Dumbass voters

3 Comments

Do you want to know why our country is entangled in a mire of shit so deep that even eastern European shitholes that  are barely economically viable think we’re asshats?

Do you want to know why this nation elected a president who promotes a health care bill that he’s unfamiliar with, and whose policies can be boiled down to a couple of vapid platitudes about “Hope and Change?”

This is why!

As it turns out, 39% of voters think government should stay out of Medicare, compared to 46% who disagree.

Among Republicans, 62% say the government should stay out of
Medicare, compared to only 24% of Democrats and 31% of independents who
agree.

When you allow ignorant morons to choose our leadership, you wind up with the current administration and a Congress with its head so far up its ass that it would take surgery to remove it.

Good question

2 Comments

I’d like to know too.

Why is Obama not including malpractice reform in his toolbox for healing our broken healthcare system?

My first knee-jerk reaction answer is: because this “toolbox” is not about reform, but about control.

Have a nice day.

Registration constitutional?

6 Comments

Just received an interesting article from Dan Gifford.  Read carefully, please.  Here’s an excerpt.

Mandatory gun regulation has long been the bête noire of Second
Amendment advocates, who worry that it’s the final step before firearm
confiscation.

The surprise is that, even after last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling
on gun rights, mandatory registration could be constitutional. It may
not be the wisest public policy. It may not be practical. But after the
D.C. v. Heller decision, it also may not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

That question is at the heart of a second lawsuit underway against
the city of Washington, D.C. It also arose last week when the U.S.
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago said
that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to mandatory regulation
because it does not “invalidate any and every regulation on gun use.”

Even some pro-gun scholars and advocates reluctantly agree. “I
think under the Heller decision, registration would be constitutional,”
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Wash., told CBSNews.com this week. “It doesn’t make it good public policy.”

This isn’t a mere abstraction: four years ago, after Hurricane
Katrina laid waste to much of New Orleans, local police, the national
guard, and U.S. Marshals began breaking into homes at gunpoint and confiscating lawfully-owned firearms.

“Registration is probably not unconstitutional,” says Don Kilmer, an attorney in San Jose, Calif. who has sued two California counties

Part of this conclusion stems from the approach that the pro-gun
side adopted when suing to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun
ban. To make their case appealing to as many Supreme Court justices as
possible, the attorneys shouldered the legal equivalent of a rifle
instead of a shotgun, and argued only for Americans’ right to

for denying law-abiding citizens permits to carry concealed weapons.
“There’s a difference between registration as a permissible regulation
and registration as good policy.”
possess firearms for self-defense — not for the right to avoid registering them.

Thoughts?

Yeah, it’s all about the race

1 Comment

New York governor David Paterson is a douchebag.  You heard it here first.

Well… OK… the New York Daily News published it first, but I’m calling a spade a spade… Ooops!  That’s got to be racist.  I mean, I’m calling a douchebag a douchebag.


Gov. Paterson
blamed a racist media Friday for trying to push him out of next year’s
election – launching into an angry rant that left even some black
Democrats shaking their heads.

“The whole idea is to get me not
to run in the primary,” Paterson complained on a morning radio show
hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.

He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country’s only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.

“We’re not in the post-racial period,” Paterson said.

It couldn’t be the fact that New York has ballooning budget deficits and the governor can’t seem to spend within his means.  It couldn’t be that this guy can’t manage his own state and has approval ratings lower than Bush’s when he was still in office at the end of his second term.  It wasn’t the fact that this fetid retard tried to push through a bill as state senator that would require cops to shoot to wound, rather than using deadly force.  The guy is a complete blibbering fuckwit, and yet, it’s not his fuckwittery that is making his own party turn away from him, but racism!

Never mind that the two Paterson critics quoted in the above-linked story are actually African American, and even they think he’s a dumbass!

It’s not your skin, Davey.  It’s your complete lack of intellect, skill, ability and leadership.

Unintended Consequences

4 Comments

I’m not a big fan of cowardice or compromise.  I’ve been very critical of the NRA in the past for its gradualist approach to restoring and protecting our gun rights, and anyone who has been reading this blog for any amount of time knows how I feel about infringements on our rights.

But you all also know that I favor common sense.  I favor exhausting all options before starting an all out war with our opponents.  I don’t believe it’s time for the ammo box.

I also believe in using all strategies when fighting for our gun rights.  I believe in fighting smart.  Sometimes that battle does require “in-your-face” tactics, and when that is the case, I’m all for it.  I absolutely support the Second Amendment March. I support the efforts of VCDL when they work to protect those who choose to open carry their firearms and educate the “powers that be” about gun rights.  I support the right of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in any manner they desire – whether in the open or concealed.

