Sunday, June 29, 2008

Let's Control the Bullets!!!

I start my Sunday mornings, every week, with a program called CBS Sunday Morning. It's one of those "magazine" type shows with a smattering of everything....culture, politics, arts, sciences and humor. There are also video "editorials," by several different contributors. One such, a Miss Nancy Giles, did her editorial on guns and the recent SCOTUS ruling that the citizens of the District of Columbia have a right to protect their homes and themselves by personally owning firearms. She whined about how scared she is of guns, and how she jumps at the sound of a firecracker. Man, she must be a real fun gal at a fireworks show! Her solution was don't control guns...control the BULLETS! Yeah! That's the ticket! Control the bullets!

Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching a Saturday Night Live sketch every time a liberal opens their mouth? I keep expecting Jon Lovitz to jump out and grin into the camera....

Guns, themselves, don't kill anybody or anything. I've had a shotgun sitting in my closet, loaded, for over 2 years and it hasn't killed anybody yet. Myself and my 2 cats are still breathing. Why can't liberals understand that controlling the weapons doesn't mean you will be controlling the behavior that leads to somebody using a gun? Why is it, that they need to blame an inanimate object for the behavior of some people? It's not the gun that kills anybody, it's the person pulling the trigger. Why do they ignore the fact that Man is a violent being and will do violence to his fellowman with whatever weapon is available? Why, for example, are prisoners being stabbed on a daily basis in a place where there are not supposed to BE any weapons at all? Why? Because Man is a violent being who will commit violent acts with whatever he can it a gun or a toothbrush that's been sharpened into a weapon.

And how will taking the guns from the hands of the law abiding citizens do anything to reduce crime? Do these naive liberals think that the criminals are suddenly going to have an epiphany, realizing that guns have been outlawed and turn both themselves and their unlawful weapons in to the authorities? I can see it now....the light bulb going on over the robber's head and his face falling in despair when he realizes....oh my GOD....guns are illegal!! I could get.....arrested!!! Yeah, riiiiight.

An armed populace is a polite one. If you take guns from registered gun owners (for you libs out there, that would be, uhm....the law abiding citizens), then only the government and the criminals would have them, and the rest of the population would have no way to defend themselves against either the petty tyranny of criminals or the major tyranny of a possible dictator forcing the unarmed populace to his will.

It was not the possibility of a spike in crime that led to the decision in the SCOTUS case, but the second possibility. The populace should be able to form extemporaneous militias, i.e., armed neighborhood watches/defense committees, for the purposes of defending our way of life and our Republic against the depredations of a possible takeover of our government by a person or group of people bent on destroying our elective representation and installing a president for life or dictator. How can the people form militias if they have to wait to be armed? Where would the neighborhood munitions be stored if they did? Who would be in charge? It makes perfect sense to have the munitions already scattered among the people, because there would be no central place to neutralize by capture or destroying it, and to completely disarm the populace would require a door to door search....very risky if the population isn't of a mind to cooperate.

So instead of controlling the bullets, or the knives or the sharpened toothbrushes, why not control the behavior of the criminals? Let them think twice about robbing MY house because they may be shot, not knowing that they can tyrannize and terrorize me with impunity because the liberals, in their eternal arrogance, have decided that my home is not worthy of defense and neither am I.

In the meantime, I'll hang onto my shotgun in case my neighborhood militia needs me for defense against the tyranny of a dictator!

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Karl, You Magnificent Bastard, You!

Gotta love Karl Rove.

Once again, he skewers Obama beautifully. In this piece on the Wall Street Journal website, Mr. Rove points out Obama's abject narcissism, and shows us what we might be in for with an Obama presidency. I couldn't have said it better myself. He begins with Obama's co-opting of the Presidential Seal, mentions his reluctance to have face to face Town Halls and/or Lincoln-Douglas style debates with McCain and goes on from there:

Many candidates have measured the Oval Office drapes prematurely. But Barack Obama is the first to redesign the presidential seal before the election.

His seal featured an eagle emblazoned with his logo, and included a Latin version of his campaign slogan. This was an attempt by Sen. Obama to make himself appear more presidential. But most people saw in the seal something else – chutzpah – and he's stopped using it. Such arrogance – even self-centeredness – have featured often in the Obama campaign.

Consider his treatment of Jeremiah Wright. After Rev. Wright repeated his anti-American slurs at the National Press Club, Mr. Obama said their relationship was forever changed – but not because of what he'd said about America. Instead, Mr. Obama complained, "I don't think he showed much concern for me."

Translation: Rev. Wright is an impediment to my ambitions. So, as it turns out, are some of Mr. Obama's previous pledges.

