The Subversive

Redirect

2008-05-29T18:42:00.005-05:00

Well, I've decided that The Subversive has run its course. Also, it was poorly named to begin with.

Subversion is the clandestine act of working against the establishment. My inspiration for the name of the blog came way back in college. My then-girlfriend (now wife) and I thought it would be grand to publish a newsletter under that name, with the express purpose of exposing the leftist, liberal, socialist moonbats who ran the college for what they were (still are.) The idea never got far, but the name stuck with me.

The problem with "The Subversive" as it applies to life in the US is that the cause which I represent (The Constitution) is the establishment. To assert otherwise is to acknowledge defeat. In other words, calling myself a subversive is stating that the Constitution is no longer really the authority, and that I must use acts of subversion to promote the truth. That of course is untrue.

Adding to my motivation to change was The Subversive's rather closed format. I rarely strayed from a particular template (liberty.) Certainly, I expect posts of the same nature to dominate the content of my new blog, but I'm hoping to also include more general commentary on life, faith-based posts, and maybe just stuff that is fun to me.

So if you liked The Subversive, I encourage you to click on this post. (The whole thing is a hyper link.) It will take you to my new blog...

The Only Ones Plumbing Enough...

2008-04-10T22:20:00.002-05:00

There will be no link to this posting, as it is born of my own personal undocumented experience. This is really more of a rant than anything. We're selling our house, having found a larger more suitable abode in which we would very much like to reside. We got an offer on our house soon after it was on the market with one unusual stipulation.

Our washing machine drains into an old non-functional toilet. (All in the basement.) This was to be brought up to code by a professional plumber. I asked my realtor if there was any reason I couldn't just do the repair myself. She said that normally we could negotiate that point, but since this buyer is using FHA as a lender, they would require a "certified" repair. I gutted through my disapproval, wanting to sell, and thinking that would be it. Little did I know.

Along came the actual whole house inspection. Now we've been asked to hire an electrician to cover some open junction boxes in the basement and a roofer to install flashing around the chimney and (drumroll please) re-roof the garage. My wife said my face, ears and neck all turned red when I read the addendum they submitted.

Here's my beef: my dad and I rewired 99% of the house - to code, mind you - and what they're asking for is essentially clean-up of the remaining old wiring that we didn't get to. Had I remembered that there were two open junction boxes, I would have taken care of them myself, and nothing would have been noted. Had I known the washing machine "drain" would be an issue (since most people are sooo picky about the route their gray water takes to the sewer) I would have called my grandpa and we would have fixed it in half a Saturday morning. But now, because the buyer has a picky lender, I have to hire professionals to do something that I could capably do myself, or with the assistance of family (in the case of the plumbing stack.)

We're trying to negotiate just who does the work on the garage roof. The jury is still out, and I'm worried that they're going to walk if we don't hire someone. As my realtor points out, "Roofing isn't exactly rocket science." No offense to any professional roofers out there, but as roofs go, this one's as easy as a dog house.

Beyond the face-reddening frustration due to the extra money we'll have to spend (to SELL our house!!!) I'm angry at a deeper level. I think this sort of crap is symptomatic of the larger ills of our society. Gone is the pioneer spirit of independence, self-reliance, and resourcefulness. Gone is a fearless can-do attitude that faces down problems with a toolbox and a little advice from your elders. Instead, we have a culture that increasingly welcomes total dependence upon the expertise of others to fix anything and everything. Of course, that's because we live in a remarkably prosperous society. If you don't have to spend all weekend figuring out how to change your brakes, why bother when you can spend $300 to have the pros do it in a few hours?

Before I go too far down this gripe-train, I should point something out: I don't think everyone should be a handyman. Certainly not everyone is gifted with mechanical abilities (some would probably argue that I'm not, although I try), and I don't expect someone to change their own oil just because I do. I know plenty of good men who never turn a wrench.

However, what has really chapped my rear-end is that this dependence has now been inflicted on me. Everything electrical that wasn't cited by the inspector was what my father and I did! And yet we have to hire someone to cover a damn junction box? Come on!

This mind-numbing "leave it to the professionals" attitude is permeating every pore of American life. Of course the first example that comes to my mind is the responsibility for your own safety. Dare to carry a gun in your own defense? "Vigilante! Rogue! Cowboy! That's why we have police!"

Dare to take responsibility for your kids' own education? Fundamentalist! Cult follower! Heck, in some places they won't even let you anymore.

Want to improve your own house? Well, get ready to buy permits just to make sure it's OK with the government.

And want to sell your house? Get used to hiring people to do things you could do yourself. Heck, I wonder if they're going to make me get a janitor to vacuum before we leave...

The next Waco?

2008-04-06T00:18:00.002-05:00

This is low-hanging fruit for the proponents of the police state. You have morally repugnant behavior coupled with a guy who wears thick glasses. What's not to hate about these people? Isn't it about time somebody does something? Send in SWAT and kill 'em all, right?

Well, let's back up a step. I'm just going to note everything that I think is wrong with this picture:

1. The government has defined morality. Believe me, I have a problem with polygamy, but is it the .gov's job to tell you 'no'?
2. Here we have yet another example of a person or group of people's lives being turned upside-down based on hearsay. No hard evidence (at least not cited by the article), just a "she-said." You know, like an anonymous tip line. Want to get back at your neighbor? Just "take a bite out of crime" and call in (anonymously of course) that they're cooking meth and you know they have lots of guns. Be sure you're up at 3AM to enjoy the dynamic entry tactics employed by the death squad that will visit them.
3. The guy who did the supposed abusing is reportedly in Arizona, and the raid is taking place in...Texas. Makes sense, don't you think?
4. Eighteen girls taken into state custody - and yet no mention of charges against their parents. Here we have a state agency with the god-like power to kidnap your children when they deem it's necessary.
5. The secret police descending on these folks summarily deny access to the press. Don't get me wrong - the mainstream media does a piss-poor job of providing any sort of watchdog oversight to the government's activities anyway, but doesn't this strike anyone as Stalinist? I mean, shouldn't the activities of the government be so far above reproach that it would be a no-brainer to allow everyone to see what's going on? After all, they constantly assert that invasions of your privacy shouldn't bother you. It's always the same police state logic when they want to search us - "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind." Apparently they have something to hide.
6. The media coverage of this event is just atrocious. The CNN story uses the word "sect" and calls the group a "rogue" branch of the Mormon Church. So I guess that's objective journalism for you - making judgment calls about the legitimacy of a religious group. You have to read and re-read to figure out what the heck is really going on. They just throw enough negative and condemning peripheral information into the mix that the reader will surely form the opinion that these sleaze balls need to be taken out. They rape kids for heaven's sake. Never mind that the accused is apparently not even present. Again, I should clarify - I think this is a sick bunch. But the clear objective of the story is to get the reader to that conclusion, so that they won't mind the eventual outcome, as foreshadowed by #7...
7. I saved this for last. It's so Orwellian that it almost gave me chills. The story opens by stating that ambulances were rolling onto the property in anticipation of "a negative reaction." Good grief, why don't they just give the public what they want and dispense with the Newspeak? Just say up front, "We're going to waste these ******s. It'll be a freaking bloodbath, and we really should be bringing in hearses instead of ambulances."

For the love of liberty, no one cares anymore. We've known for 15 years now that the government can massacre - wait, let me bold that - THE GOVERNMENT CAN MASSACRE MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND GET AWAY WITH IT. The victims just have to be creepy enough, and preferably be willing to defend their own lives with firearms.

Next up: homeschoolers. I know, I know. Take off the tinfoil, Adam. I say take off the blinders. Whatever department "took custody" of those kids can decide - at will - that your kids are in danger and kidnap them. If you don't think removing your kids from the government run propaganda camps that we call schools and teaching them as you see fit is a big enough offense...

Well, just wait. It will be. It's just a matter of time. One of the last powers of the people to wrest power from The Beast is to raise God-fearing kids that can handle a rifle. I very much plan to do that.

DC v Heller

2008-03-21T16:31:00.004-05:00

Disclaimer: I haven't thoroughly reviewed the information in the title link. It looked like a pretty comprehensive overview of the case and its history, so I included it for anyone interested in a little background info.

I decided that I have to blog about this case. I don't know exactly where this post is going to go, but I have a lot of thoughts rattling around, and I need to get some of them into cyberspace.

I think this is an exciting possibility. For the first time in my lifetime (indeed in my parents' and for the second time in my grandparents' lifetimes) we have a chance to see real change affected in the arena of gun control. What change could occur? More on that later. First, let's have a look at where things are at right now, in 2008.

We have a lot of gun control on the books. The first thing you hear any gun control advocate screaming is that our "streets" are flooded with guns and that buying a gun is easier than buying a book. It's hogwash of course. Until we have complete gun bans on the books with confiscation police going door-to-door, the moonbats will keep screaming about how easy it is to get your hands on a gun.

The truth is that it's not easy to get a gun (at least not legally). We have federal laws regulating who may sell guns, from where they may sell them, how old you must be to own/buy a gun, what types of firearms you may own, and how you may ship, transport, or sell them. Then there are countless state laws, which vary widely in their degree. Some states have effectual bans in place on certain types of firearms, while others don't even require a permit to carry a concealed handgun (*gasp*).

The next thing you hear the confiscation advocates screaming about (that is, if you haven't lost your hearing from their shrill pitch) is that anyone can buy an "assault rifle," walk into a mall and mow down eight million people in a half a second.

Next you'll hear them crying and dancing in the blood of every child who had died as the victim of gang violence or in a gun accident. After that comes the pants-wetting that accompanies any debate over concealed carry or self-defense.

I could engage each of these arguments, but it's pointless. They are all without merit or supporting facts, but that's beside the point.

The bottom line is this: The intent of the founding fathers was that a well armed population would have the power to hold its own government in check.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with crime. It has nothing to do with hunting or recreation. It doesn't even have anything to do with self-defense, at least not self-defense against street thugs. It has everything to do with preventing tyranny.

How often have you heard the antis complain that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant because weapons technology has changed? They make inane comparisons between flintlock muskets and AK-47s, and bed-wettingly whine that one couldn't kill his fellow man nearly as efficiently in 1792 as he can now. Someone needs to point out to such folk that governments could not kill their citizens nearly as efficiently back then either. That is the point. Since 1792, governments have killed 170 MILLION of their own citizens. Anyone who contests that "This is 200 years ago, and the government isn't going to take your other freedoms" has their head in the sand and hasn't studied history very much, if at all. Governments do this all the time in this present age. The Founders recognized that this would always be the natural course of governments, and so they set up the Constitution to specifically prevent such abuses. The Second Amendment is more relevant than it has ever been.

So what weaponry should common, ordinary citizens be able to buy? Well, as uncomfortable as it makes so many people, the truth is that any gun that's good at killing is good at guaranteeing liberty. Anything the military has (and especially anything the police have) the citizenry should have. Sawed-off shotguns? Yes. Silencers? Why not? Machine guns? Hell yes.

...which brings me to the "what could change?" question.

The answer: hopefully everything. All the major gun control laws we have on the books are unconstitutional abominations that have crept their way into existence little by little. Bit by bit, we've given ground, and now we might be able to take it back.

I don't realistically expect to see the National Firearms Act of 1934 overturned, nor the Gun Control Act of 1968. Those are the two big ones, of course. NFA makes it a crime to own several types of easily-demonized weapons (most notably machine guns) unless you pay an exorbitant tax and register yourself like a sex offender. GCA establishes a licensing system for dealers and gives us the groundwork for the BATFE, perhaps the most Gestapo-like "law" enforcement agency the United States has ever had the displeasure to endure.

I could post an entire book on the thug tactics employed by BATFE, but I won't, mainly because others already have. If you're genuinely interested in learning more about these worst of the secret police, check out:.

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/

http://jpfo.org/

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

At the best, we can hope for an overturning of these laws and an abolition of the ATF.

At the worst, a "collective rights" ruling that will legitimize Nazi-like gun control. (And if you think I'm gratuitously throwing the word "Nazi" around for emotional appeal, you should do a little research on the Third Reich and how exactly they gained unresisted control over Germany.)

Most realistically, I predict a ruling that will affirm the individual right, but with a caveat that "some reasonable restrictions" must be applied. Of course, a right that is subject to restriction is no right at all, but rather a privilege granted by a government that views its citizens as subjects.

Gun Free Zones

2008-02-16T09:40:00.002-06:00

No link is necessary. Everyone knows that there was a shooting at NIU this week. 5 victims dead plus the shooter.

In a country where you must submit to a Federally mandated background check to purchase a gun. (He did.)
In a state where you must have a Firearm Owner's Identification card to own a gun. (He did.)
In a state where no one may legally carry firearms (no one in the classroom did.)
On a "gun free campus." (It apparently was...)

So V-Tech...NIU...how are those "Gun Free Zones" working for you? Wow, everyone seems to be following the policies to the letter. Cho managed to kill thirty+ classmates - all of whom were in strict compliance with the "no guns" policy. This latest killer offed five and wounded like eighteen or something. So he was in a room with somewhere around twenty-three (+) compliant victims.

And administrators, law enforcement, politicians and the antis all scream "LUNACY!" when we suggest that maybe, just maybe an armed good guy or two is the only answer that will actually make our students safer.

No, I'm not talking about armed campus security or campus police. I'm talking about armed students. And goodness, those words barely escape the lips before the bed-wetting begins. You want to send a disarmament advocate into hysterics? Just suggest that a college student shouldn't have to sit there and get shot. Suggest that forcible submission to massacre is outrageous. They'll go into hysterics. You'll be so barraged with emotionally driven baseless arguments devoid of any supporting facts or logic that you'll think you've been transported onto the set of "Bowling for Columbine."