But I don’t believe in creating problems where there are none.  I don’t believe, for example, in provoking police into action like some groups do, where one open carries and a friend calls the cops and acts frantic that there’s someone with a gun in the vicinity, prompting police action against the carrying individual.

Yes, the gay rights movement has had great success with in your face tactics.  They’ve done well with pride parades and other efforts.  But I would also submit that when they specifically target churches, stage boycotts and pressure businesses that oppose them they’re not winning themselves too many supporters.

I spent a good part of my life in Europe.  The first time I saw two women walking down the street hand-in-hand and kiss, I was a bit shocked.  I stared.  I couldn’t believe it.  After a while, it didn’t matter.  I no longer considered it shocking.  It was just something people did when they cared about one another – they sometimes walked while holding hands, and they sometimes kissed.  And it was no big deal.

So it is with gun rights.  I’ve seen some criticism about my blog post about the group in Arizona whose members showed up at an Obama event carrying guns, with one guy sporting an AR (and no, it’s not a friggin’ automatic killing machine sported by racists, MSNBC!).  As I said before, legally I have no problem with what this group did.  They had every right to do so, and the law enforcement authorities in the area knew and understood that.

But was it a smart strategy?

On one hand, the group showed a large crowd of people that they had nothing to fear from protesters, even if they were armed.  They exhibited no overtly threatening or obnoxious behavior.  This was a good thing.

On the other hand, they deliberately stepped into an already volatile situation in an effort to draw attention to themselves.  They succeeded.


Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland SecurityDepartment and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighterrestrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed, whilein the vicinity of President Barack Obama.

Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made therequest after numerous news reports have shown groups of peoplebrandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over thepast several weeks.

Here’s the problem.  Right now, anyone who opposes the liberal agenda is considered a nut, an extremist, a racist, a Nazi and even a terrorist!  They have majorities on the Hill, and one of their own in the White House.  They have the power and authority – if they wanted – to impose further controls. And they need very little excuse to do so. 

They need little reason to bring out the race card or foment panic by implying that there could be assassination attempts on the President’s life by those who oppose his agenda.

Recently, MSNBC host David Shustersimilarly saw protesters at health care town hall meetings as a threatto the President’s life, asking Democratic Congressman Jim Moran: “Isthis putting our president in some sort of danger because of some wackothat will see this stuff and say, ‘oh, yes, it’s fascism and the way wedealt with Adolf Hitler was to try to kill him, so therefore, let’s dothis with our president.’”

Is the media right?  Of course not!  MSNBC has reached new lows with their implications that the group in Arizona had racist motivations and attempting to hide the fact that the man carrying the rifle was actually black.

But will they cover this story with all the implications of assassinations and racism and terrorism they can possibly evoke?  Yes, they will.  They will foment as much anger and panic as possible, and I guarandamntee you that in the end, their attempts at portraying law-abiding gun owners as a threat to the president will result in more restrictions for gun owners who do wish to carry their firearms in or near the President or any of the legisleeches.

Sometimes I carry open, and sometimes I carry concealed, depending on what I’m wearing that day.  I don’t make a big deal out of it.  It’s not a political statement on my part.  It’s just what I do.  People see it.  I’ve never had a problem.  I can see that it bothers no one to see a woman go about her business peaceably, shopping with her kids, going to the movies, etc. while carrying a gun.  It’s just not a problem.  My purpose is not to deliberately shove the fact that I have a right to carry in the faces of others.  My purpose is simply to do it.

It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s an important one.

There’s a time and a place to make your point.

Would I choose to open carry into a situation already fraught with massive amounts of emotion, knowing the media and politicians will exploit any opposition to the liberal agenda as racist, terrorist and dangerous, whether it’s true or not?  No.  I don’t think it’s wise.

While the folks in Arizona were well-spoken and peaceable.  They exercised their rights.  They brought attention to the fact that the citizenry has nothing to fear from armed people.

But on the other hand, they may have caused something that wasn’t a problem, according to the Secret Service, to become a problem.  While Eleanor Holmes Norton’s demand that regulations on carrying firearms be tightened around her Marxists Messiah may be viewed as little to no threat, that demand combined with constant media screeching about possible dangers to the President’s life, the parade of Southern Poverty Law Center “experts” yapping about racism, could lead to tighter restrictions.

I sincerely hope it doesn’t, but there’s a good chance it will.

And the unintended consequence of this group’s tactics could be more restriction not less.

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: