealed gun such as private detectives?

Well this question was doomed from the start; notice the word "special." Then by saying "any adult," as if any old bum off the street who hasn't got caught by the police is one option, or the "special" need private detective scenario. Now if you're ignorant on gun laws, you typically err on the side of the existing law, so guess what, you pick "special."

Another excellent question:

The government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, even if it means that it will be harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns.

Well, besides us gun nuts who know better, who in their right mind would possibly want more guns in the hands of criminals, and that's what a person would feel like if they answered incorrectly. I say incorrectly, because that's how this poll is set up. It's flawed, it's biased, and it's bullshit. How about one more:

As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, do you think that gun control laws should be stricter, making it harder for people to purchase firearms or that gun control laws should be less strict, making it easier for people to purchase firearms?

That's nice, terrorists and guns... that's all we need. Would you want it to be easy for a terrorist to buy a gun? When you want a certain answer you'll get it. And that's exactly what NORC did. Let's go back to Gallup, an organization we've all heard of for a little dose of good poll conducting:

Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?

Notice the question was not prefaced with something like, criminals by far, have used handguns when shooting at police officers. Or something like, most crimes involving firearms are used by criminals with semi-automatic handguns. Did you see the cunning in that last one? I invoked forms of the word 'crime' two times! And the answer to that Gallup question: 68% said these guns should not be banned, and 30% said they should. Although you could argue who authorized persons actually are, but nonetheless a much better worded question. ETA: See this Gallup video on how minor changes in question wording can dramatically affect the answer: The Safety of Guns.

That's the difference in Gallup and NORC. Have a read through NORC's research and compare it to Gallup's. Night and Day. No wonder NORC's research says one thing while Gallup's says another. I wonder why Debusmann didn't once cite Gallup? Perhaps more perplexing is why his article ended up in the news section, and not the opinion section.

I'm not done yet. Guess who got a grant from the anti-gun Joyce foundation. And guess what for:

National Opinion Research Center
Chicago, IL $39,499
To add a selection of gun-related questions
to its 2006 General Social Survey. (2 yrs.)"

Debusmann is only as objective as his sources.

Suck it Bernd, we're winning.

Update: Have a look at what kind of guy Bernd Debusmann is.
And go through the numbers at Kevin Baker's or Kim du Toit's.

Update: Problems finding Debusmann's article? Well, Reuters had to throw in a caveat and in the process changed the location of the article.

Straight talk express?

Heh. Selectively, that is:

McCain’s green pitch left out that Washington’s so-called CAFE law will cost the industry $85 billion in the next decade, and will add thousands of dollars to the cost of every new car ($1500 by estimate of the leftist Union of Concerned Scientists; $5000 by industry estimates).

This is just another version of the nanny-state, except it's aimed at big business; taking away freedoms for our own protection, at a hefty cost. I'm not surprised it's coming from John the 'Maverick'.

Big government types from McCain Republicans to Obama Democrats are placing unnecessary and near impossible expectations on our automakers. First of all, when Americans start making the 35+ mpg car market a profit, the automakers will be more than happy to supply them such cars. But when the government forces it upon them, we get more expensive cars that cannot stand up to impacts over 5 mph, cars with eye appeal comparable to Rosie O'Donnell, complete with the horsepower and torque of a lawnmower.

It might help people feel better about the environment, but it won't make an ounce of difference. It will most likely however, run the American auto-industry into the ground.

FBI wiretapping haults... for not paying the phone bill.

Arguments over domestic wiretapping aside, this is just sad:

A telephone company cut off an FBI international wiretap after the agency failed to pay its bill on time, according to a U.S. government audit released on Thursday.

The Justice Department's inspector general faulted the FBI for poor handling of money used in undercover investigations, which it said made the agency vulnerable to theft and mishandled invoices.

It cited the case in which a wiretap under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs electronic spying in terrorism and intelligence cases, was disrupted due to an overdue bill.

The same government that Democrats want to be in charge of our health care, and many other of our life choices.

Western Civ.

I've never been the culture warrior type, but anymore of this kind of crap, and I'll be suiting up armed to the teeth very, very soon.

Bombing in Pakistan

Yet another example of Pakistan's instability:

Over the past three months there have been at least 20 homicide bombings that have killed 400 people, many of them security forces — the most intense period of terror attacks since Pakistan allied with the United States in its war against Al Qaeda in 2001.

Police said the attacker walked into a group of around 70 officers in riot gear outside the courtroom and detonated explosives on his body, sending a shower of shrapnel that left mangled bodies sprawled in pools of blood on the street. All but three of the dead were police officers.

