Abraham Lincoln Speaks

 

Yup. It's like that.

Thief In Chief?

If you were paying attention to what was happening in the two major campaigns right before the election, then you know Romney supporters were showing up to events in droves and at the same time the Obama campaign was moving events to smaller venues. Normally that wouldn't bode well for the DNC.

Welcome to the new normal. 2012 saw rampant voter fraud by a major party with very little noise about it from the other party (and almost NO reporting about in main stream media).

Now before you dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist - do a little research.  Check out the facts, the statistical anomalies and the mounting number of things that happened during this presidential election that, if everybody had been "playing by the rules", would have been impossible.

A great place to start is America In Ruin .  They have amassed quite a bit of the evidence in one place.

Overwhelmed?  Not a problem - the article Was the 2012 Election Stolen? is a great place to start.

One last thing. I am not an "operative" for the GOP. I am a conservative. Support of the Second Amendment. Working to stop the murder of the unborn. Sometimes this means I have supported a GOP candidate and sometimes I have supported a DNC candidate.

Whoever wins in an election in this country (local, state or national), they should win it fair and square. That's all I'm asking for.

Peace Through Superior Firepower is BACK!

WE'RE BACK!!   After a hiatus of over 13 months (that's a long time in "dog years" and almost an eternity in "internet years") we will now resume publication of this [Very Politically Incorrect] blog.

For our first post of 2012 (go ahead and laugh, you know you want to) I did some research and found this piece, published 08/28/2008 03:15 PM on http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message595400/pg1 by User ID: 491076 "arthur"
 
Well stated, "arthur", wherever you are.

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. Over 80 Million U.S. firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
27. A armed American Revolution, One Constitution and One Bill of Rights, and Freedom

NOTE : The only changes that I've made to arthur's comments is to update the number of gun owners in #13 & specify "U.S. gun owners".    While searching for a current accurate number, I found estimates ranging from 35 million to well over 100 million (all based on some collection of facts) so I feel that (given the facts I found and their dates) the estimate "over 80 million" is a fair estimate.  In the interest of full disclosure "arthur" stated "64,999,987 firearms owners" in his 2008 post.

And I just might put "Assault is a behavior, not a device" on a bumper sticker.

Common Sense Obit

(from the email bag)

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years.   No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.   He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

Knowing when to come in out of the rain;

Why the early bird gets the worm;

Life isn't always fair;

And maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies, Don't spend more than you can earn and Adults, not children, are in charge.   His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.   Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.    It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.  

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses and criminals received better treatment than their victims.   Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.   Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot.   She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife Discretion, his daughter Responsibility, and his son, Reason. He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame and I'm A Victim. Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.   R.I.P.    If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, do nothing.

Our "Transparent" White House

Do you remember when candidate Obama promised a transparent administration?   Its okay if you don't remember - I have a clip right here of some of that audio.



Now, in a further example of  thumbing his nose at the American people,  "Obama's Justice Department has proposed a regulatory change that would weaken the Freedom of Information Act. Under the new rules, the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests..."

Wait a miute !   What!    "...the government could falsely respond ..." ????      Beautiful!!!   Our beloved President (aka "Mr Transparency") doesn't seem to understand the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act.   It is designed so ordinary citizens can get information.   Not misinformation and not disinformation.

On the upside, Barack Obama's lack of transparency has brought the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative Judicial Watch into agreement.    You can find the entire article here .

As it stands now the government does have a "deniability" out in cases of National Security - "Under FOIA's current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence. This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpentheGovernment.com) in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document's existence, "the agency should simply respond that 'we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.' This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation." Such a response would preserve a requestor's right to appeal to a federal court."

Our President wants a license to lie.

Freedom!

What is the freedom of 1 (one) Israeli sargeant worth?

Apparently the freedom of Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit is worth the freedom of 1,027 (one thousand twenty seven) Palestinians.   This number includes people who have been convicted of murder and others convicted of planning suicide attacks.   Click here for the article from the BBC.