"How will more guns make anyone safer?" This is one of the classics. The shooter was using a gun, so the emotional response is that no good can possibly come of guns. Guns are the evil, guns are the enemy, we must eradicate guns, lest the problem grow. Never mind the fact that a single gun in the hands of one of those students could have kept the body count at ONE. (The would-be killer.)

"You want to arm students??! They're so YOUNG." My gosh, you'd think you just suggested handing out Claymores at day care. Yeah, I guess 18 is too young to be responsible for your safety or anyone else's safety. Too young to be trusted with a gun. I mean, you're only a legal adult...only the same age as most of the guys (and gals) in Iraq. Only the same age as a lot of brave MEN who stormed Omaha beach.

The answer is as plain as the nose on your face, but it comes at a price. And the price is high for those in power: it is the admission that the individual- and not the government - is best suited to be the party responsible for safety and self-preservation.

Sadly, the government, institutions like colleges, and a disgusting portion of the general populace recoil at the notion of anyone daring to defend themself. They prefer disarmed submission.

They prefer massacre.

Why Hillary CAN'T be trusted with health care...

2007-12-05T20:26:00.000-06:00

The title of this post is a link to a video. Watch it first.

Okay, so let's get the facts straight here - the facts as presented by Hillary's own ad.

1. A man could not afford an operation for his son.
2. He called Hillary's office.
3. Hillary's office calls him the next day and tells him that the hospital will eat the cost of the operation.

So...we are to conclude that because Hillary acted like the mafia that we can trust her? Health care is a service, and like any other good or service, it must be paid for. Hospitals are businesses that exist to make money. So when we don't like or can't afford the costs, we're supposed to rely on the government to use thug tactics and strongarm the private industry into taking a loss?

So how do you think the conversation between Hillary's office and the hospital went?

"Hi, this is Senator Clinton's office. I'd like to call your attention to the matter of this marrow transplant."
"Yes?"
"It would be in your best interests to pick up the tab."
"Well, we really can't do that. We have a policy that unless..."
"No, I don't think you understand. Let's say that it would be like health insurance for you if you went ahead and absorbed the cost."

I can't imagine the pain of not being able to pay for a life-saving operation for your child. I really can't, and I'm sorry this guy had to go through that. But using the government to bully the private industry is not the answer.

The unfortunate truth is that our socialist program-bred entitlement attitudes have led us to buy into the lie that health care is somehow not a good or service for which someone deserves compensation. Hillary & Co. apparently believe that doctors, surgeons, nurses, pharamacists and everyone else in the industry will have their financial needs met through the warm fuzzy feelings they get when they work for free.

This commercial - straight from the horse's mouth mind you - exposes Hillary for what she is - a thug who will use the power of the government to control people as she sees fit. In this case, "as she sees fit" happened to benefit this man and his son. But what did it cost the hospital? Oh, hell, what does it matter? They're a corporation and they deserve to be punished, right?

*UPDATED*
I attempted to post a very brief synopsis of this post on YouTube. I got an instant, "Comment Pending Approval" message, and then when I refreshed it disappeared. I'm sure it won't make it on. She probably "suggested" that YouTube review all comments posted in response. Does anyone really believe this mafiosa promotes a free exchange of ideas?

Kill a Baby, Save the Planet

2007-11-25T19:35:00.000-06:00

After reading this article I'm torn between outrage, disgust, disbelief and sadness. I've never seen a more direct contradiction to everything that is true and good in this world than the attitudes, beliefs and actions displayed by the people in this article. Can there be any doubt that the lie which is "global warming" or "human induced climate change" is indeed a pagan religion? To the list of religious-like activities that characterize the bizarre behavior of this camp - which includes zeal, faith, worship (of the earth), and lifestyle change - we can now add child sacrifice.

How horrific that an innocent life was violently snuffed out in the name of a lie. This behavior is so horribly barbaric, and these beliefs are so positively rooted in evil that I sincerely hope these folks take their thought process one step further and off themselves. I mean, really - if you're willing to kill your own kid over this, why are you still here?

The one comfort I take out of the whole situation is that although these nut jobs kill their young and encourage all of like mind to not reproduce, I plan to have lots of kids. Hey, they're not reproducing, right? So they have to rely on propaganda and lies to bring more people to their side. On the other hand, one virile couple over the course of - oh let's say three generations - could conceivably (pun intended) add to the world (through their lineage) an exponentially greater number of well-adjusted conservative Christians than these two wackos could hope to brainwash in a century.

So you keep going to your marches, Toni. You keep lying down on the sidewalk and protesting meat and fur and cars and people and doing whatever else it is you lunatics do when you get bored. In the meanwhile, the wife and I will be propagating, which is hard work. To fuel our efforts, we'll be eating red meat and drinking milk. As often as possible, I'll kill that meat myself, with a gun that puts carbon into the atmosphere. And I'll teach my progeny to hunt and shoot. And they'll teach their kids. And in a hundred years when we're both dead and gone, maybe my great grandkids will be sitting around a fire after a long day afield (that means hunting) and one of them will mention in passing that great-grandpa used to write a little on the internet. And they'll break out the archives of this blog and all have a good laugh at the fact that people used to believe in something called "global warming."

Good grief.

A Treatise on the Police State

2007-09-11T21:28:00.000-05:00

I recently made a statement in another forum to the effect that I was disgusted by the Police State that America has become. I was challenged on the comment with the following:

2 problems... 1. would you like to be the police? 2. you cannot assume that everyone will make the same decisions as you would especially in dire situations. 3. perhaps you are talking about something else... because it is hard to get on an airplane. in which i agree with you. you cannot make rules against unknowable or on paranoia.

I think these questions provide an especially good opportunity to record some of my thoughts regarding this issue. The Police State has been (and will continue) to be on my mind - probably as a result of the ever-worsening conditions and our ever-eroding liberty.

I'll start with the third point. No, I wasn't referring to some particular symptom of the Police State. I am referring to American society as a whole. We are living in a Police State. There is plenty of opportunity for things to get far worse, but the present reality is that we are not free, and indeed we are increasingly less free. The observation about getting on airplanes is well put. Consider that air travel is merely a template for the rest of society, and you can see where we're headed. Cameras, checkpoints, random searches, biometric IDs, databases, surveillance. I don't think it's really necessary to belabor the point that things are getting worse.

The first numbered issue poses a question: "Would you like to be the police?"

I have two ways in which I will answer this question. Let me first state that I understand that the implied context of this question is, "The job of the police - to serve and protect - is dangerous and requires sacrifice. Would you really want a job where you put your life at stake every time you punch the clock? If you're not willing to do this job, why are you disgusted by those who are?"

Unfortunately, there is no short way to answer this question. I'll begin by stating that the stark reality is that the idea that it is solely the responsibility of the police to protect society is actually a very recent (and most unwelcome) development. (By recent, I mean 'within the last 50 or 60 years.) It's a direct result of the feminist movement's attempt to make the male obsolete. Protection used to be the job of the man. As part of the attempt to prove that the man is unneeded, the feminists have (successfully, I'm afraid) reassigned this responsibility to the State. Whereas it was previously common, accepted, and expected that men would be responsible for the protection of their families and those around them, it is now common, accepted, and expected that everyone should assume complete powerlessness in the presence of any threat and dial 911. Anyone who does otherwise - that is, anyone who takes responsibility for their own safety and well-being - is immediately suspect, subject to investigation for their actions and often labeled a vigilante. The State (by which I mean the police) always officially recommends that the public behave this way (helpless - dial 911), they always discourage the individual from taking responsibility for their own safety, and they always proclaim that they are the Only Ones qualified/properly trained/professional enough to bear arms and protect the people.

And day after day after day they disprove this ridiculous lie.

The underlined text in the above sentence is a link that will provide you hundreds and thousands of pieces of evidence that dismiss the absurd notion that the police are somehow more qualified than you or I to exercise the rights of self-defense and others-defense. These are everyday real-life documented stories taken from the news all around the country. The link will provide you with search results within a specific blog - The War on Guns. David Codrea - the blog's author - keeps a daily eye on the news and reports on these matters. He files each story with the key words 'Only Ones' because that's what the police purport to be - the only ones qualified, trained, etc.

With this in mind, I'll restate (several times) the question - "Would you like to be the police?"

- Would you like to enjoy special rights and priveliges not afforded to the general public?
- Would you like to truly enjoy the right to keep and bear arms - to be able to always carry a gun - especially in situations where the average joe is specifically prohibited from doing so and is therefore specifically vulernable to violent crime?
- Would you like access to firearms, armor, surveillance equipment, non-lethal self defense tools, knives, vehicles, and communications equipment not available to the public?
- Would you like to be exempted (by law) from virtually every prohibition that applies to the public?
- Would you like to have the guarantee that if you engage in criminal activity; negligently kill, injure, harass, intimidate or abuse an innocent person; negligently lose a firearm purchased with public tax dollars, or accidentally kill a co-worker that your name will be withheld from the public?
- Would you like to know that in any of the above situations, you will most likely be 'punished' with a paid vacation known as 'administrative leave.' Further, would you like to enjoy the guarantee that such violations will only be investigated by the same agency that employs you and not by an uninterested third party?
- Would you like to know that if anyone dares cross you, the full fury of the State will come down upon them?

These are just off the top of my head. The Only Ones archives are chocked-full of stories illustrating the fact that the police exist as a separate class of citizenry - above you and I, and not subject to the same laws or restraints that we are. Each story that illustrates the set-apart and protected nature of the police first illustrates that despite all their bluster and claims, they are no different than you or I. In fact, they are statistically far more likely to commit offenses/accidents/suicide with the same firearms that they so fiercely inisist we mere citizens are not qualified to wield.

To address the 2nd enumerated point, "You cannot assume that everyone will make the same decisions as you would especially in dire situations."

I guess my initial reaction is a shrug of the shoulders. Because one citizen cannot adequately protect himself is not a reason to deprive another citizen of his rights. Or perhaps you're wondering, 'But what about the man who is trying to stop a burglar and kills an innocent bystander?' In the first place, the police do that all the time. If you don't believe that statement, I challenge you to take a cursory survey of the link that I provided. It is quite common for the police to accidentally shoot an innocent. In the second place FREEDOM IS NOT SAFE. If we gave unrestricted access to firearms to all individuals who are not locked up in prison (which I strongly advocate) you would still have accidents, suicides, and "gun crimes." I think in the long-run society's restored ability to protect itself would drive down violent crime, but there is no denying that a certain portion of society will always abuse or mistreat the rights afforded to them. But that is not a reason to enslave everyone else.

The cold, harsh, slap-in-the-face truth is that we can trade away our freedom and sacrifice our liberty and give up our rights and we will never be one bit safer for it. The choice is not between freedom and safety.

WE CAN CHOOSE TO BE FREE OR WE CAN CHOOSE TO BE ENSLAVED BY THE STATE.

We are moving rapidly toward the latter option.

We're the Only Ones Being Picky Eaters Enough

2007-09-08T11:49:00.000-05:00

The worst part about this story is that it's not listed as a Ridiculous Item of the Day or soemthing like that.

So if they served the burger to you or I, and we complained to the police, they would have still arrested her, right?

Stark, horrid evidence that there is no doubt - WE ARE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE.

It all makes me sick to my stomach...

This is for YOUR protection...

2007-09-03T08:32:00.000-05:00

Alright, so I haven't posted here in months, but this seemed really post-worthy.

I have recently been pondering the unfortunate trend of our country towards a socialist police state, and as a result, I've been more tuned into things like this. Although, let's be honest - with headline coverage on FOXnews.com, it was hard to miss. Edwards' genius plan to "fix" everything that's "wrong" with America is mandatory socialized health care, the costs of which get strapped on the backs of upper middle-class Americans as punishment for their success in life. (After all, they have to "do their part," right?)

So we're going to make it a crime to not go to the doctor? Lovely. I thought it was really nice the way he first states that the coverage is mandatory for everyone, and then he states that, "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK." If you are going to be in the system? You mean the mandatory system? I guess he really means, "If you are going to be an American."

Not to wish the years of my life away, but I can't wait until the baby-boomers are all dead. Ok, let me qualify that with the clause, 'in a political sense.' My parents and a lot of good friends are baby-boomers, and I'm certainly not wishing for the speed of their departure. But I heard it said the other day that the Boomers are going to whine, complain and moan all the way to the grave, and I think it's true. In fact, it's that very entitlement attitude that makes traitors like Edwards and Clinton viable candidates in a presidential election. There was a day when Americans would have laughed in the face of such tyrannical assertions as Edwards has just made. Prior to an election, such arrogant statements would have been political suicide. But the Boomers believe that it's the government's job to provide for them, and they are more than willing to sacrifice all their liberty (and everyone else's) to that cause.

I hold out hope that my generation and those after us will not accept tyranny. The state of public schrewls and the "accept the police state" mindset they push on our kids (see "lockdown drills" for evidence) robs me of some of that hope. Even so, I know several men who won't stand by and idly watch the US become what Great Britain has.

One day the Boomers will keel, and our country will be in ruins from a hundred socialist entitlement programs that will have sucked the people dry in the name of fairness, and the abusive police state will have assumed full control in the name of protecting us from ourselves. On that day, those of us who are left standing in the aftermath must have some plan to recover our country - some plan to take it back from the evil statists, collectivists and socialists who so seek to enslave us at every turn.

Start thinking.

Where the hell is the ACLU?

2007-03-24T09:35:00.000-05:00

One more example of the Youth Reclamation Project enforcing their agenda to the point of prohibiting free speech.

Seriously. Where in the hell is the freaking ACLU on this? Oh, that's right - they're more like the Anti Christian Liberties Union.

Reverse the phrase on the kid's shirt to "Be gay, not happy," have a school ban that, and I'd bet my last dollar that the ACLU would be there.

No Dissent Allowed

2007-03-20T20:41:00.000-05:00

This article really just highlights the problem with the very notion of public schools.