This is why we need a presence in Pakistan, whether it's a covert or pseudo-covert intelligence presence. While much credit should be given to Musharraf (whether or not he's a tyrant) for maintaining the precious stability Pakistan has, he is by no means invincible. His downfall could very well put America in the cross-hairs of a Pakistani nuke.

I don't know what would be worse, being held hostage under threat of a nuclear attack, or the nuclear attack itself.

South Africa continuing its decline...

I'm hardly an expert on South Africa, let alone its politics, but I think it's safe to say that its future isn't looking good, nor has it been for awhile.

He may be the most controversial figure in African politics — a skirt-chasing, self-described "Zulu Boy" shrouded by accusations of corruption and rape who marches to a catchy tune called "Bring Me My Machine Gun."

South Africa, meet your next president.

Jacob Zuma, the 65-year-old "100 Percent Zulu Boy" and new leader of South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC), has garnered the popular support of communists and young people, some of whom publicly display anti-gay and anti-feminist views.

Snow Day

Excuse the low quality, it's from my cell phone. Today, northern Utah has been getting hit hard all day long. None of my neighborhood roads have been plowed, which usually means the plows are really busy elsewhere.

4x4s rule today.

Hillary, McCain win New Hampshire

Hillary won New Hampshire, or so says NBC. McCain did too with all networks in agreement.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday night, pulling out a stunning victory over Sen. Barack Obama in a contest that she had been forecast to lose.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain defeated former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and climbed back into contention for their party's presidential nomination.

Obama had beaten Clinton, who has been the national front-runner, in the Iowa caucuses last week, and he had appeared to be poised for victory in New Hampshire with tracking polls showing him surging into the lead.

But with 63 percent of Democrats precincts reporting Tuesday night, Clinton had 39 percent of the vote to 36 percent for Obama, who is seeking to become the nation's first black president. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina trailed with 17 percent.

It's going to be a very interesting race for the Democrats at least through the next primary on the 15th in Michigan.

Update: CNN and Fox call it for Hillary as well.

New Hampshire Primaries: McCain wins; Hillary, Obama neck and neck. Updated.

Update 9:32pm ET: 38% of the precincts are reporting with Hillary still in the lead at 39.27%, with Obama gaining with 36.26%. Huckabee has slipped a bit, Paul is almost tied with Giuliani at just over 8%.

Enough for me, I'm done with the meaningless horcerace crap. A new post will cover the final results. But I think Obama will take it by a nose, and Paul will narrowly take fourth over Giuliani. Fred did awful.

Update 9:02pm ET: 27% of precincts reporting via Politico, Hillary at 40%, Obama at 34%.
Huckabee at 12.03%, Giuliani at 9.12%, and Paul at 8.44%. McCain is solidly in first and Romney solidly in second.

Update 8:42pm ET: 16% of precincts reporting, Hillary is still in the lead, Giuliani ahead of Paul by a nose.

Update 8:32pm ET: Everybody's projecting McCain as the winner. Surprise!

Looks like McCain has got this one in the bag, while it's too close to call for Hillary and Obama, CNN however has predicted Edwards to take third. With 11% of precincts reporting as of now, McCain could still lose to Romney, but it's highly unlikely as the exit polls don't indicate so. Not only that, but McCain's been polling above Romney the last week or so.

Here's where it gets relatively reliable, exit polls.

GOP: McCain is in the lead with about 35%, Romney with about 30%, Huckabee with about 12%, and Ron Paul with around 10%. Giuliani and Thompson barely registered. Strange, I always thought Giuliani would fare much better in NH.

Dems: Clinton appears to be in the lead with close to 40% and Obama around 36%. Edwards with about 16%.

TNR on Ron Paul... the bigoted extremist? Update: Paul's own words?

Major Update: Proof? Some heavy handed MLK bashing there, especially for someone who thinks Dr. King was a "hero." Read the 'Happy Holidays' part at the end. Who else has a wife named Carol?

---

I'll start out this post by pointing out TNR's credibility problems, which must be taken into account when going over what's proliferating throughout the blogosphere as I write.

I am not a Paul fan, yet I'm not ready to believe this wholesale, nevertheless I will pass on this information that could very well be damning for Dr. Paul. As many of you know, I don't like Ron Paul, I think he's crazy when it comes to foreign policy, and I question his tacit acceptance of many of his supporters, which to put it lightly, are acting unAmerican. While I'm not ready to accept this as fact, I'm not ready to dismiss it either.

With that said, listen to the audio of TNR on John Gibson's radio show:


Audio from Johny Dollar.

It all started with this TNR report by James Kirchick:

...the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul...

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics. [emphasis added]

Daniel Koffler at PJM has made up his mind, adding a few choice quotes allegedly from Paul, and/or his newsletter:

I might add, on a personal note, that as a libertarian with significant sympathy for Paul’s platform, I initially viewed claims of his past history of racism skeptically. But the evidence is so overwhelming that the defense of Paul is now, itself, indefensible.

