Saturday, December 20, 2014

Firearms refresher course.

This was going round the internet today. Too good not to pass onto you here.

Just a reminder!
Firearms Refresher Course


1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."~Thomas Jefferson




2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~ John Adams


3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.



5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.



6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.



7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.



8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.



9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.



10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.


14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?



15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.



16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.


17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.



IF YOU AGREE, PASS THIS 'REFRESHER' ON TO TEN FREE CITIZENS.

"I love this country, it's the government I'm afraid of"

Ted Turner: I Think It's "Good" U.S. Troops are Killing Themselves





Can you imagine the outcry if, say, George W. Bush or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh or some avowed Christian like Tim Tebow had said they think "it's good" American soldiers are committing suicide? Yet, when it's someone on the left, it's never covered at all in the media, let alone protested.


The fantasy that is gun control.


WASHINGTON - Controlling access to guns would appear, on its face, the simple answer to preventing public massacres like the movie-theatre tragedy in Colorado.*

Tragic random violence like the senseless movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado last week always stirs the debate about gun control. However, the answer is not in more toothless and ineffective regulations on law-abiding citizens. Nor is it finding ways of allowing FEWER or NO guns in the hands of the people. Gun control is nothing more than a kneejerk "feels good" solution that is impotent in prevention of crimes like this and empowering for potential dictators, despots and other oppressive forms of oppressive government. An objective look at history shows that anywhere the citizenry has been disarmed and tyranny (soft or hard) and/or outright despotism has followed. And why not? What the hell's a disarmed citizenry going to do to stop it?

Rather the answer is to do away with all the stupid and impotent restrictions on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Forget the silly and ineffective "no guns" signs on shopping malls (remember Omaha and Ontario, Canada mall shooting rampages?), churches (numerous incidents of crazy people shooting up churches full of unarmed worshippers in Emporia, Kansas 1986, Long Island,NY 2002, Wichita, Kansas 2009 just to name a few) and educational institutions (e.g., Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007) because they obviously don't hold back anyone who's made the decision to go violently anti-social. Instead, all those signs do is tell such psychopaths that there are a large number of unarmed victims inside.

No, instead, the answer is to let anyone legally licensed to carry their weapon do so - anywhere, anytime. That way at least innocent shoppers, church worshippers, university students and movie goers would at least have a fighting chance.

Liberals and other anti-gun types claim that to do so would increase the numbers of violent crimes involving firearms. Really? There's not been a case yet of someone legally licensed to carry concealed going off and doing something as insanely violent as happened in the Colorado movie theater this past week. Not only that, but during the days of OPEN-carry in the 19th century western expansion of the US (known by the slang term "wild west"), there was actually far less firearm violence than there is today. So, liberal fears of an armed citizenry creating more gun violence is just hysteria, not well supported fact.

Anti-gunners claim that people today are far more prone to violence than they used to be. Perhaps, but are they really trying to say that conditions like schizophrenia (Colorado movie theater shooting), brain tumors (see UT-Austin shooting rampage 1966) and other documented medical/psychological conditions resulting in anti-social gun-related violence have suddenly just been invented this past 40 years or so? Again, such rationales against allowing the innocent citizenry to protect itself is just hysteria and not supported by logic or fact.

Anti-gun folks think that if they outlaw guns, then guns will just simply disappear from everywhere but police and military arsenals and therefore gun-related violence will disappear. Really? Washington, DC has had the most-restrictive gun control laws in nation (if not the world) the past 40 years and during that time has led the nation (or been in the top 10 in the nation) in gun related homicides and other violent crimes. Besides, there are so many firearms already in the world, that to think mere laws will make them vanish is fantasy, sheer fantasy. And even if they did, the technology for making new ones is so well-known and widely available that there would be a proliferation of new firearms in no time. Besides, making liquor illegal did absolutely nothing during Prohibition to make it vanish from the face of the earth. Rather it created a criminal enterprise to supply it to the masses. Instead of far less liquor and crime, the country got far more of both - and violently so. So, again, such liberal fantasies are just that - fantasy and not reality.