The bottom line is that the Youth Reclamation Project (or Public Screwels, as Rush calls them) will not tolerate anyone deviating from their lefty propagandist agenda. I don't know that I would agree with what this guy was teaching, but I think it's interesting that the main thrust of the charges against him (at least as far as the article goes) is that he referenced the big bad Bible!

Homeschool, homeschool, homeschool is the answer I keep coming back to. The evil tyranny-enabling life forms that run the public education system in this country simply will not allow the truth to be taught, no matter what the subject. The way I see it, the only answer is to teach our own kids. It's one giant step we can take to reclaim the youth for our side.

Chalk One Up...

2007-03-09T20:05:00.000-06:00

...for the good guys.

Finally the government takes a step in the right direction.

Someone I know postulates that this will go to the Supreme Court because there is a conflicting ruling from the Commies over in the Ninth Circuit.

Here's hoping. An individual interpretation of the 2A by the SCOTUS would be a landmark and could go far in reversing some of the unconstitutional garbage we've got on the books.

This is one tally mark on the wall...for now.

Pay up, Subjects

2007-03-08T20:33:00.000-06:00

A California school district is trying to bill parents for each day that their kids miss school. The idea is that the schools miss out on funding when the kids are absent.

Good! Maybe they'll get bled dry and someone will have to develop a Constitutional education system.

Sometimes my wife tells me I should run for office. I figure the only logical starting point is city government, right? I don't have any connections. So let's say I could get elected to a city council - just for kicks.

I'd never get any farther than one term at the local level, because every week I'd be proposing that we shut down every public school in the town.

I think public schools are a horrible idea, and I think the end result (ignorant, troubled kids) proves it. I get pretty riled up every time some politician starts talking about public school teachers being "heroes." But I digress. I loathe every aspect of the Youth Reclamation Project, and the despicable, pretentious attitude exhibited by this group of California wardens is just one more log on the fire.

We're The Only Ones Who Can Deprive You of Your Property Enough

2007-03-08T17:15:00.001-06:00

To review:
1. They pull him over going 111 mph.
2. He has some pot in the car.
3. He has some guns in the car.
4. They arrest him, confiscate the pot, and confiscate the guns.
5. No mention is made of the weapons being either illegal in nature or illegally obtained.

So why did they take his guns? And why does the MSM report it like it's a normal, healthy thing to do? The guns had nothing to do with the crime, nor were they illegally possessed (according to the article.)

Why? Because they can. And no one will stop them. After all, they're the Only Ones.

"We Don't Really Like Guns"

2007-03-07T22:34:00.000-06:00

I have some good friends who are in the process of adopting a child. During a recent interview, they were being asked a series of general questions. One was, of course, "Do you have any firearms in the home?" The answer was no, to which the woman replied, "That's good - we don't really like guns anyway."

Why not? Is she afraid an adoptive parent might try and protect their adopted child from any one of several threats which could assail them? Or is she just so cowed with fear because of all the horse**** propaganda that she's been fed that her brain Pavlonianly responds with "BAD" every time someone says "GUN"? (Is Pavlonianly a word?)

Anyway, I thought it was terribly sad that a senseless, emotionally generated response that is in no way supported by any facts, evidence or logic can be used to potentially restrict good, decent people from adopting. A cursory internet search turned up pretty much what I suspected - this is a fairly standard treatment of the issue.

It really makes me wonder how I would respond should my wife and I ever try to adopt.

"Your damn right I do. I've got lots of 'em. And I keep the 1911 on the night stand loaded with Hornady XTP hollowpoints. Don't worry - the kid will be safe here. Any dirtbag that breaks in this house will be carried out full of forty-five caliber holes and less a little blood and soft tissue. And when the kid gets bigger, I'll teach him how to do the same thing."

Ann Coulter

2007-03-07T22:25:00.000-06:00

No link necessary. She called John Edwards a faggot, and now she's getting raked over the coals once again. Rather than delving into semantics, I'd like to offer a much deeper insight that my wife provided while I was ranting about this to her.

The scary thing - and it's really chilling once you think about it - is that The Standard by which the media now judges public figures is that person's views on homosexuality. Think it's a sin? You're a hate monger. Dare to call names? You may as well be marching Jews into an oven.

What's worse is that we've noticed this behavior creeping into the world of private interactions. We were recently talking to someone about our church. The denomination is entrenched in a controversy over gays. The first thing this person mentioned was that our denomination was dealing with the gay issue and that he wanted to know what we thought. He said he (of course!) had no problem with it. And the implied message is that there is a problem if we do think it's wrong.

This attitude, coupled with laws like Chet Culver's anti-bullying-piss-upon-the-First-Amendment effort are laying the groundwork to outlaw ANY expression of an opinion that could be labelled "anti-gay."

Think it's a sin? Call it a sin? Have fun in jail.

If something doesn't change, the above three sentences will come to pass.

Hometown Trifecta

2007-03-07T22:06:00.000-06:00

Story one: Iowa Governor Chet Culver signs Anti-Bullying Law

Great. Real great. Get the Hitler Youth all nice and conditioned-like so they're willing and ready to do your bidding later in life. Make sure they understand from an early age that the government owns every aspect of their life - even how they interact with classmates. Instilling a healthy sense of fear and getting them used to goose-stepping is important, unless you want them doing something radical later in life - like starting a revolution and wrenching power from your evil hands.

Culver has, in one fell swoop, proven himself to be the snivelling dictator-wannabe I suspected from the start.

Story two: The same moron believes the government should have a heavy-handed presence in private health decisions.

It's the same old story from the same old liberal bag of tricks. Want to control the people? Do it through taxes. Crap like this makes me want to take up smoking just to flip the bird to Police-State politicians like this jackass. I love it how they use the very words, "...saving lives." Sure thing. Seat belt laws, gun control, cigarette taxes, socialized health care, regulated speech, regulated religion, regulated press. You can make any given one of those rights-violations (and believe me, the ones that are not yet fully accomplished are on their to-do list) into an issue about "saving lives."

Governor Culver, freedom isn't safe, you traitorous moron.

And finally, story three proves that it's no better on this side of the river: Mike Boland proposes a law making it illegal to smoke in a car where a child is present.

Bottom line: We don't trust you to make your own decisions as a parent. And in fact, we think it's better for your kid to deprive them of a parent for a month than it is to allow them to be exposed to second-hand smoke.

I've gotta hand it to them - these anti-smoking Nazis have done a really good job of conditioning the American public to accept a looming government presence in their private lives - just so long as it saves lives.

Hilarious Hypocrisy

2007-02-27T22:45:00.000-06:00

I will, of course, jump all over this one, since it discredits that moron Al Gore.

I personally believe that the disproven lie that is referred to as Global Warming is an important tool in the kit of those who would control us. And the fact that Al Gore is a talker but not a walker further illustrates his self-serving agenda. Position the populace for control, and enjoy your comfortable lifestyle while you're at it.

As we were wasting a few hours of our lives on Sunday night watching the Oscars, I asked my wife if she thought he drove to Hollywood from Tennessee in a Prius. This article gives a pretty good indication what the answer to that question might be.

Self-loathing of the human race is integral to the liberal/Nanny-state mindset. If we're not a blight on the face of the planet, indeed the very cause of it's imminent and unstoppable demise, how can they generate enough guilt to use against us when they need to steal more of our freedom?

First Amendment Flush

2007-02-27T21:16:00.000-06:00

Not that this sort of thing is unheard of, but it's always good to bring attention to Rights violations. Note that the city uses something reasonable sounding like a "sign code" to urinate all over the Bill of Rights. Such an ordinance blatantly violates the First Amdendment, but everyone accepts it as par for the course, and no one gets too upset.

If it goes to court, some Constitution-violating precedent will be cited if they decide to take the city's side (which I anticipate if it gets that far.)

Would you like your neighbor painting slogans all over their house? Me neither, probably. Then again, the Libertarian in me might rejoice, despite the ugliness.

Since no one cares about this, and no one cared when they declared free-speech blackout dates, will anyone care when they say it's hate speech to say that Jesus is the living Son of God?

We're the Only Ones Helping You Along Enough...

2007-02-26T22:18:00.000-06:00

So this guy was in the process of sawing off his own leg when the officers arrived...

And the best they can do to "help" him is to gun him down when he "rushes" them.

Let's see. Leg half sawn off...armed with, well, a blade of some sort I guess...charging speed .001mph. Yeah, I guess lethal force was probably justified.

I know, I know. I wasn't there and I'm in no position to make the call whether or not they responded appropriately. But if the Only Ones shooting (to death) a suicidal man doesn't deserve a closer look, I don't know what does.

This one's just plain tragic any way you cut it.

Special thanks to alert (and only) reader Isaac T for bringing this to my attention.

Stopgap

2007-02-24T21:43:00.000-06:00

I'm hoping to put up a somewhat-comprehensive post covering the Jim Zumbo fracas. Until I get that opportunity, let me encourage you to stop by Field and Stream's site and leave some comments for Second Amendment sell-out David Petzal.

As a note - if you are completely clueless about what I'm talking about, wait two days and I'll have a post explaining everything.

I LIKE the cold

2007-02-19T22:27:00.000-06:00

Our local weatherman sucks.

The last three weeks, we've been blessed with sub-zero temps and some snow. I love it! I happen to enjoy the winter and winter weather, even if it makes me sick (it did.) Snow is beautiful, cold air is refreshing, and staying warm is fun.

Today it almost got up to 50. So, as predictable as the coming spring, the moron is on the airwaves talking about the "big improvement" in our weather. Huh?

Since when is a pure white snowscape changing to a sopping mud-fest an improvement? He needs his head checked. Beautiful powdery snow is "bad" weather, but black slush and muck caused by unseasonably warm temps is "an improvement."

It never gets hot enough for this bozo. He's always going on about how "nice" it is when it's 90 degrees.

I think I'm changing channel loyalties.

I guess this little rant could extend to a portion of the general populace. There are a few people in the office who gripe about the weather in the winter. It makes me want to get a bullhorn and announce over the tops of the cubicles, "This is the Midwest. We get snow here! DEAL WITH IT."

Why the heck don't these people just move to Florida? For that matter, why don't I just move to Minnesota?

Hysteria and the Police State

2007-02-09T17:03:00.000-06:00

I copied this text from CNN.com. Click the title of this post to follow the link:

Cartoon Network head steps down after Boston bomb scare furor
NEW YORK (CNN) -- The chief executive of the Cartoon Network resigned Friday after the network's guerilla marketing scheme for one of its cartoon characters went bad last week and led to a bomb scare in Boston that cost its parent companies millions of dollars.
In a letter to employees, Jim Samples wrote: "I deeply regret the negative publicity and expense caused to our company as a result of this campaign. As general manager of Cartoon Network, I feel compelled to step down, effective immediately, in recognition of the gravity of the situation that occurred under my watch."
Turner Broadcasting System and Interference Inc. agreed to pay $2 million to make amends for last Wednesday's bomb scare in Boston, the Massachusetts attorney general said Monday. Interference, a marketing company, hired people to place 40 light boards with the outline of a cartoon character in various places around Boston and nine other cities.
TBS is the parent company Cartoon Network and its Adult Swim group, which initiated the marketing scheme. It is also the parent company of CNN. --By CNN's Katy Byron (Posted 2:47 p.m.)

I always want to start a post like this by saying, "Words escape me," or, "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm speechless," but that's not the case at all. I have plenty to say, but my initial reaction is a dumbfounded stupor (for about 10 seconds.)

I'm so angry about this that I am struggling to find the words. I'll start by assigning letter grades for the participants in this non-event:

Residents of Boston: Grade F
Authorities in Boston: Grade T (for Tyranny)
Jim Samples: Grade C (for Cowardice)
Katy Byron: Grade H (for Hysterical media-babe)

I guess I'll work my way down the list.

To the citizens: What in the hell is wrong with you? What a pathetic, hysterical, blown-out-of-proportion response to a non-problem! Are you really that conditioned by your pathetic state government to not be responsible for your own safety that you crap yourself everytime you see something that seems out of sorts? Do you phone the police and ask them to roll SWAT if you see a kid with a BB gun shooting cans in his backyard? UNBELIEVABLE!

To the Only Ones: Nice job. Convince them that they need you - always. Even when advertising rears its ugly head. You've got your subjects pretty close to where any good group of tryants would want them. They can't even go to work without your hand-holding police-state presence.

To Jim Samples: Sorry response, there buddy. Majority rules, I guess - even when they're wrong. You should have taken the opportunity to issue a letter verbally smacking the Bostonians upside their collective head for their collective bed-wetting cowardice.

To Katy Byron: "...guerilla marketing scheme..."? Nice unbiased reporting there. You don't have an agenda do you?

Per usual, the media does its part to legitimize the government's heavy-handed jack-booted response to something that any idiot could have figured out had they wiped the tears from their hysterical eyes.

Good lord, we are doomed. We have an entire American city conditioned to respond with panic to the most insignificant of abnormalities. What's the big deal you ask?

What happens when one of these self-defacating ninnies encounters a crime in progress (mugging, rape, murder)? Will they step in and defend their families/neighbors/selves? Hell no! They'll dial 911 like good little sheep (while the victim dies) and laud the authorities if they manage to get there in time to save the wooly butts of their helpless dependants.

What we have here is a complete and total abdication of personal responsibility for one's safety, coupled with the State stepping in and affirming the populace's perceived helplessness.

It's too late for this group of morons to learn that as they hand over their responsibility to the State, their freedom goes with it. Or considering the sorry state of affairs right now (what with everyone breathing sighs of relief and patting each other on the back) they don't care.

Brilliant!

2007-02-06T17:53:00.000-06:00

My first attempt to post comments with The New Blogger.

Force a change to an inferior new service.

I love it.

I know, I know...it's free...

It's This Sort of Thing...

2007-02-06T17:40:00.000-06:00

...that will bring down this country. The cramming of the pro-gay agenda down our throats will eventually lead to the suppression of freedom.