Racist Pull Quotes:

“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

The consensus as of now in the blogosphere, is that it seems to be true, and that while Paul may not have personally said these things, he put his name on it, expressing at the least, approval. But there are questions, such as why have controversial ideas expressed by a Congressman of 31 years gone by unnoticed until now (at least I haven't noticed)? Something doesn't smell right.

Update: Paul's campaign responds:

Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero." -via Andrew Sullivan

And from RonPaul2008.com:

In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically [sic] taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Update: I am leaning toward believing Paul, but this is truly a mess. I've read through several of the Ron Paul's Freedom Report's newsletter archives (those available online), and they are either from words given by Paul himself on the floor of Congress, or opinion pieces without the author's name, meaning it was attributed to and authored by Ron Paul, and if not, they might as well have been. Maybe it is old news, but it's new to many.

Whether or not Paul is a racist conspiracy theorist, by virtue of his lack of oversight, these racist and fanatical articles in question are more or less his. He has "taken moral responsibility" for it. So, at best, what this means is Dr. Ron Paul is a man who cant keep track of what goes out under his name. At worst, Paul himself is a lying racist who believes in conspiracy theories.

Update: From Bryan at HotAir in the comments:

So his best defense is that he failed to manage a newsletter. Nice. Let’s put him in charge of the executive branch post haste.

Blogs 4 Borders *Must Watch* Video

In this weeks [very good] edition...

How the MSM try to lead us down the 'yellow brick road' to amnesty.
Guest workers: There's a history here?
100% Preventable! More Americans sacrificed to open borders!



This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here.

Tags: illegal immigration, mexico, el salvador, rape, murder, crime, deportation, amnesty, invasion, insanity

America lags behind in firearm training...

...and apparently, we just can't please the Libertarians.

Report: American Schools Trail Behind World In Aptitude Of Child Soldiers

Violent crime in U.S. dropped in 2007...

Interesting bit of news from the WaPo:

The number of violent crimes reported nationwide appears to have fallen modestly in the first half of 2007, signaling the first notable decline in violence in two years, the FBI said yesterday.

Violent crimes including homicides, robberies and assaults fell 1.8 percent in January to June of last year compared with the same period in 2006, according to the preliminary FBI statistics.

Then of course, there is Washington D.C.:

The FBI report did not separate out data for the District, which has reported a 7 percent spike in homicides in 2007, part of an overall surge in gun violence.

A surge in gun violence, how could that be? I thought the gun ban was still in effect???

Funny, how D.C. insists that parts of the Constitution they don't like does not apply to them, because they're not a state (see p 35), yet they want to be represented like a state. Why do I feel the urge to say: When you start acting like a state, we'll treat you like one.

Courteously linked by SayUncle and NOFP.

Materialistic Goodness

Wow.

Second Amendment Carnival XV

Welcome to the fifteenth edition of the Second Amendment Carnival

Providing the best 2nd Amendment coverage the blogosphere has to offer.

"[R]esistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -John Adams

***

Washington D.C. thinks it's above the Constitution, or something. Then again, that's nothing new.

Relatively new however, is the idea of equating the right to arms as a racism and slavery enabler, when quite the opposite is true. Wonder if this guy was part of that strong scholarship.

So the Second Amendment is obsolete, huh. It seems the park service is trying to prove that. Maybe it is, but maybe it just needs to be updated.

The politics of hypocrites... Thank God it's just a few celebrities who say one thing and do another while making fools of themselves, otherwise we'd be in trouble.

Government 101: How to make the government worse than it is now. Unfortunately, most of these guys have aced the course. Rest assured, the NRA is on top of things, like how I am frequently on top of my couch.

Guns and crime together is nasty, but it's nasty in an oil and water sort of way... Take away the guns, and you'll be lucky if you're just left with crime.

Then again, with moral authority like this, non-sequiturs and spurious arguments have no effect on your momentary expertise and credibility.

Hmm... A win-win when it comes to D.C. vs. Heller, unless you're anti-gun, then it's win or lose.

Guns can be fun, a lot of fun... but sometimes it's just plain funny. There is however, no excuse for this, unconscionable.

***
“Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens... Today, speaking with the courage of your own conviction can be so costly... that legislators won't lead, so citizens can't follow... and so there is no army to fight back. That's cultural warfare.” -Charlton Heston, 1997

“An unjust law is no law at all.” -Saint Augustine

Many thanks to all those who participated in this edition, and stay tuned for Carnival XVI. If you would like to participate in the next 2nd Amendment Carnival please go here.