And, while we’re looking at the historical record, let’s take a look at the government’s abilities to restrict and ban other things. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution, commonly referred to as “Prohibition” tried to eliminate the manufacture, sale and/or possession of  “intoxicating liquors”(for other than religious and medical purposes). Such a ban was impossible to accomplish and instead of eliminating liquor merely served to increase the quantity and usher in the mafia who was happy to illegally manufacture it and through illegal means like “speak easys” and even extortion created a booming market for it. And to ensure their place in the market gave dramatic increase in violent crimes like the aforementioned extortion, arson, arson by bombing, homicide by knife and gun and so on. And the government’s war on narcotic drugs hasn’t had much better success.

Oh, please; Bill Nye warns Creationism "threatens U.S. science?"

Really? "Creationism Threatens U.S. science?" Nye said he fears the things Evolutionists purport "...about nature and the universe can be dismissed by a few sentences translated into English from some ancient text..." - meaning the biblical account of Creation in Genesis 1:1.

Religious background aside, after carefully exploring the Theory of Evolution, I've always found that with its gaps, it takes far more "faith" to believe in Evolution than in Intelligent Design/God created. And Nye's hysterical claims emphasize that fact. For example, it begs a few questions;
1. If Evolution is such a sound scientific theory and Creationism is not, how could Creationism threaten U.S. science? Remember, Evolutionists "...[oppose] efforts in recent years by lawmakers and school boards in some states to present Bible stories as an alternative to evolution in public schools." (Emphasis added to a quote from both articles above). And in most - if not all cases, Creationists only advocate for "equal time" representation (e.g., "alternative") not exclusivity.

2. And - just for the sake of argument - even if Creationism somehow did "threaten U.S. science," why would it threaten only U.S. science? Why not science throughout the world? Again, if Evolution is so almighty scientifically sound and Creationism is just some crackpot, half-baked, unfounded theory, how is it so threatening as an alternative theory?
But, Nye expresses concern that by equally representing Creationism as a possible explanation to the origins of the universe and life we might "raise a generation of students who don't believe in the process of science," then that begs other questions (in the interests of consistent logic and so on):
If life as we know it occurred because of a random event, then:
1. Why is it that Planet Earth just so happens to stay in the exact rotational tilt angle range and the exact orbital path around its sun to sustain life for all this time? Why hasn't some random event came along to alter it's rotational tilt angle or its orbital path enough to cause Earth to turn to an ice planet or a ball of dust (say, like the moon)?, and
2. If life as we know it amongst the species - in other words, not just human beings - stems from some random event billions of years ago, why is it that every species has some kind of built-in reproductive system? Why didn't some kind of other random event come along that wiped out the earlier life forms - as in life forms randomly created but created without any ability to reproduce - before they developed ability to reproduce? If that would've happened, then life woudn't exist today in any form. Yet it does and has and seems to have a good shot at continuing to do so in the foreseeable future.
And that's just for starters. If you're interested in some scientific process analysis of both theories, I'd recommend two books:
  •  Strobel, Lee, (2004) The Case For the Creator, Zondervan, Miami, Florida and Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Heeren, Fred (1997) Show Me God, Newark, England.

"[The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that] a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
- Sir Fred Hoyle, Hoyle on Evolution, Nature

Today's Animal Farm….


In George Orwell’s 1945 classic novel Animal Farm, the animals take over the farm. Because they think it’s not right that they sleep in a cold barn or out of doors while the humans live in apparent luxuries in the house. So, in the spirit of equality, fairness and so on they toss out the humans and take over the farm.

When writing the rules which will now govern their new situation, the animals agree that all the animals are equals. No one animal individually or by breed is superior to any other. And under no circumstances are any animals to live in the house the humans used to live in. Such domestic inequalities is what led to the previous intolerable situation they just replaced.