I predict a "Gay Bill of Rights." This will (of course) essentially be a "Christianity Bill of No Rights." Disagree with the gay lifestyle? Speak your mind and it will be "hate speech."

Companies like Snickers cowing to the gay community's demands to have their agenda shoved down your throat set the precedent.

This particular commercial touched on something that any heterosexual male can relate to. No one wants to kiss another guy.

But call deviance from nature for what it is and you will feel their rage...

I LOVE these guys!

2007-01-07T20:17:00.000-06:00

This post isn't so much about a specific event. I saw something in the news about Israel, so I thought I'd go ahead and crank out a little rant which has been stewing in my mind for awhile now.

I love Israel. I really do. Every time some terrorist punk picks a fight with these guys, they finish it. They haven't forgotten what war is like, what it's about, or how to fight one (just ask Lebanon.) The Israelis fight with honor, but they also fight to win - something we've completely forgotten how to do.

In regards to the article, I had a genuine good-time laugh at the notion of a "low-level nuclear attack."

"Hey, we're just going to nuke them a little."

Isn't that like being sort of pregnant?

Not that I object...nuke that Islamic jihadist lunatic all the way back to 622AD for all I care. They'd be doing the world a favor.

This Now In: Armed Criminals Move with Impunity Across US Borders

2007-01-06T09:39:00.000-06:00

What a pathetic joke.

What a pathetic, predictable, and yet unbelievable state of affairs. The National Guard just retreated from a group of armed individuals along our borders.

This is a result of the feminization of America.

We can't fight wars because we have forgotten what war is like.

We will not allow our own citizenry to protect themselves if we can possibly prevent it.

And now we can't even protect our own sovereignty.

What in the hell do they call them the National Guard for if they're running from their posts when approached by armed criminals? I'll bet every coyote, drug runner and otherwise up-to-no-good Mexican with plans to hop the Fence is laughing in our collective face. I would be.

It is the mindset that causes incidents like this that will destroy our nation.

Simply Inexcusable

2007-01-04T19:31:00.000-06:00

Here is another piece of evidence that the Youth Reclamation Project (public school system) does not have your child(ren)'s best interest in mind.

They don't even know how to handle special needs children anymore, so they impose Gestapo-like penalties on the youngsters when they get too hard to handle.

It's all part of the YRP's tireless effort to condition your kids and mine to be wards of the state.

"Do as we say, or go to jail."

Regardless of common sense or human rights, evil minions of the Nanny State like superintendent Steven Keifer and principal Kevin Duckworth work hard each and every day to ensure that everyone understands that the penalty for not falling in line with their arbitrary commands will be, if possible, a criminal record.

A challenge to parents who have or will have kids in the public school system:
If we don't work hard to remove dirtbags like these cowards who instigate and then defend their abuse of our children, we are not fit to be parents.

I really liked how the article ended. The Only Ones offer the parents a "deal" for community service. It's unfortunate that civil litigation is the only probable recourse the parents have.

I sent Steven Keifer a piece of my mind. I encourage you to do the same: skeifer@danville.k12.pa.us

Mr. Keifer:
The following commentary assumes three truths:
1. A 12 year-old girl wet herself either intentionally in protest or unintentionally in fear. In either case, she presented no threat of physical violence to school officials or her classmates.
2. Principal Kevin Duckworth summoned the police to deal with the situation.
3. You are standing by the his decision to summon the police.

If any of the above is in error, please disregard this missive.

I read with increasing alarm the story about the above events.

How fitting that we try to whip the disabled into line with threats of police intervention! Give her a record! That's just what she needs to kick-start her already difficult life.

Duckworth should be fired for his misconduct and refusal to accept responsibility. Based on this incident, it is laughable that you would expect anyone to entrust the education and well-being of their child to such a man. I don't care if he was at his wits' end. Exasperation is not an excuse for disporportionate punishment.

Your refusal to publicly comment about Danville's indefensible actions is expected, but still unacceptable.

An historic day! (For terror, tyranny, and the Nanny State)

2007-01-04T17:13:00.000-06:00

No further comments necessary.

Merry Frickin' Christmas

2006-12-25T22:46:00.000-06:00

Odd title, you note.

These are odd times we live in. This post is intended to specifically address the Marines who face courtmartial for their involvement in civilian deaths at Haditha.

This used to be a country that stood behind its armed forces. This used to be a country that understood the nature of war. This used to be a country that accepted civilian deaths and casualties as a factual albeit horrific side effect of an activity whose primary purpose is to kill people. Hell, this used to be a country that bombed civilian cities when it was necessary to win a war.

Today this is a country chock-full of people who shout down the opposition with "We support the troops!" when their treasonous support of the enemy is called in to question. And yet, at the first real opportunity to support the troops, they seek to crucify them instead.

We send young men to war to kill the enemy. In a war as muddled and difficult to fight as this one is, we place on their shoulders the additional burden of entering every building with the possibility of finding either terrorists or innocent children. Inevitably, some of those children are killed, and so our warriors return bearing scars more horrible than any of us can imagine.

So naturally, at the first snippet of hearsay suggesting the ROE were not strictly followed, our gallant "troop supporters" lynch a few United States Marines in the gallows of public opinion. Worse yet, these young men possibly face an all-too-similar literal fate.

The left hates our military, they hate our troops and they hate our country. What's happening to these poor guys is no different than the peaceniks calling Nam vets "babykillers."

I can't imagine how awfully alone and deserted these few good men feel today. All for risking their lives, serving their country, and protecting the freedom of the same dirtbags that seek to do them in.

Merry frickin' Christmas.

"Learn your lesson"

2006-12-23T18:49:00.000-06:00

I know, I know. Four posts in a single day? So I'm on a roll...

In any case, this story is yet another heinous example of the Youth Reclamation Project's furious and ceaseless efforts to turn your kids and mine into mindless goose-stepping robots.

The short version:
- Kids make parody movie about teddy bears trying to kill a teacher (on their own time from the looks of it.)
- YRP expels students.
- ACLU, exercising its able understanding of one of the two Amendments it will acknowledge, steps in.
- Kids are reinstated.

But the judge wants them to be sure they've learned their lesson.

Free speech will not be tolerated.

Lesson learned.

Burn, baby, BURN!

2006-12-23T18:03:00.000-06:00

Too bad they put this guy out.

I'm not an evolutionist, but I do believe that there is something best described as "The Cruel Darwinian Process," and this story is a shining (or should I say blazing) example of it.

If your understanding of the First Amendment is so fundamentally twisted and evil as to buy into the claptrap that extrapolates, "Congress shall make no law establishing..." into, "Public schools shall make no reference to..." lighting yourself on fire is by far the best use of your time as far as I'm concerned.

The Problem With America...

2006-12-23T17:55:00.001-06:00

...is that a vocal segment of our population sympathizes with our enemies.

It should be no surprise to me when the MSM refers to them as "Resistance Fighters" and parrots such mantras as, "One man's terrorist is another man's hero." (Those were both from a Barbara Walters special last night. Why in the heck did I waste my time watching that???)

If I want to live past 40, I'm going to have to just start expecting this sort of treasonous garbage and stop letting it rile me up.

The Right of the Who?

2006-12-23T17:45:00.000-06:00

The Bush administration has apparently reversed course on the famous Ashcroft position from a couple years ago. Their official position is now that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than an individual right.

This is one of those under-the-radar stories that the media will never report on, despite the fact that it has tremendous (negative) significance.

David Codrea, over at the War On Guns is doing his best to raise the flag. Here's my little effort (for what it's worth) to help him.

Be a good little sheep and DIE

2006-12-16T11:34:00.000-06:00

Sometimes I'll paraphrase a story for your reading ease. Not this one. You'll have to follow the link and read it. (Don't worry, it's short.)

Sickening, huh? So a school district actually comes up with a response to school shootings that will actually stop or lessen the blow of a school shooting, and some pantywaist gets upset and gets the program canned. Stuff like this makes my blood boil.

First the YRP (see last post) teaches our kids that self defense in non-lethal combat is unacceptable. Now they are officially recommending that the students sit there and die.

This training program is/was the only thing I've ever heard of a school district doing that makes any sense and stands any hope of actually stopping a school shooting...and they put an end to it! Let's reexamine some of the YRP's attempted solutions to potential school shootings, shall we?

First on the list, is of course, metal detectors. Everyone knows that if Columbine High had had a metal detector those 10 victims would still be alive today. Why what suicidal homocidal maniac would dare think of continuing with his murderous plot when he knows that there is a metal detector that is going to beep at him when he presents his blazing muzzle to the hallways? Goodness, someone might actually hear the beeping over the sound of the gunfire and become even more alarmed!!! What a great, effective, surefire idea.

Next we can address the feel-good lockdown. They instituted this one at my high school not long after I graduated. In the morning before classes begin, kids are not allowed to go into the classrooms. They have to sit in the hallway...all in one place, lined up like ducks waiting to be shot. I'm addressing a very specific policy, but we've all seen and heard of things that reek of this idiotic "at least they're doing something" mindset. No one seems to care that what they're doing might actually result in more deaths. Everyone just knows that today they're a little less free and a little more Nannied than they were yesterday. Somehow they conclude from this that they must be safer, right?

Enter the fight-back idea. Someone finally addresses the issue. Gone are the feel-good-do-nothing solutions. Gone are the notions that a man with a gun is an unstoppable god. Finally someone asks - "What can you do when a wacko walks through the metal detector and shoots the teacher that asks to look in his bag?" And *BAM* the answer is as plain and as loud as the sound of gunfire:

YOU KICK HIS ASS!

Someone in Fort Worth remembered that we're Americans and that Americans don't historically cotton to the idea of forced victimhood. We don't take that kind of crap sitting down. We didn't in 1776 and we didn't in 1941.

But I'll be damned if we don't today! Someone finally institutes an idea that works and the YRP stifles it. Then they apologize to the parents for suggesting the ridiculous notion that their kids should do anything but die . What the hell has happened to this country?

I'll tell you what's happened: an active and vocal contingent of Nanny-staters has stepped up to the plate and started dictating policy. They would actually prefer that your kids sit quietly in their desks and take a round in the head rather than actually do something to try and stay alive.

And as usual, they try to hide their true colors behind meaningless and nonsensical excuses, stating that fighting back would result in more deaths. I guess I should just amend my mindset and start expecting this kind of head-up-the-butt stupidity from the public school system. "You stand a higher chance of dying when you fight your attacker than when you openly let him shoot you." I'm shocked to my core that this story didn't include the typical weak-kneed limp-wristed phrase, "engage in a meaningful dialogue..." I guess some people are just too thick-heaed to understand that when the enemy has opened fire, diplomacy has failed.

In my attempts to understand this vile and evil mindset I have reached the only conclusion that makes any sense: These people are cowards. They would rather bow to the will of evil than gut out the fight to suppress it. And when someone else stands up and says, "To hell with that! I'd rather die fighting than die crying!" they tell him to sit down, shut up, and take the bullet like a good little sheep.

I think I need to throw up.

Zero Tolerance (for Common Sense)

2006-12-11T22:39:00.000-06:00

Here's a good one from Rhode Island. Unfortunately, stories like this are all too common anymore.

The short version is that a high school senior was disallowed from having his senior picture put in the year book because he is posing with a broadsword. It violates the school's zero tolerance policy on weapons.

Just one more piece of evidence that the Youth Reclamation Program (public school system) has sunk so low in the muck that to try and unbury it would be a futile effort. We'd lose the excavation equipment in the mire. We need to just dynam---scratch that, nuke the whole works and start all over again.

This is so deplorable and low that I'm having trouble mustering adequate verbage without resorting to profanity. "Zero tolerance" is perhaps one of the most deceptive, agenda-serving, truth-denying, evil concepts we've ever allowed in the schools. Why?

Well, zero tolerance equates the kid from FFA who accidentally brought his knife to school with the gangbanger who's packing heat and has the intent to do violence. Worse yet, it means that the kid who gets bullied and gang-beaten receives the same treatment as his aggressor(s) if he fights back. And woe to the hero who would rescue the 90lb victim from the agony of oppression, for they will be prosecuted all the same.

Zero tolerance is one of the many tools of Satan that serves to emasculate our youth. It's a wonder anyone joins the military anymore since they're trained from the earliest of ages that fighting under any circumstance is simply unacceptable. Why even if you're throwing a punch to stop someone from raping your sister, that's fighting and it will not be tolerated.

I really wonder about the intelligence of anyone who would push or uphold such an idiotic, ridiculous policy. If their intelligence is above that of an ape, their attitude certainly must be "eyes wrenched shut."

Sure, nobody wants a kid shooting up a school. But damn it, no one's willing to admit that the only thing that's going to stop him is, by necessity, someone else with a gun.

I guess the gritty reality of defending one's own life is just too much for some people to stomach. They'd rather write feel-good rules that bind the power of good and be raped by the powers of evil, all the while telling themselves that it's consensual.

Which makes me wonder...is it?

To Catch a Clue

2006-11-02T20:17:00.000-06:00

This post will be a departure from my normal format. I generally attempt to address some current event or recent news story and provide commentary on the subject. In this case, however, I'm going to rant and offer some ideas. The subject matter is current, although there is no specific story. I don't normally do this, mainly because when this sort of thing is done poorly it's boring (or painful) to read. Please post your comments if you have any.

Today's subject: sex offenders.

I've been thinking a little bit about this (spurred on by various disgusting news stories too lurid to link to), and I've reached some conclusions.

1. The United States has a problem with sex offenses, specifically with repeat offenses.
2. Our current system does not adequately deter this epidemic.
3. (Follows from 2) Our justice system's response to sex crimes is inappropriate.
4. Something should be done differently.

