Recently in fools and jesters Category
I am not even going to try to add anything to the following words of Michael Reagan, the son of Ronald Reagan:
I’ve been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we’d never see his like again because he was one of a kind.
I was wrong!
Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my dad reborn; only this time he's a she.
And what a she!
In one blockbuster of a speech, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resurrected my dad’s indomitable spirit and sent it soaring above the convention center, shooting shock waves through the cynical media’s assigned spaces and electrifying the huge audience with the kind of inspiring rhetoric we haven’t heard since my dad left the scene.
This was Ronald Reagan at his best — the same Ronald Reagan who made the address known now solely as “The Speech,” which during the Goldwater campaign set the tone and the agenda for the rebirth of the traditional conservative movement that later sent him to the White House for eight years and revived the moribund GOP.
Via Traction Control.
Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, , Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Who's Afraid Of Sarah Palin? Oprah! [by Rosemary's Thoughts]
A lot of the liberal, leftist, and sinister-leaning news sources and weblogs around the world have been trying to make hay out of their belief that Sarah Palin, the current Republican Vice Presidential candidate, was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. In reality, she was not (and on a related note, the New York Times fails again). However, now those self-same morons are demanding to know why Palin's husband was a member of the AIP (he is no longer), and why she gave speeches to the organization earlier in her political career. All said, these half-witted folks (who cannot even get the most basic of facts correct, apparently) are hypocritically trying to make out the AIP as a bunch of crackpot, tin-foil-hat-wearing insurgents, bent on destroying America as we know it now, and then they are taking it a step farther to try and paint Palin with the same broad, erroneous brush.
Well, let us take a look at the Alaskan Independence Party in their own words, shall we?
Their platform:
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:
1. To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.
2. To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.
3. To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.
4. To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.
5. To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.
6. To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.
7. To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.
8. To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.
9. To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.
10. To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.
11. To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.
12. To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.
13. To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
14. To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.
15. To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children.
16. To support the privatization of government services.
17. To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.
18. To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.
19. To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.
20. To support "Jobs for Alaskans...First!"
So... which of these, exactly, do those liberals/leftists/Leninists disagree with? Obviously point 16 would be a stickler, given that if government services get privatized, the little socialistic twits will have less control over them... But discounting that obvious bone of contention, what, really, do they have a problem with?
Moving on to the AIP's issues, here is what they have to say on the Constitution:
The AIP believes full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska is necessary.
Todays Judges interpet what they want and it usually reflects their personal bias. We believe that the only way to effect full compliance is to read the documents and interpet them literally.
Sounds good to me. How about it, liberals? Moving on to State's Rights:
The AIP supports and defends States' Rights, Individual Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution is the limitation of the federal government about infringing on what is the State's responsibility and what is theirs.
Individual Rights, everybody has the right to be "stupid" and it is not the governments responsibility to protect us from ourselves.
Equal Footing means that all states are equal. Unfortunately Alaska is treated as a colony and not an equal state in the union. Alaska is the only state where subsurface rights are owned by the government. The only state where the federal government controls hunting and fishing.
Holy crap on a crutch... I absolutely love their definition of "individual rights"... but then I am not a mindless Obamatron sycophant. Speaking of, what do you lefists have problems with in that quote? I mean, aside from the massive amounts of personal responsibility and accountability implied in their definition of "individual rights"? Moving on to Initiative and Referendum:
The AIP supports the liberalization of initiative and referendum procedures to hold legislatures accountable to the will of the people.
Today it is very difficult to get a petition onto the ballot. The law makers in Juneau are placing more roadblocks in front of the people's initiative process. The Present Lt. Governor, Fran Ulmer, has unilaterally held up petitions which were presented to be placed on the ballot, she has either delayed them or flat out rejected them because she disagrees with the process.
Instead of making it harder to vote on an issue we should have an easier route to take it to the voters. As long as the capitol is in Juneau, away from the population it will be difficult to regain control of our government.
Woah... making the will of the people easier to express... holding the government accountable for its actions... letting people take positive ownership of their government (as they rightfully should)... I can certainly see how that would scare the bejesus out of a person with sinister political leanings, but I certainly would not mind hearing it from the horse's mouth.