For example, Mr. Obama has said he "strongly supported public financing" and pledged to take federal funds for the fall, thereby limiting his spending to roughly $84 million. Now convinced he can raise more than $84 million, he reversed course last week, ditching the federal money and its limits. But by discarding his earlier pledge so easily, he raises doubts about whether his word can be trusted.

Last month he replied "anywhere, anytime" to John McCain's invitation to have joint town hall appearances. Last week he changed his mind. Fearing 10 impromptu town halls, Mr. Obama parried the invitation by offering two such events – one the night of July 4, when every ambulatory American is watching fireworks or munching hotdogs, and another in August. His spokesman then said, "Take it or leave it." So much for "anywhere, anytime."

Read the rest here.

I suspect Obama's reluctance to meet McCain face to face has more to do with his poor performance when he doesn't have a script, and Obama's campaign is afraid that McCain, even with his lack of grand rhetorical skills, would wipe up the floor with him in an extemporaneous debate, where Obama is required to speak on the fly...without a teleprompter. His worst gaffes have occurred in this manner.

Beautiful....just beautiful. All McCain has to do is hammer Obama on the facts. Who cares about his race? I don't. I care more that he seems to be unable to keep his word in the face of political expediency.

Obama doesn't belong in the Senate, let alone the White House.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Narcissist in Chief

Well, he's gone and done it.

Barak Obama, Narcissist in Chief, has gone and co-opted the Presidential Seal. I'm sure it's an attempt on the part of his campaign to make him look more "Presidential," and to get voters accustomed to seeing him in the role of President.

I, for one, find it appalling and offensive.

First off, he hasn't earned it yet. One has to be elected President to be authorized to use the presidential seal, the vice presidential seal or the Great Seal of the United States. Who does this guy think he is? Who is he to co-opt the symbol of presidential power during an election? Am I the only one who is offended by this? It's bad enough that he's taken to wearing the flag pin, giving speeches with 20 bazillion giant American flags behind him, but to steal the ultimate symbol of the US and the Presidency for his own campaign is beyond narcissistic.

Secondly, I do believe that it's illegal:

18 USC Sec. 713 ...(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

The question is...will the Treasury Department either arrest him or insist that he stop using it?

Friday, June 20, 2008

Obama Lied, Credibility Died....

Yesterday, Barak Obama announced that he would forgo public funding for his presidential campaign, after vowing earlier on in the race that he would "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to use public funds for his campaign, should he get the nomination. He even went so far as to affix his signature to said document. Of course, this was grandstanding on his part because at that time, Hillary was planning her inauguration and nobody thought Obama had a snowball's chance.

Is this what America really wants in a president? A guy who will say or do whatever is necessary to win? A man whose word and signature mean nothing? Sure, Obama can outraise McCain, but at what expense? I'm seeing a man who has no ethics, no morals, and does not back his grandiose words with actions, which can have far reaching consequences if this man is voted into the White House. We are still suffering the ill effects, to this day, of the spineless Carter administration's refusal to support the Shah of Iran....

This is a neophyte politician who expects us to take his word on where he stands, yet he doesn't appear to stand for anything that you can put your finger on. At least McCain has a record as a Senator, and whether you like him or not. Personally, I'm luke warm on him at best, but compared to Obama, he's downright stalwart! Evidently McCain's the closest thing we have to a statesman these days....and of course, I'm not all that happy about it, but I will vote for him anyway because I just can't stomach a man who promises everything to every one, then starts breaking his promises even before he can get elected! This kind of betrayal does not bode well for what he would do as president. As much as everybody hates George Bush, you gotta give the man credit for taking a stand on something and sticking to his guns, whether the feckless public likes it or not.

What is even more depressing is the comments I've been seeing on various websites and blogs(Washington Post and New York Times editorial comments) saying things like "I don't care that he changed his mind" or "I'm glad he did." To me, that's the equivalent of saying that you share Mr. Obama's lack of morals and ethics and that you support lying and subversion to accomplish your goals. In other words, you will lie or cheat to get what you want, so you don't understand why it's a big deal....after all everybody does it! Is this really a characteristic that the American people want in their President?

So much for hope and change. This is none other than politics as usual, and Obama is a willing tool for the left in the guise of a centrist. Puleeze.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

What Now?

Ok, now that Obama has declared himself the winner of the Democrat primary process....what now? Do the Dems really believe that all or even most of Hillary's supporters are going to line up like good little socialist soldiers and cast their votes for Obama?

I think not....