If you disagree with that, you're either a moron or you're a perv yourself. Look up your home state's online sex offender registry and see how many of them live in your hometown. Go to FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or any other national news source and spend five minutes browsing current or archived articles.

I have also identified several important considerations when addressing sex crime punishment reform:

1. There are different kinds of sex crimes. It would be unjust to treat an 18 year-old who impregnated his 15 or 16 year-old girlfriend the same as we would treat a child pornographer.
2. By the same token, we have to remember that some 18 year-olds are more than just statutory rapists.
3. Stiffer penalties require more and larger prisons and more prison guards. This is, of course, the burden of the taxpayer.
4. Released sex offenders almost always repeat their crimes.
5. It is the role of government to improve the lives of its people.

Of course everyone disagrees about how we accomplish #5. Liberals want to do it with handouts, socialists want to do it through governmental controls, and conservatives largely want to let the people do it for themselves. And yet I don't think it's a far stretch to conclude that releasing sex offenders back into the public arena does not accomplish #5.

My conclusions:
1. We enact a law with real teeth. If you rape or molest anyone under the age of 13, you get the death penalty. Mandatory. No activist judge can send you to rehab. You get hanged. (No metaphor. You die at the end of a rope.)

Why in the hell should we pay to keep someone that meets the above criteria alive? They will never reform and present a constant danger to our children. To not execute these people is inexcusable, irresponsible and borderline insane.

2. As the development of children ages 13-16 can vary widely, protecting them with legislation can be tricky. Some 16 year-olds may look 20, while others may look 12. An additional level of complexity presents itself when one considers the fact that some 16 (or 15) year-olds are sexually active with 18 year-olds. Although such relationships are highly inappropriate, their impropriety has nothing to do with an age differential or a perversion on the part of either party. Thus, I think the law would have to be written to clearly separate statutory rape (boyfriend/younger girlfriend) and pedophilia. Leave the punishment for statutory as-is and give the pedophile 25 years minimum.

There is no room in society for predators. We do children a tremendous injustice by releasing them back into society after minimal sentences.

We treat crack-cocaine dealers as the very devil incarnate and imprison them for LIFE after three strikes. If we are that harsh on drugs, why do we so carelessly let our children fend for themselves when it comes to something that's arguably harder to protect them against?

The tremendous clamp-down on the death penalty in this country is a tragedy. Bowing to the left and the soft-on-crime PCers, we wrench shut our eyes and pretend that everything is OK when justice is not served. There is nothing cruel about public hanging.

Hell, getting your face on Dateline is a pedophile's worst fear today.

It's not until we start threatening the noose instead of the news that we'll see any change.

We're the Only Ones Feeding You to the Lions Enough

2006-10-31T18:56:00.000-06:00

Click the title of this post for a link to an article that is certain to turn your stomach and boil your blood.

To summarize:

1. Teen walks along sidewalk holding a Bible and a cordless phone shouting, "I want Jesus."
2. Officers approach him and he "becomes combative."
3. They Taze him for not being "compliant."
4. He dies.
5. No one is held accountable and the Only Ones refuse to "discuss the matter further."

So what if I'm walking down the street not shouting something? What if officers approach me and I ignore them and keep on walking? Am I just asking for a good tazing?

I guess I missed the part where we passed laws empowering the police to harrass you at will and force you to comply with their arbitrary orders.

Sometimes it's especially hard to be a Christian. If I was in that kid's dad's shoes, the fact that I am a Christian is the only thing that would stop me from doing a little urban feral pig hunting, if you catch my drift.

We're the Only Ones Saddled Up Enough

2006-10-29T22:02:00.000-06:00

It seems that the good citizens of Rock Island County have one of the Only Ones attempting to get himself elected as Sheriff.

Mike Huff, (Democrat...Union, as his campaign signs read) is squaring off against Republican Kraig Schwigen. The reason I'm posting about this race is twofold:

One: Huff's campaign put a sign in my front yard earlier this year during the primary. I'm not a registered Democrat, nor did I invite his unasked-for signage on my property. Typical Union (thug) tactics.

Two: I received an extremely interesting piece of mail the other day. It was from the Schwigen campaign and detailed the exploits of a younger and (hopefully) less discretionary Huff. You can read about it here.

Looks like our Union (thug) friend gets his kicks pulling his gun on his friends. I'd hate to be his enemy.

Anyone care to venture a guess what would happen to the first citizen/subject to jokingly pull a loaded gun on Huff? Do you think Huff would write it off as "common horseplay?"

When I read about Codrea's Only Ones Carnival over at the War on Guns, I knew had to post on this.

How Time Flies...

2006-10-26T18:42:00.000-05:00

Ok, so it's been nearly two months since I've posted anything at all.

If you still check this blog, I offer my sincerest apologies. It's not dead. In fact, I would expect a healthy amount of activity over the next few weeks.

Something of substance will be posted here before the weekend is over.

The depths of idiocy...

2006-08-30T19:32:00.000-05:00

Here's a good one about the laughingstock that today's playgrounds have become. The article explores the safety measures that are being taken today to make playgrounds safe.

You know the drill. Out with the slides, merry-go-rounds and teeter-totters. In with the plastic crap, rubber bumpers and and padded helmets.

Out with the fun and in with the blues.

That we allow these paranoid, pantywaist ninnies to have this sort of control really irks the hell out of me. I haven't had much chance to stand up to this sort of irrational overprotection, but as my kids grow up, believe me I will.

Morons like this are the same sort that will hand over every liberty our veterans have bled and died for just so they can delude themselves into thinking that they are a little bit safer. It's a typical liberal mindset. "We know better than you. Nanny knows best. Here, let me pat you on the head and condescendingly tell you how to live your life."

The politically correct mindset they exude with their exclusions of things like dodgeball and tag (tag for Pete's sake...) is an excellent illustration of their totally disconnected association with reality. Of course these are the same sorts of people who loathe the economically successful. These are the same socialists, commies and tyrant-enablers that want the government to control everything.

And now it's spread (like a disease, an infection, a virus) all the way down to our friggin playgrounds.

I don't know what the solution is. Maybe privately-funded dangerous playgrounds with public access.

What morons.

V for Vendetta: The Ugly

2006-08-28T21:15:00.000-05:00

Spoiler warning: I will reveal plot details in this post.

We've been through the Bad and the Good. V for Vendetta also offered some serious Ugly. I touched on it in both previous posts, but I'll go into a little more depth here.

The most bothersome notion in the movie is the idea that Christianity is a religion of hatred and oppression. That they described the Dictator as a man of deep faith was beyond absurd. It was beyond infuriating. But it was totally expected.

Jesus Himself told His followers that they would be hated and persecuted. After all, the world hated Him much more. (Matthew 10:22.)

What better way to dish out hatred than by slanderous lies? To take it from V, you would believe that Christians propagate hatred through scare tactics about anyone who is "different."

The Truth, of course, is that Christians are the ones who are different. We are slandered, maligned and hated because we acknowledge the One source of Truth. Because we refuse to bow before the gods of Relativism and Moral Ambiguity we are treated as hate mongers.

I could go on and on about this, and maybe someday I will. For now, I have a couple more Uglies to touch on.

Revolution does not happen peacefully. The movie presents an unrealistic and wildly optimistic view of a revolution. Pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del on a governmental level means bloodshed, and bloodshed means more than a masquerade ball in the town square.

Finally, I would like to point out the utter absurdity of a revolution without guns. This piggybacks off of the idea that a revolution won't happen peacefully. If you think that any citizenry will be able to face down any government without the proper armaments and come out the victor...Well, should we ever get the choice to observe as uninvolved third parties, I'd like to put money on it. V missed the boat entirely on this issue. For all the governmental oppression that the movie depicted, I can't possibly understand how in the world the producers missed the fact that these people would have needed some serious firepower to get things back on track.

This concludes my list of the Ugly. If you feel I have left anything out, feel free to post comments. (The same goes for the two prior posts.)

V for Vendetta: The Good

2006-08-28T20:49:00.000-05:00

If anyone is still reading this blog, I apologize for the lengthy delay between my last post and this one.

Spoiler warning: This post will reveal plot details. Don't read on if you haven't seen the movie.

I did love the movie, although after my last submission you may be wondering why. The first time I watched it, I did so with a mindset suggested to me by Reason, and inspired by a quote that I will here butcher in my attempt to recreate it. I don't know the source, but it went something like this: "When someone is standing on your throat, you don't care whether they're using their right boot or their left boot."

Of course being a product of foaming-at-the-mouth liberal Hollywood, this movie uses a so-called Conservative government to oppress the people. That said, I quickly dismissed this in my mind as a matter of no consequence. Suttler (the dictator) is no more of a Conservative than Stalin. The producers were just trying to get in their digs. But if you ignore their mindless drivel and look at the state of affairs in England as represented in the movie, several key truths present themselves.

- Governments will always seek to attain more power. This is accomplished through the suppression of personal freedom.

- Governments will get this power through deception and redefining reality. The movie mentioned the Youth Reclamation Project. Reclamation? From what? Well, from independent thought, of course. Notice any parallels to today? Goodness, you could rename our public education system exactly that, and it would be totally accurate. Sure, things could be worse, but just read the news and you'll see just how much free thinking is promoted in our school system. It's pathetic. This could be an entire post on its own, so I'll leave it to rest. If anyone wants further explanation, I'll provide it later upon request. To finish this point, the other realities that have been redefined all revolve around the role of the government in people's lives. The Chancellor at one point screams at his minions that the people need reminded of "...why they need us!!!"

- "People should not fear their governments. Governments should fear their people." Are you afraid of your government?

- Disarmament is key. Poor V had to fight with (bloody) knives. Why? Hell, Britons have already given up their guns in real life, and this movie is set at least 30 years in the future. One character made a remark, the truth of which struck me as both hilarious and tragic. It was towards the end of the movie and the mob of V look-alikes is marching towards a division of soliders. Someone asks the detective what he thinks is going to happen. He says, "What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people with guns." That it doesn't turn out that way in the movie is immaterial to the truth of the matter. They would have all been killed in reality.

- Revolution is the only way to fix things. Once a government seizes power it's all over.

Alright, so this post isn't as well thought out as the last one. Suffice it to say that if you can divorce your viewing experience from the tainted references the movie makes, you can truly enjoy it as a statement about the evil of tyranny.

V for Vendetta: The Bad

2006-08-12T10:10:00.000-05:00

I feel compelled to blog extensively on this movie. I know this isn't entirely timely, as it has been out for quite awhile. I saw it in the theater, and have watched it twice more since. I will insert a "spoiler warning" right here. Don't read on if you haven't seen the movie and don't wish to have its plot details revealed before you do see it.

First, I'll address the superficial. V for Vendetta is an extremely entertaining movie. The violence is highly stylized and the cinematography and the story are excellent. Additionally, it is well written and thought provoking. The character V's use of words is done very well. The character is well developed and serves his purpose well. Plus he's fun to watch. On its merits as a movie, it stands well. I quite enjoyed it.

That said, its political themes can be interpreted in multiple ways. This post will address the "bad" interpretation.

The original graphic novel from which this movie was adapted was meant to be a scathing commentary on the Thatcher administration in Britain. The movie was adapted to bring forth images of the Bush administration. The third time I watched this movie, I did so with a friend who remarked (as the credits rolled), "So where's Michael Moore's name?"

Certainly, if you view this movie only as a liberal commentary on the currently conservative-controlled United States government, you will be seething. I noted the following:

- The Conservative Party leader (dictator) is probably supposed to be comprable to Bush. He is described as deeply religious and having no regard for the political process. By the third time I saw this, it sunk in that they were probably trying to allude to the "stolen" election of 2000. He is also incredibly Hitler-esque. He has the somewhat mussed hairstyle, a little bit of facial hair, he waves his hands in passion as he speaks in front of a frenzied crowd. The symbols of the Party are black flags with modified red cross. So Suttler = Bush = Hitler.

- The government in the movie is responsible for the worst terrorist acts in their history. These acts were used to seize totalitarian control. Fahrenheit 911, anybody?

- The government speaks out against homosexuality and Islam. They use the word "terrorist" as a sensational fear-mongering tactic. This is, of course, how the Michael Moores of this country view the current administration. (Interestingly enough, being Muslim, gay or outspoken in your disagreement to conservatives are the only rights that are specifically portrayed as infringed.)

Even worse, when you veiw the "Making Of" documentary on the DVD, the producers take things one more step to the left. Anytime the right wingers in this country try to take a moral stance on something (i.e. homosexuality), the leftists accuse them of being "afraid of differences" and so on and so forth. In the documentary, they equate the homosexuality issue to the civil rights movement, allowing no room for disagreement with the lifestyle (choice.) That the Bush administration would ever "black bag" people for being gay (or worse, execute them) is of course ludicrous. They use the same agenda-driven sensationalism of which they accuse the conservatives.

Perhaps the worst part of the documentary is their agreement that V is a terrorist. V is a revolutionary! Too blind to see the truth of their own movie, they agree with the evil government that they portray! It's pathetic really. They label him as a terrorist so that they can use the opportunity to equate the real-world terrorists (Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda) with freedom fighters. They go so far as to say that today's terrorists view themselves as freedom fighters and that we should work towards understanding that point of view.

This idea is so idiotic I'm tempted to not spend the time to refute it. Revolutionaries fight for change within their own government. V wasn't killing innocent people in another country in an effort to dominate the world with his religion. He killed people in his country in an effort to overthrow his own evil government.

This brings me to the end of my major beefs with the movie. In the next post, I will explore an alternate interpretation - what you can get out of it if you ignore the liberal hogwash. Watch this movie with the right attitude and you can beat them at their own game - you'll come away with an idea that they would abhor.

In my next post, I'll tell you why I absolutely loved this movie.

Papers, Please

2006-08-11T12:09:00.000-05:00

No link is necessary for this one. Everybody knows what happened with the terrorists in Britain.

- Britain captures terrorists trying to do harm to America.
- America tightens its air travel restrictions yet again.

It's hard to know where to begin. I guess I'll start with what (to me) is the Obvious Question. If they caught these guys using security and intelligence measures that were already in place before August 10th, why is it necessary to come up with more restrictions after the fact? Does it strike no one as a pathetic commentary on the American state of affairs that our response to terrorism is always a REACTIONARY GRAB AT MORE FREEDOM?!?!

It was with no small amount of disgust that I watched the news last night. There at my own local airport were plenty of sheeple lined up in a nice row applauding the government and its pathetic, totalitarian reactionary response. One woman even went so far as to do the Feds' propaganda work for them. Quoth the sheep: "It's for everybody's own protection."

We have allowed the Federal government to state (and act on) the following: "The Constitution [Bill of Rights] no longer applies in air-travel situations. If you wish to travel by air, you will be treated as a subject and suspect rather than a citizen. You are assumed to be guilty until we can prove otherwise by unreasonably searching your person and property. Your right to defend yourself against any actual wrongdoers is hereby revoked. You will behave in an orderly fashion. If you say something we don't like, we will arrest you. This is for your own protection."

Now a lot of people's response is to say, "Well you don't have to travel by airplane. Really they're restricting a privilege more than a set of inalienable rights."

In reality, that's very near-sighted. They are restricting rights - just in a certain arena. We (the public) have agreed with the government that the risks of air travel are great enough that we are willing to (completely) hand over our rights in the interests of our safety.

So where am I going with this? Well, it's not where I'm going with this - it's where the terrorists are going with this. I don't think they understand just how much damage they've done. Without the American freedom-loving Constitutional point of view, they cannot possibly understand just how much and how subtly they have eroded our freedoms. They'd be dancing in the streets if they knew the real consequences they can net with a simple attempt at a terrorist act. The only tangible result they can hope for is a big pile of dead bodies - but they've done more lasting damage than that.

So what happens when we successfully clamp down on air travel to the point that a terrorist act is a totally impossible? At some point, air travel will consist of willing passengers being strip searched and then handcuffed to their seats. What then?

What happens when the sleeper cells wake up? What happens when car bombs start going off? What happens when suicide bombers start blowing up buses and grocery stores and movie theaters in the Midwest? What happens when sleeper agents go into action and start randomly shooting people?

My point is this: if the terrorists are ever smart enough to change tactics and truly terrorize the American public, it will be decision time. We can choose to keep our freedom, or we can do what we have done at the airport and say that safety is more important.

Metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and government listening posts. Those are all in our (very grim) future unless we make radically different choices when the terrorists make a tactical shift.

Oh THIS is a shock...

2006-07-26T17:15:00.000-05:00

I know this has no political significance, but...

Lance Bass is gay.

I told you so.

I told you so, I told you so, I told you so.

Pure Hysteria

2006-07-24T17:26:00.000-05:00

The MSM is at it again. Someone shoots at a car and they are automatically a sniper. This is just utter lunacy. Do they do any research before they start slinging around their frenzied conclusions?

Obviously not. They're still calling Charles McCoy Jr. (Ohio, 2003) a sniper, even though he was using a friggin pistol. Does that matter to the MSM? No. He shot at someone from farther than 25 yards, and the victim didn't see him, so he must be a sniper. It never seems to occur to anyone that a properly equipped sniper would certainly rack up more than one kill out of twenty four attempts.

But I digress.

So what's the big deal? Well, muddied waters are the antis' most useful tool! The more they confuse the public about any firearms-related topic, the more they can generate support for gun control - support backed by pure ignorance. Make them afraid of guns in general, make them afraid of those who use guns in crime (no matter how incompetent they prove to be), make them afraid of the fictitious Hollywood-generated capabilities of so-called assault weapons, sniper rifles and who-knows-what else, and Sarah Brady will soon be able to say, "Mission accomplished."

How long now before they pass a law against sniper pistols?

I have an idea...

2006-07-20T11:45:00.000-05:00

Well, it’s been awhile since my last post. Sorry about that. I’ve been rather busy.

Today I want to talk about Israel and my proposed solution for the Middle East crisis.

First things first. Israel rocks. It’s a crying shame that we lack their spirit of total solidarity. You can kill 3,000 of our citizens, and two years later we’ll blame our own President for it. There is a cannibalistic tendency in US politics that never ceases to amaze me. I don’t know who dubbed the extreme left the “Blame America First” crowd, but they were right on with that moniker.

Apparently there is no “Blame Israel First” crowd – at least not among Israelis. I heard that the results of a recent poll indicate 90% of them support this action. Good for them. Too bad we can’t come together like that.
Obviously, I support their efforts. I can’t help but think how valued their citizens (especially those two soldiers) must feel to know that their government is willing to go to war for them. Would the USA go to war over a kidnapped soldier? Not bloody likely.

Speaking of the USA, don’t you find our official position to be rather disgusting? General appeasement – let’s not upset anyone. We support Israel, but we also support all the Arab nations. I’m sick of the façade – we have to pretend that we’re good buddies with people that we detest simply because we want their oil.

So here’s my solution:

DRILL IN ALASKA!

There are several contradictory opinions and estimates about how long domestic oil production would support domestic oil demand. They range from two to thirty years. So let’s say ten.
Effective immediately, we cut our ties with foreign oil. We open production stateside and use only what we can produce. We set a ten year deadline for the US to be free from oil dependence. Thus, our domestic supply holds out until we can run our cars on something else. And here’s the best part:

We no longer have to keep shaky alliances with countries that we don’t like. We can draw the line in the sand and say, “We’re for Israel.”

Why Israel? Well, I’ll post on that later.

Props

2006-07-07T22:36:00.000-05:00

I recently purchased a Remington 870 Tactical Magnum. It has no legitimate sporting purpose whatsoever. I bought it because I think it would be really really handy if I ever have to kill someone inside my house.

Olive drab green finish...tritium insert on the bead...7 round capacity...and best of all a Knoxx Industries Spec-Ops stock. Basically the Spec-Ops stock looks like an M4/AR-15 adjustable stock - pistol grip and all. It has a unique spring system that drastically reduces felt recoil.

I'm drooling as I type...

Anyway, I bought the gun used over the Internet. Had it shipped to a local FFL for the transfer (don't you just love the GCA?) Took delivery this Saturday, only to find that the stock was busted. So I called Knoxx and they gave me instructions to return it.

Now this was truly shocking. I told the guy up front that I bought this gun used. I was just looking for some advice on how to fix it. But he said to send it in. So send it in I did (the stock.) Then, to my further shock, they called me when they received it! Best of all, they were calling to say that they are replacing it.

Unbelievable. Now I'll be well equipped with an EGS. (That's Evil Green Shotgun.)

Props to Knoxx. That's the best customer service I've ever had. Ever.

1984

2006-07-02T18:04:00.000-05:00

Now they've got spyplanes. It's not surprising, really. What really angers me about this article is the fact that they want to strike this down because of safety concerns.

Of course, those of us who object to Big Brother's Eyes in the Sky are referred to as "privacy advocates." I guess we're the kook fringe. The wackos. The nutjobs that don't want the government's fingers in every aspect of our lives.

Where the heck is the ACLU when you actually need them?

Just put me in a pine box...

2006-07-02T17:58:00.000-05:00

This is an article about "green burial." It's almost not worth commenting on, but I haven't blogged in ahwile, so it's at least something. There is an unsurprising movement by the greeners to not embalm the dead. They bury them in biodegradeable coffins.

*shrug* Let them have their strange ways. I don't mind. Here's what gets me:

"We've seen growth in the hospice movement," she said. "We've seen an upswing of home birthing. People are interested in returning to the simple ways. This is just a dust-to-dust approach to funerals."

This from the same crowd that pushes nanny-state politics and doesn't want anyone to return to the "wild days of Dodge City where just anyone can carry a gun."

The Wife part II

2006-06-26T21:14:00.000-05:00

I don't feel much like blogging about politics today, so this post may not interest you if you read this for my poli-rants.

It's more self-therapy than anything else.

I miss my wife. I'm on the road for work at the moment and immensely depressed about it. There's something about being married to your best friend - the person that truly completes you - that makes it a miserable experience to be apart.

I suppose that may sound corny or lame to some. Maybe even weak. But to me, it's evidence of a great and mysterious blessing. For whatever gracious reason, God chose to give me the woman that I can't live without. He entwined two lives so completely that the time we spend apart feels like hell.

I love you, baby. I'll be home soon.

The wife chimes in...

2006-06-23T15:04:00.000-05:00

...in the comments section of my We need an exorcism... post:

the wife said...
Do parents ever ask, "are there matches in your house?" No. Who in their right mind would? (This goes back to the ideas in the "Knife Control" anyone post.) Again the media is missing the point and picking the easy target to try and solve it. The real point is that you should always know if you are allowing your child to play in a well supervised, safe environment. Safe meaning you trust the adult that your child wont be playing with matches or knives or the outlets or doing crack or making out with their boyfriend; supervised so they wont fall into their harmful temptations whatever age they are.The sad truth is that media just feeds the bad parents so they can keep lying to themselves claiming that they are great parents. Then they praise the media- which makes NBC think that they are impacting the nation- so they do another story about guns...

Right on, babe! I'm proud of her. A welcome addition to my little corner of cyberspace. A welcome addition indeed.

I just have to mention how much I love the fact that she posted under the name "The Wife." It reminds me of the scene in It's a Wonderful Life where Harry has returned from college with a new bride. "I told you I had a surprise!" he excitedly says. "Meet the wife!" My sister always thought it was somehow derogatory. I always looked forward to being married so I could use the term just to annoy her (my sister.)

I love you, babe.

The Only Ones

2006-06-23T12:03:00.000-05:00

I am proud to announce the arrival of a new recurring feature for my blog: The Only Ones. This post is an explanation of the concept. The post immediately below this one is the first actual contribution to the feature.

I got this idea from The War on Guns, a blog written by David Codrea. He got the idea from Lee Paige, a DEA agent who shot himself in the leg. There is a highly publicized video of the event that nearly everyone has seen. You can see it here. That same link has an article detailing the lawsuit he has filed against the DEA for allegedly distributing the video.

What makes the event notable is the arrogant declaration Paige made mere seconds before he capped his own ass: "Ok, I'm the only one in this room professional enough that I know of to carry this Glock .40 I'm the only o-[gunshot]"

Paige's statement illustrates a disturbing attitude that is all too prevalent in today's law enforcement community. They are the only ones professional enough. Usually this mantra is applied to the use and carry of firearms, but it can apply to other things as well.

Codrea started keeping tabs on the Only Ones and their zany adventures. The Only Ones archives range from the hilarious to the infuriating. The most frequently recurring theme is that the Only Ones' incompetent and rights-stomping behavior is usually rewarded with protection and a lack of real consequences.

Reason Engaged and Blogonomicon have started their own Only Ones files. To my knowledge, I am the fourth to join this effort, but there may be more that I am unaware of. Say Uncle frequently notes that the Only Ones are "like you and me, only better." [edited update: Looks like Bob G is keeping track as well.]

So what's the point you ask? Education. Shining light in the darkness. The public needs to wake up and realize that we have created a separate class of citizens that are not held to the same standards that the rest of us are - even though they are granted more privileges (and more rights.)

We're the Only Ones Mixed Up Enough

2006-06-23T11:09:00.000-05:00

Problem: Man in tree wearing only underwear.
Solution: Taser his butt!

Kitsap County Deputy Accidentally Shoots Man

Here we have a case of the Only Ones handling things incorrectly to begin with. Excessive force turns to excessive gunfire - accidentally!

Also of note is that the article all but excuses the behavior simply because the victim's injuries were not life threatening and the cop was very upset about the mistake.

Par for the course: Names have been withheld to protect the Only Ones.

Thanks to Say Uncle for the heads-up on this one.

Presumption at its worst

2006-06-23T10:20:00.000-05:00

This article was brought to my attention by an alert reader. It's from FoxNews, and it contains a firsthand account of an encounter with the infamous funeral protestors.

You know, the bunch of morons that laughs at fallen American soldiers, saying that God is allowing this because our country is pro-gay.

What presumptuous idiots. I'm sure that this issue has been commentaried to death, but maybe I can hit things from a different angle.

I believe that homosexuality is a sin abhorrent in God's sight. It doesn't take a lot of ground-breaking research to come to this conclusion: it's stated explicitly several times in His Word. There are also plenty of Biblical accounts of God destroying wicked nations (Isaiah for one.)

Yes, the American public (and government) tolerates and encourages homosexuality to an extent that I find deeply disturbing.

However, to reach the conclusion that God is judging our nation through this war is pure presumption. When we start attributing bad events to God's judgment, we are putting ourselves in His place. That's their first mistake.

Their other mistake is that they don't acknowledge that America is far from being completely given over to wickedness. The Church is still very much alive in this country. As a whole, this nation may not cling to Christian ideals like it once did. But we are not yet Babylon.

My conclusion: false prophets.

Without a Clue

2006-06-23T09:08:00.000-05:00

The anti-gunners are at it again. These people just never let up. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their assertions are, they'll just keep hammering away with their lies, deceit, slander and hysteria.

The Brady Campaign has just released a "report" titled Without a Trace. It details some supposed findings about tracing illegal firearms. The underlying theme (and the key word there is lying) is that the gun lobby (be sure you use a husky ominous announcer voice when you say "gun lobby") wants to strong arm the government so that they can continue flooding The Street with illegal guns.

They don't bother to tell you what they mean by "illegal guns." Guns used in crimes, I guess. More likely, it just sounds better when you tack the word illegal on as a descriptor. The "report" states that there are certain dealers who have a higher percentage of guns traced back to their shops. The logical conclusion of course, is that gun manufacturers, distributors and retail dealers are in cahoots. Their master scheme is to get rich by selling thousands of "illegal guns" to gang bangers who use them to kill children.

They go on to mock the NRA and the (ominous voice) gun lobby for their "paranoia." The NRA's opposition to a police state is apparently just ridiculous. What I found really ironic is that the report attempts to quash the idea that confiscation is the end goal of tougher restrictions. One of the Bradys' greatest champions, Diane Feinstein, is well known for saying that if she could have garnered 51 Senate votes, she would have pushed for "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in" legislation. What is that but confiscation?!

Not only do these people continue to lie about the gun industry and their supposed evil agenda, they continue to lie about their own goals as well!

I just love this gun lobby tactic. They're trying to associate gun manufacturers and distributors with the despised image of the Big Evil Corporation. They want the public to believe that the Congress is being strongarmed by millions of dollars of blood money.

Nevermind that this "gun lobby" is actually a group of legitimate business - founded nonetheless by men who embody the American spirit (real entrepreneurs like Samuel Colt, Bill Ruger, Oliver Winchester, and so on) - pressed into action by the hysterical efforts of people guided only by their emotions. The "gun lobby" was born of necessity.

The other half of the equation - the equally demonized (announcer voice) NRA - is referenced as a special interest fearsome lobby group. They want you to think of the NRA as a group of overweight, 50's-ish, cigar-smoking crooked billionaires sitting in a boardroom on the 95th floor. Alone and immune, they hatch plots for world domination. Of course their plots will only succeed if their good friends in the gun lobby are allowed to continue passing out machine guns on playgrounds.

Nevermind that the NRA is populism at its very best. Four million Americans get together and chip in $35 a year. The NRA is nothing more than public opinion in action.

When it comes to billionaire-funded 'Big Lobby' type interests, the Brady Campaign has no farther to look than in the mirror. George Soros, radical leftist and billionaire, is well-known for his anti-gun campaigning and world gun-ban hopes. They are the ones with the fat-cat backers.

We're just lucky that (so far) 4 million people with $35 a piece have been able to make themselves heard just as well as one guy with a bottomless bank account.

We need an exorcism...

2006-06-22T12:02:00.000-05:00

...at least that's how it feels with all the demonization going on by the anti-gunners. Here's their latest tactic. For those that won't follow the link, it's an "Ask" campaign funded by United Way. (Thanks to David Codrea for bringing my attention to this article.)

If you've seen NBC's The Less You Know campaign, you've seen this tactic. Encourage parents to ASK if there is a gun in the home where their child is visiting.

"What's wrong with that?" you ask. Well, inherently, there's nothing wrong with parents educating themselves about their children's whereabouts. I would call that sound parenting.

My beef is that this campaign is aimed at changing public opinion such that people start to think gun owners = irresponsible. Gun owners = dangerous. Homes with gun = unsafe. Guns = bad. Locked up gun = safe gun.

It's a bunch of crap. Unless your kid's visiting a crackhouse, they're actually safer visiting a *gasp* home with an unlocked gun! A crazy assertion? Not quite. People own guns for protection. And if your kid is in that house, they're going to fall into the category of "protected."

Sure, you have to educate your kids about guns. Satisfy their curiosity. Show them what a gun can do. (This is all subject matter for another post.) But demonization isn't the answer.

"Hi there. This is Mr. Smith. My daughter Suzy is coming over to your place after school. I, uh...I have to ask... Um. Well. This is awkward. Is there a gun in your house?"

"Yes."

"Ok, good."

Identity Crisis

2006-06-19T22:10:00.000-05:00

It's almost too much for me to stomach. Read this. It's an article about the death of the metrosexual movement. (We could be so lucky.) I was excited when I saw the headline. I should have kept my expectations low.

Sometimes I'm afraid that there are no real men left in this country. That's what the article is really about - the death of the American Man.

The adult males in this country are such a sorry bunch that they now need to be told how to be masculine. And even that comes in a shifting, incorrect mandate from the mainstream media.

Unbelievable.

Something has gone horribly wrong...

2006-06-18T23:16:00.000-05:00

...when an American says something like this. This article is about the Dixie Chicks and their struggles with being rejected by a fan base that, as it turns out, didn't like their leftist leanings. Here's the quote that I was referencing to begin with:

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

Here is a woman who lives in the freest land this world has ever known. That freedom has allowed her to experience prosperity that exceeds most of history's kings and queens.

Millions of men have bled and died and suffered to keep this country free, and she is so utterly stupid that she doesn't understand our enthusiasm?

Talk about the consequences of an entitlement attitude! She takes every good thing in life for granted to such a degree that she is actually upset at people who are thankful for their blessings!

I may complain about government interference in our personal lives. I may call for extreme reform. This country may not be all that it used to be. No nation state is without its imperfections. But we're a damned sight better off than the rest of the world.

Natalie Maines, you are an idiot.

It's just senseless...

2006-06-18T21:53:00.000-05:00

So I was flying recently. As I sat in the airport in the meet/greet area preceeding the security line with my wife, I reflected on the utter stupidity of some of the post-9/11 security measures we have adopted. Or more appropriately, the government has adopted for us.

How is anyone more safe because my wife cannot proceed through the security checkpoint to tell me goodbye at the gate? Is there something inherently safe about showing your ID to someone, walking twenty yards, and then showing it to someone else who watched the first person check it?

No! (Obviously.) We now have to deal with a dozen idiotic (not to mention inconvenient) "security measures" for one simple reason: the government wants to show us how proactive they are in ensuring our safety.

Hey, I've got an idea. How about you leave the insurance of my safety to someone who actually cares about it - me. How about you cease to strip me of my rights and allow me the means to protect me & mine?

How many planes would have crashed on September 11th if the passengers would have been armed?

Goodness, I can just see the liberals and the antis all up in a flutter over that one. "Armed passengers?! Are you crazy!?!"

If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny. The one thing we could do to actually prevent another 9/11 is just too radical for anyone to stomach. No one even bothers to think about it because we're all programmed to surrender our duty to defend ourselves to the government.

"Let passengers have guns? No way! They might hurt someone! We have to be responsible about this. We have to make reasonable choices and not react in the heat of the moment."

Hell, the nanny-staters don't even want pilots to have guns! (I guess a uniform doesn't make you professional enough - must be the badge, heh heh.) So rather than man up and accept the reality that what works isn't always warm and fuzzy, we wring our hands and make air travel a labyrinth of administrative hell. "Well, we've taken some reasonable and responsible precautions to ensure that this doesn't happen again."

Oh yes. Reasonable and responsible choices. (nodding emphatically) Like more ticket checks and less accessibility to the gates. (more nodding) That will stop a fanatic who is willing to trade his life to accomplish a mission. (vigorous nodding)

We need John Wayne and we've hired the friggin PTA.

My viewpoint on this issue may not be popular, but I'm not entirely alone. I got this article from Reason. It's a good read. It addresses some of the idiocy we must endure at the airport (and why.)

The reality is that when people want to kill you, you have to be ready to kill them back. And when the government strips you of your right to self defense - regardless of the circumstances - that is irresponsible.

Misplaced priorities

2006-06-16T18:25:00.000-05:00

This article will give you a good laugh. Hillary is trying to stir up support for the creation of a "privacy bill of rights." Hey, I've got an idea, H-Rod:

Why don't you worry about the real Bill of Rights?

She's not fooling me. She stands for socialism and government-controlled-everything. She doesn't give a damn about your rights. She doesn't care about the NSA wiretapping. It's just a good chance to take some partisan digs at W:

"The administration's refrain has been, "Trust us,"' said Clinton. "That's unacceptable. Their track record doesn't warrant our trust. ... Unchecked mass surveillance without judicial review may sometimes be legal but it is dangerous. Every president should save those powers for limited critical situations."

What, Hillary, your track record warrants our trust? Your administration used the same program when you were in the White House (chuckle chuckle). You'll continue to use it if you resume power. (Read: if this country is stupid enough to let you.)

So let me get this straight. We can't trust Bush with our phone calls, but we can trust you with our guns?

Knock-Knock (not)

2006-06-16T18:01:00.000-05:00

This is Rush Limbaugh's commentary on the Supreme Court's recent decision on no-knock entry by police. To sum up, their decision was that evidence found in a no-knock entry can be used in trial. Rush thinks it was a good decision because it has the liberals mad.

And there we part ways, my friend. Don't get me wrong, I love to anger liberals. It's fun. (Not to mention, funny.) And I've rarely disagreed with Rush in the 14 years I've been listening to him. But I disagree with him on this.

I think the reason that you see this being painted as a "conservative" decision (it is not) is that liberals generally tend to be the ones standing up for the rights of criminals, while conservatives are more interested in victim's rights. Liberals usually prefer to make things harder for the cops while the conservatives usually prefer to let them catch crooks.

As I read about the growing epidemic of police abuses and incompetence, I can't help but come closer and closer to the "liberal" side of this issue. (I can't believe I'm typing that.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about standing up for the rights of criminals. I have no desire to see any criminal set free because of some loophole. I watch Dateline's To Catch a Predator specials, and in the back of my mind I'm thinking, "Why don't they just take them to the backyard of the house, drop them to their knees and pop 'em in the head?" Fast and efficient.

Of course that's not Constitutional, but what I'm trying to communicate is my deep-seated distaste for people like that. So if I'd like to see a tough justice system, why am I against no-knock warrants?

Well, probably because you have people like Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Barak Obama, Rod Blagojevic, Lane Evans, Michael Bloomberg, Sarah Brady, George Soros, Khofi Annan, and Richard Daly that want to make people like me into criminals. If they get their way and disarm America, I'll be a criminal! (Disarm, hell!) And that will make me subject to their no-knock warrants!

Sure, I don't have anything to worry about now, because I'm not a criminal. But I object to this for the same reason I'd object to video surveillance in every household.

Big Brother: "Well, if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you so worried about?"

That's not the point. It never was.

The Coming Bloodbath

2006-06-14T22:20:00.000-05:00

In a couple weeks, I may have the opportunity to do some prairie dog shooting. In retrospect, this post would more appropriately be titled, "The Coming Gut-bath." Anyway, I'm really looking forward to it (if it works out.) It raises an interesting philosophical/theological issue.

I don't have a problem with waging wholesale slaughter on vermin population. They are a nuisance to the people who own the land where I'll be. They are by no means in danger of extinction. And they're a lot of fun to shoot (they explode quite violently.) But some people do have a problem with hunting that doesn't result in meat-eating or hide-tanning.

I don't. This argument is largely a byproduct of the clash between a Christian worldview and a Darwinian worldview. I believe that God created the human race as something special. I don't believe in evolution. Genesis talks about man being made master over the animals. So, if you need to do some housecleaning on the ranch (i.e. kill a few hundred rodents), no problem. That said, I think that mastery over the animals comes with a responsibility to be good stewards. I also believe in being as humane as possible.

Believe me, they don't feel anything.

Anyway, those who oppose prairie dog hunting (or hunting in general) are likely to be of the ilk that believes that we humans are nothing more than the highest level of a random evolutionary process. As such, what right do we have over prairie dogs, deer, or indeed insects?

The biggest hole in that argument is this:

If we are nothing more than the most evolved animal, what responsibility do we have to anyone or to anything? If this (existence, life, the universe) is all a random and non-determined event, there is no God. And if there is no God, how can we possibly establish “right and wrong? Without God, everything is completely meaningless. Who cares if I kill every animal on the planet?

But there is a God. And He never said it was wrong to kill prairie dogs.

Burn him!

2006-06-10T22:43:00.000-05:00

This article is about the arrest of a man in Denver. Reason has an excellent post of his own about this. He has additional links to more articles and a PDF version of the affidavit.

To summarize, the man was arrested by the FBI for selling a machine gun to a confidential informant. The following is a series of excerpts from the article about his arrest, followed by my commentary in [brackets.]

According to the arrest affidavit, the firefighter, Stan Taran Ford, has "anti-U.S. sympathies and has ties to an unknown domestic terrorism organization." [Let the demonization begin. What exactly is the pertinence of his “sympathies?” If you read the affidavit, you will find no evidence to support the “domestic terrorism” claim. He’s probably just a life member in the NRA…]

A federal official told 7NEWS that Ford, 34, is interested in militias, and that the terror organization is more like a domestic hate group than an international terrorist organization. [When did being "interested in militias" become a crime? Oh, right it's not. And what's this backtracking about the nature of the "terror organization"?]

A source told 7NEWS that Ford refused to get a Colorado driver's license for some time because he felt that the government could track him that way. That same source said Ford was a "gun enthusiast" who would show up at fire department events with lists of guns that he had available for sale, 7NEWS reported. [“And what else is made of wood?” “Witches! BURRRRRRN HER!!!!”]

A search of his home after his arrest brought about several more weapons, 7NEWS reported. [You think? He’s a gun collector. Again, pertinence please. Did these other weapons have big red “sold” tags hanging off the trigger guards? I'll bet they found a kitchen drawer full of spoons, forks and knives, but that's not a crime either.]

The investigation into Ford began more than two years ago after the El Paso County Sheriff's Office learned that Ford was allegedly trying to buy sensitive military communication systems and night vision goggles from a military base in Colorado Springs. [BUUUUURRRRN HIM!!!! Would someone please tell me what this has to do with the case against this guy? Oh, right, right. We have to make him look like a wacko. Otherwise someone might figure out just how stupid and unconstitutional the NFA is…]

According to the affidavit, investigators also developed information that Ford and his associates had obtained Chinese military weapons. [Were these “Chinese military weapons” measured in megatons? If not, then shut up about it. Again, where’s the crime? Ooooooooh, he had an SKS!!! I’m surprised they left out the obligatory “…capable of firing dozens of rounds per second when sprayed from the hip. These guns are widely favored by criminals.”]

7News said that other people are also under investigation in the case. [Including the Special Agent, I hope. He sure spent a lot of taxpayer money and ink swearing to the fact that Ford committed several non-crimes.]

What bothers me the most here is the persistent demonization of this man for things that had nothing to do with the actual crime he committed. (Things, that is, that are not illegal.)

No matter which way I think about it, I keep coming back to the Monty Python scene. This time, however, we've got a group of Feds standing around some poor guy they've slapped a fake nose and witch costume on.

BURN HIM!

Nanny Knows Best

2006-05-27T22:03:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner and dictator-hopeful for the 2008 Presidential election is showing her Nanny Card again. This time she wants to tell you how fast you can('t) drive.

The idea of a 55mph speed limit is so pathetic that I won't even address the issue on its face. As usual, I see something far deeper and far more sinister at work.

Gun control, high taxes, and socialized healthcare just aren't enough. She so strongly believes that she knows better than you do how to live your life that she's ready to wrap her power hungry fingers around your steering wheel.

To the likes of H-Rod and her control-happy cronies, impracticality and misery matter not. They know best, and it's for your own safety.

If she gets in and starts getting her way, we'll be but a few steps removed from re-education camps and national curfews.

Papers, please.

"Knife Control" anyone?

2006-05-27T21:19:00.000-05:00

This article is about a knife attack in Germany. Twenty eight people were injured. Twenty eight! It was probably an assault knife packed with features that make it attractive to criminals. The perp probably stabbed from the hip.

I think it's high time that the progressive elements in Germany enact some common-sense knife control measures. Even one attack is too many. If it saves just one life it will be worth it. Everybody now: "IF BRITAIN CAN DO IT SO CAN WE!"

Or could it be that a violent criminal is a violent criminal, no matter what weapon he has or doesn't have in his hand? That conclusion is just too difficult for some people to reach, I suppose.

When knives are banned and thugs start killing people with pipewrenches and screwdrivers, maybe the antis will clue in to the fact that weapons are merely inanimate tools.

Nah. Too obvious.

The Nanny State expands.

2006-05-24T21:27:00.000-05:00

No article here. Just a personal observation. On the way home from work I noticed cops all over the place. Every mile or so it seemed. Then not far from my house there were two cops on foot at at intersection (4 way stop). They were approaching cars as they stopped to spot-check for seatbelts. This "campaign" has been recently reported in the local news. Apparently, there is even special funding for the overtime that will be required.

Rant:
Why are they wasting my hard-earned tax dollars on what amounts to a parenting program? How ridiculous to waste police officers' time and our money on non-crime issues. You want to pay cops for overtime? Fine. Assign them to unsolved missing persons cases. Assign them to unsolved murders, rapes, and kidnappings. Use their time to fight gang activity. Pay them to do their jobs as public servants.

Don't pay them to act like public parents.

This is the fundamental mindset that we must continually combat if we wish to preserve our ever-eroding freedoms. The Nanny State proponents believe that they know best. They will go to whatever lengths they feel necessary at whatever cost to ensure that our lives are forced into compliance with their standards. A seat-belt enforcement campaign is just one more piece of evidence.

You don't know best. Huh-uh. No you don't. We do.

This now in from the APN...

2006-05-23T18:49:00.000-05:00

Reason and I have an old joke. We created a fictitious watchdog group called the APN. The APN is the Alarmist Parent Network, and they serve only to whip the public up into a frenzy. We like to attribute real-life instances of overboard hand-wringing to the fictional APN. We never discussed the specifics of it, but I've always figured that the APN is a multi-media enterprise. They probably have a website and a cable news channel. They routinely release information to the print media, and they never cut corners when it comes to using blood-curdling adjectives.

I found this article today on MSNBC. It's about the "dangers" posed by household paper shredders. Although they weren't cited, I'm certain that the APN is responsible for this.

Apparently, a kid can lose fingers if they stick their hands into a shredder! I'm glad they brought this to light, because I have an eight month old and we were just about to have a shredding party. The article goes on to describe how horrific the results can be if you try to teach your kid how to use a shredder.

Well no doubt. We need to keep them in car seats until they're in college, off of ATVs until they're geriatric, and away from firearms forever. It's no stretch of the imagination that we'll soon have printed labels warning of the dangers of anyone under the age of 35 operating a paper shredder. If we're lucky, we'll have shredder blade "fingerprinting" and a registered database of all paper shredder owners (license required, of course.) Maybe we can eliminate drive-by shreddings that way.

There's not a whole lot of serious content in this posting (obviously). Really, the reason I posted this was is that I think it's just one more piece of evidence supporting the idea that there are people out there that don't trust you to make decisions for yourself. And they feel that it is their duty to make changes to your daily life to help them sleep better. I see a stark commonality here between these shredder-worriers and anti-gunners. Both believe that some other body (government or otherwise) knows better than you how to live your life. And they're going to do what they can to make you comply.

Shredders? I know. Very insignificant. But symptomatic, nonetheless.

One more comment, and then I'm done. I found this quote rather disturbing:

"Manufacturers also have to pass a test to show that little fingers cannot fit into the opening or be pulled into the blades."

Whose kids are they using for that test?

It's just stomach-churning

2006-05-23T18:41:00.000-05:00

Reason has an excellent post today about something every IL resident should be informed of. My commentary on the matter resides in his "comments" section.

Do it for the children...

2006-05-22T18:47:00.000-05:00

My wife and I had to go shopping today for a larger car seat for our baby. She just outgrew her first one. Apparently they have to be in car seats until they weigh 80 pounds.

Rant:
80 pounds?!?! Is someone out of their bloody mind? It blows me away how such an idiotic law can even get passed. Why did I hear nothing in the news? Why was there no controversy? Didn't anybody have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say, "That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom." (Office Space quote for you there.)

The truth is that anything that bears the label "for the children" gets the instant stamp of approval, no matter how asinine the premise. We'd be putting rubber bumpers on our baseboards if some legislator put together a smart sounding law, backed it up with some half-baked alarmist stats and started an awareness campaign.

I was in sixth grade before I weighed 80 pounds! And I have no recollection of ever being in a car seat. And I'm alive today!

I know, I know. I wasn't in any wrecks. Whatever. That's not my point. My point is that this is just one more vile step towards a nanny state. "We know better than you how to take care of your own children."

Step off, big brother. I decide what's best for my kids.

Something different...

2006-05-13T15:06:00.000-05:00

No link this time. Just some reminiscing on my part.

It's an unusual Saturday because I'm at work. But it's very slow, which leaves me with lots of free time. But the free time comes in 5 and 10 minute spurts, so all I can really do is check my email and blog. That's why there are so many entries today. Don't get used to it.

It's funny how a song can bring memories back in a flood. I've been listening to some Relient K today. (Christian pop/punk. Very good.) My wife introduced me to this band when we first started dating back in college. It brings back memories of kissing her for the first (and second, and third...) time.

It's not like it was all that long ago, but sometimes it feels like a lifetime. We're not in college anymore, and now we have a baby.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not missing the good old days. I'm missing my wife.

I love you, babe.

Double Standard

2006-05-13T14:45:00.000-05:00

This article is about allegations of torture by the Chicago Police Department. The controversy is whether the full report should be made public.

One more piece of evidence that we have created a special class of citizens, to whom the law does not apply as it applies to the rest of society. What do you think would have happened if a non-cop had tortured somone to get a confession? Do you think that private citizen's identity would be protected?

To quote my friend Reason (again) - they're like you and me...only better.

Lethal Injection Failure

2006-05-13T13:47:00.000-05:00

You've probably already read about this already. Ohio had trouble executing a convicted murderer when they couldn't find a vein for the lethal injection.

This is a good example of practicality going by the wayside in the name of political correctness.

I've never heard of technical difficulties with a firing squad.

My bad

2006-05-13T13:12:00.000-05:00

I wrote the final paragraph of my last post under a wrong assumption. I mistakenly said that all federal aid would be withdrawn if things progressed as they are. Actually, only nine states are failing badly enough to have their $ cut off.

(This was aptly brought to my attention by alert reader Isaac T when he asked in the comments section, "How does everyone fail?". Thanks, Isaac T.)

No state is meeting the federal standard set, but this doesn't mean their federal aid is being cut. Only nine states are far enough behind that they're going to feel it in the wallet.

What I was saying was that the best case scenario would be that no state could meet the federal standards and that all aid is withdrawn. The article is basically saying that due to the amount of aid being withdrawn, something will have to be done about NCLB. I'm saying that it would be great if NCLB was the vehicle by which federal aid for schools disappeared.

Isaac says, "Now, to play a bit of devil's advocate, although I do agree with what you said, aren't we in effect, then robbing Peter to pay Paul? So federal government puckers up and the money is gone. Doesn't that just encourage our beloved Springfield and Des Moines to "pass the load" onto us? Aren't we going to be paying it one way or another through higher taxes?"

Realistically, yes. Our state and local taxes would probably rise to meet the rest of the burden. But our federal burden would (hopefully) be equally reduced. So in theory it would be a wash.

Well, we know it doesn't that work that way. They'd just spend it elsewhere.

Isaac makes another great point: "Maybe believers coming together and educating their children is where it's at?"

Absolutely. That's the only real solution in my eyes. I don't trust the public education system anymore. And it has nothing to do with NCLB.

Another point missed

2006-05-13T10:29:00.000-05:00

CNN is complaining (again) about No Child Left Behind.

This article is a good illustration of the mainstream media's left-wing bias. How anyone still denies their slant still escapes me. But they do. I've even heard people say that the MSM has a right wing bias. (Michael Moore followers.) That just blows me away.

But that's not why I linked to this article. I wanted to talk about NCLB. All the libs are up in arms about the way that the federal government is trying to regulate education. Point missed again.

(The point):
Nobody's concerned about the very idea that the Federal government is (once again) sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. No one is angry about federal regulation of something that shouldn't be federally regulated (education.)

We can argue standardized testing vs. outcome based education all day long. I have a very strong opinion on the matter.

But that's not the point!

These things should be decided at the state level. It's not the US Government's job to tell us how to teach our kids! It's not their job to ensure a good education! I don't care what NCLB is about. I care that it even exists! And no one seems to be upset about this. Why?

Probably because we're used to having a Department of Education. We're used to letting the feds step in and get their hands in the cookie jar. We're willing to take their dollars.

I think the best outcome here is that NCLB is left in effect. Everyone fails. All federal aid is withdrawn. Bush sticks to his guns and the final result is something that no one expects, because it's not even being addressed as part of the issue: education is (in effect) completely de-federalized.

Wouldn't that be something.

One more...

2006-05-12T23:23:00.000-05:00

Alright, one more entry for the night. This has been my first day posting to my blog and I've been enjoying it. I surely won't average three posts a day, but I have an unusual amount of free time on my hands right now, so I decided to spend it blogging.

I like these guys. The immigration debate isn't my main item of political interest, but it keeps coming up, so I'll address it. The Minutemen have done something radical. They have taken a real-world stand for what they believe. They have put their beliefs into action with more than words and ralllies and signs and chants.

They face all sorts of slander for it, too. Speaking of rallies, they had a presence at one in DC recently. Read about it here. (CNN actually gives them positive coverage.) Their opponents were there screaming at them and calling them racists, Klansmen, Nazis, and so on and so forth. Baseless assertions, to be sure, but scathing nonetheless.

I guess this isn't a very exciting post on my part, but for once it's nice to see people actually stand up and take action. I'm curious to know what other issues will incite the same level of passion in the future. What other Minuteman Projects will be born of problems that eventually become too big to ignore?

Missing the point

2006-05-12T22:02:00.000-05:00

Another hackneyed article about the NSA database. Is this news? Aren't they just beating the same dead horse?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not on the "it's harmless" bandwagon. Granted, I think there are more significant things to be worried about. It only takes a modicum of intelligence to realize that our government doesn't have the manpower to listen to every phone call. Right, right, but that's not the issue...

Everyone has missed the point. This has been going on forever, and that's not even the point.

The point is...so what?

The First Amendment is a trampled, misunderstood mess.

The Second Amendment is heavily, heavily infringed.

The Fourth Amendment is an utter joke.

Parts of the Fifth Amendment get trampled right along with the Second. (Kudos to Reason for bringing my attention to this one.)

The Eigth Amendment is partially ignored. (And I'm not talking about cruel and unusual punishment.)

I see no evidence of any regard for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Here is a link to the Bill of Rights.

Read that and tell me what you think about life in America today. And then tell me how upsetting the NSA's phone call database is. My response is (shrug) so what? As a friend of mine puts it, "...one more log on the fire."

The media is picking this fight as part of a partisan attempt to attack the Bush Administration. It fits conveniently into their current agenda. I'm not defending the database. I'm just pointing out that no one does a thing about countless other daily Constitutional tramplings. Why get upset about this one?

Intro

2006-05-12T21:48:00.000-05:00

My then-girlfriend (now wife) and I once tried to start a newsletter on our ultra liberal college campus. We were going to call it The Subversive. We even created the first issue and planned to print it out in the computer lab utilizing hundreds of tuition-paid pages of rainforest-made paper. But our plan fell through. Some things are easier to dream about than to actually execute.

Besides, making out was more fun.

So here I am again working in my own little way as a force for change. I proudly and regularly exercise my Second Amendment rights. With a little practice, maybe this First Amendment thing will be just as good.

Well...any of you who have ever had the joy of shooting a gun know that what I just said is aiming pretty high.

So why the Subversive? To answer the question, I have to quote Webster's dictionary. I hate it when people do that. All the worst graduation speeches start out with "Webster defines success as..." or "Webster defines dreams as..." Gag me. Okay, with my trepidation about doing this well stated, let me say that (cringe) Webster says that subversive is esp: a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within.

No, I'm not a government employee. But I am a part of this political system.

And no, I'm not talking about violent overthrow.

Yet.

Anyway, if you happen to stumble across my little web abode, welcome. I hope you find some enjoyment and some food for thought. Feel free to post comments.