If you continue down on that particular page, you find they support private property, property rights, abolishment of property taxes (with a good argument for it: "When a person pays property tax, the land owner never truely own it. It can go back to the government for non payment of 'rent'."), prohibitions against bureaucratic regulations being enforced as law, an open-book government, popular election of attorney generals/judges/magistrates, development of a better road system in Alaska, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, abolition of government immunity, educational choice for parents (in that parents who choose to homeschool their children should receive access to a proportional share of all money provided for educational purposes), a balanced federal government, parental responsibility, the rights of jurors, responsible logging/mining/fishing/agriculture, keeping the government out of the topic of abortion, rational environmentalism, and other remarkably reasonable, understandable, and sound stances. So which of these do the liberals have problems with?
Oh, right... the biggest sticking point the lefties seem to have is that of the Alaskan Independence Party's goals:
The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.
The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.
I will admit it - I was kind of surprised by this being their goal. After all, if some group in Tennessee went for that angle as well, I would be a wee bit surprised as well. However, Alaska has a slightly different statehood history than Tennessee, or any other state. Take a look for yourself, and then come back and tell me that the AIP's goals are so very "out there".
Hell, at this point, I almost am disappointed that Sarah Palin was not a member of this organization - it would be one hell of a positive bullet for her resume, at least for me. But trying to make an issue out of people trying to stand up for their personal and state's rights because no one else will? Yeah, that is almost as disgusting a political ploy as trying to use a woman's pregnant daughter as leverage against her... Oh. Wait. I forgot the kinds of liberals/leftists we are talking about...
You know, the more I see it, and the more I watch the situation, the more I realize that John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for the position of Vice President was a purely masterful stroke.
And, amusingly enough, this realization has absolutely nothing to do with Palin herself... though she is quite a woman. Instead, this decision has granted the American populace a golden opportunity. For what, you ask? For seeing just how deranged, despicable, contemptible, viscious, and out-of-touch the radical left is. Behold the following qualities people of that sinister political leaning have exposed for us over the past few days:
And... silly me... but I thought liberals were against all of that nonsense? Whoops.
This has progressed to the point where even the left's Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, had to step in and smack these disgusting folks upside the head... which, when you get right down to it, is all manner of ironic. After all, these irresponsible scumbags are the same morons who are incessantly proclaiming Barack Hussein Obama's glorious splendiforousness. Stings a bit, hm?
Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, Political Byline, third world county, A Newt One- Ronald Reagan in a skirt, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, A Newt One-McCain/Palin out front, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Beagle Scout, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
where is the fire? [by walls of the city]
For all those Democrats and liberals alike who are taking great pains to compare Barak Hussein Obama's experience to Sarah Palin's, here is a suggestion:
If your Presidential candidate's experience is, in any way, comparable to their Vice-Presidential candidate's.... you have problems. And big ones, at that.
Surprisingly enough, McCain's pick for his Vice-President is none other than Sarah Palin. At this point, it is going to be a historic election no matter who wins.
I have one word to express my feelings for this decision, though Kevin already beat me to it: Awesome.
I have been hoping that Palin would be his choice for the past few months now... really, ever since her name got thrown in the hat. Why? Well check this out:
I have established an aggressive goal of reducing general fund spending by $150 million dollars. This takes tremendous effort by staff as well as the cooperation of the Legislature. On the savings side, by depositing our one-time surplus of $1.8 billion dollars, we'll build our savings account to nearly $4.3 billion dollars. It's a necessary step to ensure that we can fund essential services tomorrow; and avoid massive "single year" cuts down the road, if and when, faced with tougher times.
I support adequate funding for a strong public safety presence in Alaska. Feeling safe in our communities is something we cannot accept any compromise on. This includes policing in all its forms, the court system, prosecutors and corrections. If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive by shooting will never be able to do that again.
I believe in protecting Alaska's environment through fair enforcement of our environmental laws. Having a clean record on environmental regulation is critical to getting ANWR open and maintaining our fisheries mining, timber, and tourism industries. I would also revisit the change in regulations on the Alaska Coastal Zone Management program in which the past administration by eliminating the rights of local districts to write specific local enforceable policies on important issues like subsistence.
I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska's youth.
I look forward to working with affected parties to find the necessary solutions that will lead to more affordable health care for Alaskans. I support flexibility in government regulations that allow competition in health care that is needed, and is proven to be good for the consumer, which will drive down health care costs and reduce the need for government subsidies. I also support patients in their rightful demands to have access to full medical billing information.
To help Alaska's families, and small businesses (the backbone of our local economies), I propose to repeal "nuisance taxes" including the tire tax--we shouldn't make Alaskans pay a premium to keep families safe driving Alaska's roads. And we'll significantly reduce business license fees. Taxes which send the wrong message by financially discouraging our small businesses.
So, lemme see, pro-spending-cuts, pro-enforcement-of-laws-on-the-books-with-adequate-punishments-to-boot, pro-opening-the-ANWR, pro-gun-rights, anti-universal-healthcare, anti-stupid-assed-taxes... oh, and pro-heterosexual-marriage to boot (though she has nothing against homosexual couples receiving state benefits, just disagrees with the misuse of a predefined term). I have to disagree with her in terms of her stance on abortion, but no politician is perfect... especially these days.
Oh, and for those concerned with her experience, given that she is basically an unknown, and has not held her current office terribly long, American Thinker has a great write-up on what she has done.
Regardless, color me a happy little conservative... at least now I will not be beating my head against the voting booth wall quite as hard when I vote for McCain.
"I truly believe that people like myself, who are in a position of entertainers in the limelight, should keep their mouth shut on politics," the rap-rock musician, 37, tells CMT Insider.
"Because at the end of the day," he goes on to say, "I'm good at writing songs and singing. What I'm not educated in is the field of political science. And so for me to be sharing my views and influencing people of who I think they should be voting for ... I think would be very irresponsible on my part."
I do not terribly care for his music barring a few exceptions, and I do not really like him as a person... but, damn, Kid Rock hits this one out of the park.
You know, it is reading nonsense like this that really make me start to question what kind of place our country has turned into. If this Marine, Sgt. Jose Nazario, committed a crime, he should and would be reactivated, sent to a court martial or military tribunal, appropriately tried, and punished or not as either of those two entities decided. The fact that this "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act" seems to give civilian courts jurisdiction over military members and their actions during war... That is just scary to the extreme. As if the military was not having enough problems already, now soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are going to worry about how their actions might be perceived and possibly prosecuted when they get home. And, when you get right down to it, what the hell is a civilian court doing trying a military member for military actions executed while on active duty in a military campaign? Does anyone else see a problem with this? Anywise, The Victorious Opposition, Blonde Sagacity, and Hennessy's View have more information about this case, as well a link to the defense fund for Sgt. Jose Nazario and the other Marines involved.
Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website
Spalding Group founder responds to MoveOn.Org Obama bumper sticker giveaway – will give away up to a million “NOBAMA” bumper stickers.
Louisville, KY July 31, 2008 – Ted Jackson, founder and president of Spalding Group, a principal supplier to the last six Republican Presidential campaigns, official licensee to the 2000 and 2004 Bush-Cheney campaigns, and creator of the McCainStore.com online store, announced today his plan to personally fund the giveaway of up to one million of the hugely popular “NOBAMA” bumper stickers. Jackson is making this independent expenditure to underwrite the overall NOBAMA bumper sticker giveaway expense as a direct response to a MoveOn.org offer of a free Obama bumper sticker.
Spalding Group initially created and recently introduced its NOBAMA product line in answer to overwhelming requests from its hundreds of thousands of customers. Since the line’s introduction, the sale of these items has been unprecedented. When asked about the NOBAMA product line success and his personal one million NOBAMA bumper sticker giveaway, Jackson responded, “MoveOn.Org is an ultra-liberal organization that, in reality, speaks for a very small minority in this country. This isn’t a coronation. As confirmed by recent polls, there are currently an equal number of individuals that oppose Obama as there are that support him, and they want to be heard.”
To receive a free “NOBAMA” bumper sticker, enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope and mail the request to;
NOBAMA Free Bumper Sticker
c/o Ted Jackson
2306 Frankfort Ave.
Louisville, KY 40206
“Anyone who knows me or knows my background knows that I’ve been a Republican activist for over 30 years, even before I founded Spalding Group. This is something I personally wanted to do to make a statement along with many others that share my sentiment,” stated Jackson.
About Spalding Group
Founded in 1984, Spalding Group has been a principal supplier for the last six Republican presidential nominees. As 2000 and 2004 official licensee to the George W. Bush for President Campaigns, Spalding Group created the award-winning George W. Bush Online Store, www.georgewbushstore.com. Serving Republicans exclusively, Spalding Group provides campaign materials and services to hundreds of Republican organizations and candidates across the country. Having earned the national reputation as the “Republican Source”, Spalding Group’s primary focus for nearly 25 years has been helping to elect Republicans.