If the following is any indication, Obama's got a tough row to hoe to convince his fellow Dems that he is indeed their Messiah. I read this on the NY Times website, in a column called the Opinionator. It is a comment posted by one of the readers, presumably a Democrat:
Didn’t anybody notice the screaming supporters that follow Hillary pushing her to stay on? That there is at least half of the democratic party that isn’t cheering for Obama? That unlike republicans democrats will not fall in line just because they are told that they need to turn from Hillary and vote for Obama? I wasn’t a Hillary supporter and didn’t even vote for her in either senate race, though I must admit that I have come to respect the job she has done in the senate and the in-roads and alliances she made there herself. But watching, listening and reading what’s been said about her, her supporters and her voters, Camp Obama has made me a Hillary supporter.
I would vote for her, but I wouldn’t vote for him. I distrust the person I fear he is. We’ve watched Bush abuse loyalty to the detriment of the nation, but I fear Obama has none other than to himself. I distrust his rhetoric, he talks only in soundbites with no real substance - he promises substance but in months and months of campaigning we’ve seen none. So just how many of Hillary voters will become meek little lambs and vote how they are told to by Camp Obama?

Posted by Katy

If this is the average Hillary supporter talking here, then Obama has his work cut out for him just to get the half of his party that doesn't support him to come around, let alone the other half of the country that thinks he's an empty suit with a grand rhetorical style, but no grand substance to match.

This time around, race trumps gender, though I don't understand what either quality has to do with being prepared to tote the nuclear football around and answer that red phone at 2 o'clock in the morning. The fact that Obama has insisted until recently that he would meet with Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, shows me that he is naive at best and dangerously inexperienced at worst. Now is no time for on-the-job training.

I see Obama as the second coming of Jimmy Carter or worse....a Neville Chamberlain type socialist appeaser who, if elected, will make us long for a return to the spineless administration of Jimmy Carter or the halcyon days of the corrupt Clinton administration.
Of course, we all want a return to September 10, 2001, before our security as a nation was shattered by a bunch of radical muslims bent on terrorizing Americans into submission to Allah. Unfortunately, our world and our way of seeing the world was changed the next day, and those of us who live in the real world, and not some liberal fantasy world where everybody loves each other and links arms to sing Kumbayah every night, understand that the threat to our way of life is very real and a far left appeaser who will throw Israel to the radical muslims as a way of holding off the alligator is unacceptable.

Monday, June 02, 2008

Why Do Jews Vote Democrat?

Are Jews so endemically victimized and genetically suicidal that they just can't resist the urge to immolate themselves by voting to elect a man who will jettison their religious homeland as soon as it is politically expedient to do so?

The drumbeat on the left is drumming these days for the poor, downtrodden Palestinians. Former President Jimmy Carter recently made a trip to Syria to hug on Khalid Meshal, the erstwhile leader of the Hamas party in Gaza, who is such a good leader he has to do it from another country. Mr. Carter was making nice with the terrorists who would see the Jews run into the sea and their country wiped from the face of the earth. In fact, we all know that the Hamas organization charter calls for the destruction of Israel, yet Mr. Carter feels free to negotiate with these monsters while accusing the Israelis of South African style apartheid.


The Israelis built a fence to keep their people safe from the rockets being fired into their country from the Occupied Territories, which, by the way, aren't Occupied anymore by anybody but the Palestinians. In my book, firing a rocket from one country into another constitutes an act of war. What would Americans think if the Mexicans started firing rockets into Texas? Well....*grins* that might not be such a good example because the Texans would mobilize all by themselves and go across the border to kick some ass. So, what if the Mexicans started firing rockets into California? Would we just let 'em do it? What if the Canadians started bombing New York? Would we just stand there like sheep and die? My guess is no.

So why are the Israelis practicing apartheid if all they are doing is trying to keep their population safe? And why is the left in this country supporting the wrong guys?? What would we, as Americans think if some crazy Canuks decided to start blowing themselves up at the Mall of America? Or Mexicans blowing themselves up in crowded buses full of innocent commuters, whose most radical thought in their entire lives might be whether or not to try arugula?

And why, oh why do American Jews want to aid in the destruction of Israel, and a possible 2nd holocaust by voting the liberal Democratic ticket? Are they blind or just stupid? Do they not read the papers or listen to the news? Do they not understand that the liberal drumbeat of dumping American support for Israel means them, too? Do they not get that they will be the next on the liberal list of persona non grata? Or are they gonna feed their brothers in Israel to the alligator hoping he won't come eventually for them?

I'm sorry but I just don't understand. I read somewhere on the Internet that the Ashkenazim are supposed to be the most intelligent people on the planet, but I'm just not seeing it....they can't be all that smart if they continue to vote for a party who would appease the radical muslims by abandoning support for Israel as soon as they attain power.

In my mind, voting for your own destruction isn't very smart at all. But....there must have been Jews that voted for Hitler too, thinking that he didn't really mean all those things he campaigned know, eradicating Jews and other non-Arians. The alligator got them too, didn't he?