This particular prisoner exchange worries me for two reasons :
1) This seems to imply that one Jew is 1000 times more valuable than one Palestinian (and no human's life is worth 1000 other human's lives)
2) Even the slowest member of Hamas (mentioned in the BBC article) can do the math on the benefits of kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

For those of you who might not be aware of it, HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) is included in the U.S. State Departments list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.       Maybe I'm old fashioned, but making deals with terrorists strikes me as a BAD idea.  

So if you're looking for something to scare you on Halloween, ponder the implications of trading 1 soldier for 1000 terrorists.

Open Carry as FIRST Amendment Right

I think we should start pitching "Obvious Open Carry" as a 1st Amendment issue and get the ACLU to defend our "freedom of expression" on that one. Then we'd have ACLU lawyers arguing against ACLU lawyers and honest Americans could save money on legal fees and spend more on ammunition.

And doesn't this administration realize that the manufacturing of American made ammunition and firearms creates jobs?     Or maybe BHO is more concerned about "playing politics" than he is about saving and creating jobs for American citizens?     Naw - that couldn't be it. [sarcasm font]

And, though he makes it clear that it is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution and open carry is supported by California state law.
"Under the California penal code, an individual is allowed to wear in a holster, unconcealed, essentially on his belt, a gun" and "...the open carry movement... they are lawfully conducting themselves.  They are not breaking the law."   But Morley Pitt, San Mateo County Assistant District Attorney also makes it clear in the video that he is against this particular Constitutional right and that he feels this makes people less safe.

Most of the citizens interviewed seemed to be just fine with it.  

Happy Birthday Universe!

James Ussher (1581-1656), was Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin, was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. He is best known today for Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650, and its continuation, Annalium pars postierior, published in 1654. These are the basis of the Annals of the World and the "Ussher chronology".  This chronology  was quite respected in its day and was incorporated into the authorized version of the King James Bible printed in 1701.       In this work he established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, which would make the universe 6015 years old today.

According to some, (reason #17 listed here) the amount of dust on the lunar surface backs up an age of 6,000-8,000 years old for the moon, which would jive with Ussher's calculations.   (Just for fun, here is the page listing reasons #32-58 for a young earth)

In what might be called a "wise move" by Wikipedia editors, their article on lunar soil makes no mention of the rate of accumulation.   I say thats a good thing for Wikipedia because according to others nobody really knows the rate of accumulation of lunar dust and all our efforts to clarify the problem have only exaserbated it.

Not everybody agrees with Ussher (not even all his contemporaries) and thankfully, this is an opinion opinion opinion opinion opinion blog (mostly politics and the 2nd Amendment), so if pretending that the universe is billions and billions of years old helps you sleep at night, so be it.    I have several learned friends of that opinion.    But you'll notice that there is no "young earth creation" label on this post because thats not what this blog is about.   Plenty of argument on both sides on the internet already.

This is just an interesting piece of historical information.

From the email

The following was sent to me in an email.    I get the humor of it - that Californians are paranoid (compared to the heartland of the US) when it comes to the subject of guns.    But while trying to "fact check" this email I made an alarming discovery.   Try this - type "california gun collector" into Google News (or your favorite search engine News feature) and see what you get.   I got less than 100 results.   The first test yielded twelve results (twelve) reslults.   A second search found fifty-six (56) results.

You might have heard on the news about a southern California man put under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found he owned 100 guns and allegedly had (by rough estimate) 1-million rounds of ammunition stored in his home. The house also featured a secret escape tunnel.
My favorite quote from the dimwit television reporter:
"Wow! He has about a million machine gun bullets." The headline referred to it as a "massive weapons cache".
By southern California standards, if someone even owning 100,000 rounds would be called "mentally unstable.

Just imagine if he lived elsewhere:
In Arizona, he'd be called "an avid gun collector".
In Arkansas, he'd be called "a novice gun collector".
In Utah, he'd be called "moderately well prepared", but they'd probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.
In Montana, he'd be called "The neighborhood 'Go-To' guy".
In Idaho, he'd be called "a likely gubernatorial candidate".
In Wyoming, he'd be called "an eligible bachelor".
And, in Texas, he'd be called "a deer hunting buddy".

CBS and Grenadewalker

It seems that, at about the same time the "Gunwalker" fiasco was happening, the ATF was also letting grenade parts walk across the border into the hands of Mexican drug cartels - "Grenadewalker".  Here's a link to an article on hotair.com with a video report from CBS
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/14/cbs-dont-forget-grenadewalker-too/

And you might not be aware of it but there is a bit of a YouTube phenomenom in the "Hitler Gets Angry" videos. These are videos with funny English subtitles on a clip of video from the film Downfall (2004).   This film depicts the last 10 days of Hitler's life and there is a scene where he gets some bad news and goes screaming mad at his generals.

The subtitled videos treat subject matter as diverse as iPhone, XBox, Lost, Twitter, Harry Potter, tipping, studying chemistry ... you get the idea ... and of course current politics.

This one struck me as really funny but BE WARNED - there is some offensive language in the subtitles

Ann Barnhardt - Rock Star!!!

Okay y'all - if you haven't run across this lady and her blog yet, do yourself a favor and check it out. (Hat tip to Scott - thank you sir!)

http://barnhardt.biz/

She has a great video on there right now where she takes Lindsey Graham to task for some assinine comments he made Sunday morning.

Ann goes on to take on Islam head on.   I know some politicians *say* they will confront something "head on" but not like this.   She states in one post "Frankly, I'm terribly disappointed that not a SINGLE musloid here in the United States has made ANY attempt to rape and behead me." and in one of her videos she shows that the bookmarks in her copy of the Koran are strips of raw bacon.    Ann Barnhardt doesn't pull her punches when she gets to Mitt Romney ( "Romney is about as much of a conservative as Barbara Streisand. Romney is prettier." ), Obamacare, (and the other myriad atrocities of this administration), Global Warming, etc.

If you have any doubts where she stands on the 2nd Amendment, she has posted some cool pictures of her pink AR and a hotlink to her duracoat guy in Wisconsin.

Finally!   Something that is politically sound, well thought out and not politically correct - if you need to find me at lunch I'll be reading http://barnhardt.biz/

October 22 2011 - Responsible Citizens of California Long Guns Coming Out Meetup (SoCal)

Sam (the guy in the video) does say "Please repost this video far and wide"

From the event description on Ammonland.com :

"By banning the open carry of handguns effective January 1, 2012, Governor Jerry Brown wants us to carry long guns for the defense of ourselves and our community, and we are happy to oblige. Get your rifles and shotguns out of the closet and polished up, It’s Coming Out Day October 22, 2011! Southern California event will be at high noon, October 22, in Pacific Beach at the end of Felspar Street on the bluff above the beach."

See http://www.responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org/ for information on the northern California meetup on October 22
Or on Facebook look for "Long Guns Coming Out Meetup"



This Sam fellow has his legal ducks in a row!   Its worth the time to watch the video just for the "2nd Amendment legal defense for everyman" information!

Nail Guns For Peace (from an email)

The dummies in Washington think they are going to take away our guns, so check this out.
I LIKE IT!

They'd NEVER think we'd have NAIL GUNS - and they're concentrating on doing away with the BULLET-TYPE of ammunition!

HAH! I think I'm gonna buy ME some NAIL GUNS and NAILS!!!!

AND, we don't even have to REGISTER them or have LICENSES for them!

HA! HOW STUPID ARE THEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND, you don't have to worry about them being CONCEALED!

Just a LOT of good stuff to do with THIS!

Once in awhile something so totally cool comes out that even a guy who doesn't normally even know what he'd like for Father's Day or Christmas would immediately ask for it:

Thank you, DeWalt!!! 

New Nail Gun, made by DeWALT.

It can drive a 16-D nail through a 2 X 4 at 200 yards.

This makes construction a breeze, you can sit in your lawn chair and build a fence.

Just get your wife to hold the fence boards in place while you sit back, relax with a cold drink and when she has the board in the right place, just fire away.

With the hundred round magazine you can build the fence with a minimum of reloading.

After a day of fence building with the new DeWalt Rapid fire nail gun the wife will not ask you to build or fix anything else, probably, ever again.

Bears Hall of Famer Dan Hampton Refuses White House Invite

Seen on Yahoo! Sports "Shutdown Corner" - here is the link to Chris Chase's blog post (text of the original post is included below my comments)
Bears Hall of Famer Hampton refuses White House invite

My comments on Hampton's reasons :

1) Makes sense to me.   This White House seems to be pretty good at NOT inviting people who are central to an important event - witness the first responders NOT invited to the 10th Anniversary Memorial service at Ground Zero. 
(and this is the most i've said on this blog about Obama's snub of the first responders because it makes me *so* mad I can't even speak about it)

2) I COMPLETELY empathize with this reasoning - more than once I've had the hypothetical discussion with friends "What would you do if you were invited to the White House".   My answer now (and during one previous administration) was "I respect the office but not the current holder of the office - I'll frame the invitation but I'm not going." 
[Yes, Chase says this reason is "petty" but hey, I said I would frame the invitation. And having "a friend that's a Democrat - i have many - is quite a bit different than "let's go visit the ____ that is doing his dead level best to ruin everything that is great about America."  It is DISTINCTLY different Chris.]

3) Chase & I agree - Hampton is right, Obama should let it go already.  And Chase makes the valid point that inviting other (pre-1984 Championship) teams that never received an invitation in the first place is just as valid as Obama's thinly veiled excuse to have "Da Bears" in the White House.

And here is Chris Chase's original post (after a quick [shameless] copy/paste)

By Chris Chase                                 Wed Sep 28 04:59pm EDT
Former Chicago Bears defensive tackle Dan Hampton won't be attending the team's visit to the White House next month. The Hall of Famer told WLS-890 in Chicago that his decision is based on a "personal choice."
President Obama invited the 1985 Super Bowl championship team to visit Washington, D.C., earlier this month. The Bears had been scheduled to meet with President Reagan in January of 1986, but the Challenger disaster forced the White House to cancel the planned meeting.
Hampton gave three reasons for not attending:

1. Wives and children of the players weren't invited.

That does seem like an oversight by whoever planned the meeting. Granted, children of the players are most likely adults by now so it's not like a 5-year-old is getting snubbed, but surely the White House could have pulled out some more folding chairs for the event.

2. He says he's "not a fan of the guy in the White House."

A frequent reason given by those who decline White House invites, whether it be for Obama or any president who came before him. This sounds lame and takes a tremendous lack of perspective. Declining an opportunity to go to the White House and shake hands with the President of the United States because you don't like the guy's opinion on health care seems petty. Does Hampton not have any friends who are Democrats?

3. "It was 25 years ago. Let it go."

I'm sort of on Hampton's side on this one (though not enough to make it a valid excuse for declining). It's not like every Super Bowl team was going to the White House back then; the Bears were only the second team to get the invite. The 25-year-old canceled visit is a thinly veiled excuse to invite the team from Obama's adopted hometown for a visit. What about other championship squads? Where's John Riggins' and The Hogs' invite? The 1974 Dolphins can't get any love?! (And Florida's a swing state, Barack!)

180 Movie - Trailer

From a "friend" on a social media site (not sure how he found me but we both lean hard to the right)

Some of you will recognize the voice of the interviewer - this trailer is for a half hour film that he released September 26 (through non-traditional channels).    And this is not his usual "issue".

You can see the entire 33 minute film here.

I included "politicians" in the tags because a *very famous* politician is mentioned as part of the argument made here.    I would be interested to know whether anybody feels that the references to the past politicain make this a fallacious argument.