Visit www.McCainStore.com for “NOBAMA Bumper Sticker Giveaway” details.
McCainStore.com is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Your options seem to range from this model:
to this model:
As I was saying to Better Half yesterday, I never really understood why people would do something as permanent as place a political sticker on their car... On the glass, it would at least be removable, but on the fender or body... that makes it considerably more difficult. And even here in Tennessee, there are far too many cars scurrying about, emblazoned with "Hillary '08", or somesuch nonsense. That said, there are a host of other interesting places to stick political campaign stickers, and, if nothing else, taping them to the inside of a window would make it a little easier to remove in the future when, hopefully, I no longer have to worry about the problems associated with the Obamessiah becoming President. *twitches at the thought*
You know, I am not a terribly religious person... I do not go to church every Sunday (and, in fact, have not been in quite some time), I have a hard time narrowing down what my beliefs exactly are (outside of the generic term "Christian"), and I am hardly what one would consider "evangelical". That said, having attended Roman Catholic and Lutheran schools, and been brought up Episcopalian and Anglican Catholic, I do know all manner of religious trivia.
Thus, an interesting thought bounced through my brain upon reading this particular news article in the New York Times:
Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.
“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.
With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.
The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.
Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.
What was that thought? Well, my weblog moniker of "Linoge" comes from somewhere, and, in specific, that origin would be the Stephen King story "Storm of the Century", wherein the antagonist (played amazingly by Colm Feore) went by that particular name... which, if you fiddle with the letters a bit, can be respelled to "Legion". "Legion", of course, has some interesting roots in the Bible:
Mark, Chapter 5
1 And they came over to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
3 Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with you, Jesus, you Son of the most high God? I adjure you by God, that you torment me not.
8 For he said to him, Come out of the man, you unclean spirit.
9 And he asked him, What is your name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
10 And he sought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
11 Now there was there near to the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
12 And all the devils sought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13 And immediately Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
Honestly, I find this correlation my mind drew to be all manner of ironical... especially considering the incessant attempts at ascribing deific qualities to Barack Hussein Obama. No, I am not saying that Barrack Hussein Obama is a demon, but the correlation ("We are called 'Hussein', for we are many.") was just too amusing not to share. But, hey, my brain works in strange ways... and is apparently on a Biblical bent this week.
Hat tip to Say Uncle.
People are stupid. In this particular case, I do not blame the Darwin Award candidate - i.e., the child - but I lay every last ounce of blame at the feet of his incompetent, irresponsible, and generally idiotic parents. I would like to say this kind of thing is relatively unusual, but the last time I and my family were at Yellowstone, I happened to see a lady actually walk up and pat a sleeping bison. It opened one eye, looked at her, and went back to sleep, but still... how gorramed stupid can you get? Of course, at the time, I was seeing it all over my shoulder as my parents hussled me away so we would not get splattered with the highly-probable impending blood spray...
Sadly, in this day and age, this will simply cause a call to have the bison removed from Yellowstone, rather than having the moronic parents hung up by their toenails. Just goes to show how much our American culture values responsibility and accountability.
Sorry, Ride Fast, but this is a perfect example of why cagers like me generally hate scoot-jockeys.
Today, on my way back from the range (more on that later), I had to navigate Oceanside, Kalifornistan, to pick up some gas. Interesting little town... the commercial districts seem like they froze in the early 70's, if not earlier, while the residential areas are as modern as they come. Anywise, I eventually ended up on one of the side roads, and pulled up to a four-way-stop intersection about the same time as a minivan, 90 degrees anti-clockwise around the intersection from me. Being that I was the vehicle to the left, I yielded to him, and off he went... along with two of the three morons on crotchrockets behind him.
It just about turned bad for them, considering that I was taught and raised to take turns at an intersection, and was expecting the van to go, me to go, and then them to go, so as soon as the van was out of my route of travel, I was an idiot and started my forward motion... and immediately noticed that the nimwits on the bikes had not stopped, as they should have, and instead had taken off after the minivan. I scared the hell out of the two that were already moving, and they accelerated through the intersection even faster, but the third had not quite launched off yet, so he stopped, and we stared at each other for a second. I motioned for him to go, he shook his head and motioned for me to go, and I went.
I am not trying to say that all motorcycle drivers are halfwit retards who could not figure out the rules of the road if their lives depended on it (and, more often than not, their lives do)... but I am saying that whenever I see a two-wheeled conveyance on the road, I give it a very wide berth, especially considering how many of them do the crazy (but perfectly legal) lane-splitting nonsense down here...
Supposedly, Barack Husein Obama is a good orator. Honestly, I would not know... the sheer amount of stupidity, ludicrousness, and idiocy that spews out of that man's mouth is enough for me to turn him off seconds into anything he has to say. Unfortunately, I am one of those increasingly rare people who care what others are saying, not just who they are or how they are saying it.
Unfortunately for Barack Hussein Obama, not all of his current advisors share his oratorial expertise:
In arguing that the country should back off a policy that causes too much pain, (Richard) Danzig said, “”Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”
He read a section from the children’s book where Pooh Bear hurts himself going down the steps because he hasn’t stopped to think of another way.
Thewhodawhat?
People really want me to take seriously the campaign of someone whose advisors use Winnie the Pooh as a basis for planning national security? Nothing personal against Winnie, but I think he lacks the credentials. Thinking outside the box is all good and well, Barack Hussein Obama, and the concept behind the Winnie the Pooh story is, indeed, valid... but coming out and saying it is from something I read when I was four, when the lives of hundreds of millions ride on it? That is just plain stupid.
In other news, Breda beat me to it.
You know, it has always struck me as amusing how scam artists, hoplophobes, and other people afraid of the truth being exposed have made use of this new, digital media age around us.
For instance, after writing my post last night about the scam of trying to run your car with water, I did a quick Google search, and tried to leave a few comments on all of the patently fake, Potemkin-village-style weblogs out there supporting this fallacious technology. You can probably guess what happened at every single one of those fake weblogs... "Your comment is awaiting moderation." And now, looking back at those same weblogs, not a single one of my comments has made it through that "moderation" process... no great surprise there. Of interesting note, however, some of those weblogs are still monitored by their administrators, as evinced by the visit documented below:
*waves*
Apparently, the administrator even poked around my previous post, though declined to leave a comment. Again, no great surprise, especially considering just how much damage it does to the specious concept he is supporting.
However, unfortunately for him, he cannot hold that post in moderation forever, he cannot supress it, he cannot even edit it. You see, folks, whether you allow comments on your weblogs or not, whether you moderate those comments and use that moderation to weed out comments you do not agree with or just let anyone comment, whether you do your best to suppress an opposing viewpoint or just let them thrive, someone is always going to be able to speak out against you on the internet, whether you like it or not. Just because you do not allow the comments on your own weblogs does not mean we cannot go back to our weblogs and write up even larger, more damaging posts than the initial comments might have been (like I have done in the past). People's opinions, the truth, and opposing viewpoints always have a way of surfacing, especially in this newfound era of easy access to the digital media... Obviously, this is something the people supporting this whole water-based-scam have not yet come to terms with...
Sadly, they are not the only ones. Yesterday, I got directed (by Snowflakes in Hell) to a wonderfully ludicrous weblog by the name of "Disarming Britain". In short, this mouthpiece weblog serves as nothing more than an activism hub supporting the growing trend in Great Britain to disarm the law-abiding citizens of that once-great country of all possible weapons of every variety. And, unsurprisingly yet again, they do not like having their viewpoint challenged - I left a few comments on a variety of their posts, and came back this morning to find that none of them had been posted... though I did receive a visit by the site's administrator:
*waves again* Any time you want to stop by for an unedited and unstymied conversation, feel free to let me know.
But you and I both know that is not what they want... They want an unchallenged echo chamber where the can put forward their ideas, their beliefs, their desires as Word From God On High Passed Down By The Hands of Angels. Sorry folks, but that just ain't gonna happen, because obnoxious people like me have been given keys to a tiny sliver of the internet, and we are going to drive this thing into the ground. Unfortunately, I was an idiot yesterday, and did not save all of my comments when I posted them... the bad news of that is that I am going to have to reconstruct them all from memory. The good news, however, is I now have the time and inclination to make them even more problematic for the Disarming Britain than before.
Take, for instance, what was their leading post yesterday:
Self-confessed knife-carrier Peter Smith got in touch to share his thoughts.As a law abiding knife carrier I feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany. Carrying a pocket knife for everyday tasks (modern packaging requires a knife, especially if you have arthritis) could soon land me in jail if I happen to come into contact with one of these 1984 police state checkpoints manned by a couple of ignorant officers.That may be, but how often do you actually need a knife nowadays? Boy Scouts going camping with a Swiss Army Knife perhaps, but in modern, civilised society they should be near-enough completely unnecessary.
I’d like everyone to know YOU CAN carry a knife legally. It has to have a blade under 3" and no safety lock.
In answer to the question, I find I use my knife on a daily basis, for all manner of random applications. And, on those days where I do not use it, I am now comforted by the fact that it not only has a seatbelt cutter integrated into the handle, but also a glassbreaking tip, should I ever find myself in a disastrous car accident. After all, I (and probably most people) keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen should my attempts at cooking ever get out of control, why should we not then prepare for other possible accidents and emergencies? Finally and lastly, should the situation ever call for it, the knife might prove to be useful in a self-defense scenario - but that is honestly one of the last reasons I carry it. Oh, and by the way, the blade on that knife is a little over 3.5 inches (thus illegal in Britain, though just fine here in Kalifornistan)... and, yet, I have somehow managed not to assault anyone with it, not to use it in an offensive manner, and it has spilled absolutely no one's blood (which is rather surprising, really... more often than not, my knives tend to nip me in their first few days of use).
However, we are approaching this from the wrong angle, and that is the fault of the weblog's author - I should not have to justify my carrying a basic tool that has been around for millenia and I could probably make in my kitchen on my spare time if I wanted to. Instead, he, and all the rest of the people out there whose lives are governed by fear, should justify why they want to disarm me, a law-abiding, unassuming individual, of what could possibly be a valuable implement in a self-defense situation, and, in a more general sense, is a daily-useful tool. After all, I have done absolutely nothing, in my entire history (I do not even have a bloody speeding ticket to my name), that would indicate I would be a threat carrying a knife... why should I therefore not be allowed to do so?
Oh, right. The "crime" excuse - after all, if we get all the knives off the streets, that will reduce crime, right? Wrong, and, amusingly enough, the author even has the ironic nerve to admit it:
And let’s face it, with the number of stabbings going on in the current climate, even these laws don’t seem to be the answer.
Unfortunately, the author is probably using the continuing knife crime in England as leverage for more laws, even as he simultaneously admits that the current laws are doing nothing. Well, I hate to break it to you, bucko, but that is because laws only affect the law-abiding. I am not 100% familiar with English law, but I am fairly certain it is illegal to unlawfully kill someone, assault someone, rape someone, or rob someone... and yet criminals continue to do so, do they not? With or without the assistance of a knife, or even worse, a firearm? Funny how that happens. So, please, explain to me how yet another law is going to change that in the slightest, especially when your judges seem unwilling to enforce the laws already on the books? Please - any rational, logical, and reasoned explanation would be greatly beneficial to me understanding your position, because, right now, it just does not make sense.
Speaking of not making sense, though, the English people as a whole seem to have a pretty good grasp on that. I really have to wonder why the author felt such disjointed, rife-with-errors, discombobulated, incoherent rantings and ravings could help his position, but there they are. Honestly, I am not even going to bother fisking them... they stand for themselves.
However, while there are obviously some pretty daft folks in Great Britain, there are also some surprisingly reasonable ones yet, as shown by a poll which is obviously not going the way its authors intended. Discounting option three, there is an obviously overwhelming majority (80% is pretty bloody decisive) of people taking the poll who believe that carrying a weapon (of any variety - the poll is non-specific) for self-defense should be permitted. Some of those votes may be skewed by foreigners stumbling on it and making their own opinion known, but I would imagine that most of this site's traffic is still native. Eighty percent. And I bet the fear-driven, anti-rights folks like the weblog's author are still all for taking those same people's weapons and tools away, whether they are law-abiding or not. Kind of hard to keep up the "for the good of the people" canard, though...
The moral of this long and meandering story? Well, simply put, "moderating" comments on your weblogs (unless they are valid spam, or simply not useful to the conversation at hand) is only bound to cause you more problems than it is worth. If these websites had simply left my comments in place, or allowed them to post, I would not have been inclined to write this particular post, which will now attract attention from my 50+ daily hits (sad, I know), the Google and other search engine spiders that regularly prowl my website, and any of my active readers. If, however, the authors of the weblogs I addressed today would like to come over here and have a little conversation about what I and they wrote, well, they would be more than welcome to - unlike them, I know that it is only by challenging and questioning one's own ideas that one can weed out the wrong/false ones and strengthen the correct/accurate ones.
For those pro-Second Amendment, pro-rights, pro-guns, pro-self-defense types out there who are curious what life could be like under the kind and gentle tutelage of Barack Hussein Obama, the Pajamas Media put together an easy-to-follow visual primer.
Yeah, I think I can do without him being President too...
Hat tip to Snowflakes in Hell.
Hat tip to Stop the ACLU.
First, take a look at the below image:
So, to sum up, our options are: (1) Sue an organization to which we are not a member, and we have no jurisdiction over, which would result in nothing; start even more "investigations", indicating that the previous wones have been complete and utter wastes of time, positively indicating yet another one would be... you guessed it - another complete and utter waste of time; taxing the companies that provide us our oil, which would only serve to drive up prices even more, since taxes, by their very nature, stymie production, progress, and growth; ... oh, and maybe halt shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Yeah, that all seems useful. Or (2), we could start drilling for oil here in America where there is still a fair amount of oil tucked away, which would provide us an immediate increase in our oil availability; start drilling for all of the deepwater oil that is out of visual range but within our economic exclusion zone (somewhere between 50 and 200 miles), which would also provide us an immediate increase in our oil availability; open new refineries to convert all of this newly-drilled raw oil into useable gasoline, which would serve to directly reduce costs at the pumps; control spending and cut back on the sometimes-absurd taxes that are levied on gasoline just because it is gasoline; ... and also halt shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Lemme think.
I do believe I will go with... option 2, thanks.
Where does this information come from? Well, you can thank the Republican Whip, Roy Blunt, for putting together the numbers, and documenting exactly how the Democratic majority has raised gas prices since their rise to power. Funny how that happened.
Of course, on top of doing their damnest to raise the price of a gallon of gasoline, those selfsame Democrats are now fighting, tooth and nail, to keep the prices right where they are - high, and climbing steadily.
Now tell me again that the Democrats are in this fight for the common man, while the Republicans are only interested in big business and padding the pockets of the oil companies' executives. Please. Try. Because, I will tell you this much, paying over $40 a fill-up for a piddly little four-banger like mine is just plain stupid.
By the same token, I went ahead and put my name down on the American Solutions petition for the "Drill here. Drill now. Pay less." campaign. I admit, a single signature may not be much, but considering the fact that they just passed 500,000 signatures... well, that's something.
So the next time good old Nancy Pelosi or Barack Hussein Obama or any of the other nice, bleeding-heart Democrats out there try and tell their constitutients (like you and me) that there is nothing they can do about the meteoric rise of gas prices... just remember to tell them where they can shove that gas nozzle.
... Amendment, that is.
This is definitely something that deserves to be spread around as much as possible, such that all firearm owners and freedom-minded people, regardless of political affiliations, can see just how much of disaster Barack Hussein Obama would be for the Second Amendment.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.
And if you do not believe me, the NRA-ILA webpage this information came from has all of the necessary footnotes and links to prove just how accurate it is.
I guess Obama really is full of change we can believe in... given his history of being rampantly anti-firearms, anti-Second-Amendment, anti-personal-freedoms, and anti-self-defense, I really can believe that his term in office would result in a massive, negative, disastrous change to things I and hundreds of thousands of other people consider important. But, then, I guess they never really specified what kind of change they were talking about...
Oh, and as a brief aside, just remember the "American Hunters and Shooters Association" (talk about a misnamed organization if there ever was one) went ahead and endorsed Obama. I guess it just goes to show how much hypocrisy and outright lying there is on their "What We Stand For" proclamations. Eh, I guess their name is not that far from the truth... just replace "American" with "Anti-" and you would be set!
Hat tip to Of Arms and the Law.
Trackposted to Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, , Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
obama misses the second [by walls of the city]
URGENT: Operation Love From Home [by Rosemary's Thoughts]
'My' Soldier Came Home [by Rosemary's Thoughts]
From the Ceasefire PA homepage comes this quote:
CEASEFIRE PA CONTINUES TO GROW, HIRING NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO HELP DIRECT STATEWIDE CAMPAIGN FOR STRONGER HANDGUN LAWS
Well, it turns out that a certain Alexander Tristan Riley (otherwise known as "ATR" and "Culturologist") is now on the Board of Directors for the Ceasefire organization. For those new to the Second Amendment/firearm rights/self defense debates, this probably means next to nothing to you, but the good news is that Thirdpower has assembled a primer of his past comments and thoughts. Interestingly enough, though, Alexander has gone to tremendous efforts to delete his comments and thoughts from the internet, taking down his own weblog, and even purging Google archives and the WayBack Machine. Why would he want to do this? Well, I would wager to guess that he does not want the organization he is now working for to realize that he seems like such a cowardly, spineless, factless, bigoted, racist, homophobic, hoplophobic, anti-rights, anti-Constitution rabble-rouser, intent only upon spreading his own form of hate and discontent, regardless of whether the facts or reality of the situation support his argument. Of course, that kind of person could fit in perfectly with the Ceasefire organization, but that is just speculation on my part.
Unfortunately, though, it does not appear as though Alexander can control himself. Instead of letting go of the past and moving on into the future, it appears as though Alexander Riley might be continuing his old habits, now under the moniker of NRAFOUREVER. As Robb himself admits, the evidence is tenuous at best, and you have to take him at his word for a fair bit of it, but the numbers are there for anyone to see, and coincidences are sometimes too coincidental.
It is, after a fashion, somewhat amusing that Alexander would go through annoyance of deleting all of his old weblogs and comments (insofar as he could - those comments he left on pro-rights weblogs are still there for the world to see), only to turn around and start doing it all over again... But I guess irrational people will simply continue to be irrational. Either way, news Alexander's past history and present activities should be spread far and wide, so Ceasefire PA and its members can understand fully the monster they just placed on their board of directors... Talk about a public affairs disaster in the waiting, and given his continuing comments and absurdities, it is just starting.
So I happened to turn on the Clinton News Network's You Tube Republican Debate a few days ago... What can I say, there was little else on the television, and it looked remotely, vaguely, possibly interesting. I caught the homosexual general's question, resulting responses, and a little before and after, and have this to offer on the situation:
Mitt Romney could not answer a straight question to save his gorramed life. Period. Even asked a direct yes/no question, he still could not manage to answer it, in the slightest bit. That is a man I would prefer not to have in the Oval Office, thank you very kindly - evasiveness or wishy-washiness are not positive attributes when the person in question has his fingers on the Big Red Button of nuclear weapons... or, really, any other Presidential situation either. And I would just as soon not have another President who is willing to go on national television debating the meaning of "is", all things considered.
Fred Thompson is still relatively awesome for having the balls/spine to say what he says as bluntly as he does. It is becoming relatively apparent, however, why he has not really partken in live debates until recently, though - he does great when he has a script, time to rehearse, and the set and filming crew are catering directly to him. However, in a live situation such as these debates... I would not go so far as to say he fares poorly, but not as well as he possibly could. This does give me some concern over all of the many, many situations where a President has to be able to think and speak on his feet, but considering how great a job our current one has been doing of this, Fred really cannot be that much worse.
Ron Paul is a whackjob. Period. That man has some great ideas (and more than a few not-so-great ones), and some great aspirations, but he comes across as more of a loony than an honest-to-God lunar resident, and I am quite sure that is not the kind of image I want being projected from the White House. And, yes, image matters when you want to be the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world... thinking otherwise is just dumb.
As far as I am concerned, though, Mike Huckabee won. In the 15 or so minutes of the debate I actually watched, he was the only individual who was willing to give honest answers to the questions posed to him, even if those answers were not ones that would garner him the most votes or the most positive attention. Furthermore, he stands up for and stands by his beliefs, no matter how unpopular they may be. Specifically, when asked if he would accept the support of the "Log Cabin Republicans" (a phrase I had never heard before this debate, oddly enough - for those of you in similar positions, it is referring to the homosexual Republicans out there), his response boiled down to something approximating, "Of course I will - a person in my position should take all the support he can get. I disagree with their lifestyles and their choices, but if they want to support me as their President, I will try my hardest to be their President... I will try to be the best President for anyone who supports me." Now, before this turns into a Huckabee lovefest, I have to admit that I am far from being keen on having someone as rabidly right-wing conservative Christian as him in the White House, but I really have to respect him for knowing his beliefs, standing by them, and having no compunctions about doing either. It is so rare these days to find a politician willing to stand up for a damned thing, it surely is refreshing.
I have nothing really interesting to say on the other candidates, but, suffice to say, if it were to come down to any of them and any of the Democratic candidates (which, invariably, it will), at this point it is pretty much a given that they will get my vote. I am hardly one to vote along party lines, have not in the past, and am actually registered "Independent", but I cannot see myself voting for any of the Democratic candidates, regardless of which one receives the nomination. Hey, what can I say - I enjoy what little freedoms the federal government has left to me...