But before long, some scheming animals start subtly rewriting the rules. It isn’t long before an addendum is added saying that while all animals are created equal, some animals are more equal than others (the pigs, if I remember the story correctly). The situation keeps changing as the self-interests of the more scheming species of animals become the major focus. It continues to deteriorate until at the end of the story, some of the “lesser” breeds and species are outside the house, watching through the windows at the now-openly-more-privileged-because-they-are-more-equal pigs living in the warmth and luxury of the farmhouse.

Fast forward to today, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence was adopted and 221 years after First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution formally became law. In said First Amendment, Americans and all humans on American soil are granted free right to express their opinion regardless of medium commonly subject to certain limitations, as with libel, slander, and incitement to commit a crime, start a riot, etc etc etc.

A bumper sticker today reads “Against abortion? Don’t have one.” The implication being that just because one is against abortion should not deny another the freedom to get one.

But, have you noticed how the “freedom of speech” nowadays is more and more allowed only for certain opinions – politically-correct ones? Case in point; Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fil-A was asked in an interview in mid-July about his stance – his opinion – of gay marriage. He said he and his restaurant are “guilty as charged” of being “very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit."* He did not say he hated gays. He did not advocate violence against gays. He didn't even say he would not hire as an employee or refuse to serve any gay customers in any of his restaurants. He merely expressed his religious view of gay marriage. Both his freedoms of religion and his freedom of speech – as protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – supposedly allow him to do so.

Not only that, but Chick-Fil-A is a privately-held corporation. That means it has no stockholders to answer to. That means it as a corporation and/or its owners can have any opinion it wants to have. And our Constitution at least used to guarantee the freedom to express it – regardless of how unpopular it may be.

But, apparently not in Barack Hussein Obama’s Amerika. Oh, no. The Thought Police immediately launched a protest against Chick-Fil-A staging protests and “same-sex kissing days” at Chick-Fil-A restaurants and even the mayors of cities like Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago have threatened to not allow anymore Chick-Fil-A restaurants to be opened in their cities? Really? This is freedom of expression as envisioned by the Founding Fathers? An owner of a privately-owned company Constitutionally expresses his opinion in a radio interview and this kind of backlash occurs? Can you imagine the wingtail fits they would throw if any conservative or Christian or Republican or gun owner or whatever else they hate so much were to conduct such activities at a venue of the politically-correct over someone expressing their support of gun control or love of Jesus or their dislike of abortion?
  
How about these extremists show a little more respect for the First Amendment and practice what they preach in their Pro-Choice bumpersticker; “Against Chick-Fil-A’s views on gay marriage? Just don’t eat there and hush up.” 

Apparently some of today’s animals have subtly rewritten the rules of the farm. Apparently some are more equal than others. In today’s version of Animal Farm, only certain politically-correct people, groups and opinions are allowed to be freely expressed.  


Applying the same logic....

Speaking in Roanoke, Virginia July 13,* President Barack Obama said, “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” the president said. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something-- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”*

Liberal spin pundits have been working feverishly ever since Obama made this revealing statement trying to explain it away as misinformation, selective editing or even as a simple gaffe. But, applying Obama’s same thought process to sports, Peggy Noonan made a great comparison:

“From a friend watching the Olympics: ‘How about that Michael Phelps? But let's remember he didn't win all those medals, someone else did. After all, he and I swam in public pools, built by state employees using tax dollars. He got training from the USOC, and ate food grown by the Department of Agriculture. He should play fair and share his medals with people like me, who can barely keep my head above water, let alone swim.’

“The note was merry and ironic. And as the games progress, we'll be hearing a lot more of this kind of thing, because President Obama's comment—"You didn't build that"—is the political gift that keeps on giving.
“They are now the most famous words he has said in his presidency. And oh, how he wishes they weren't.

Pay attention, America. These words show the true thoughts of the most powerful man in the world and in our country.

*UNK, (16 July, 2012) Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that' Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/15/obama-dashes-american-dream-suggests-nobody-achieves-success-alone/#ixzz22xw95Q7A

**Brooks,A. (6 Aug, 2012) Obama and 'Earning Your Success, The Wall Street Journal, Retrived from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444860104577558701241637894.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

***Noonan, P. (3 Aug, 2012) The most famous words of Obama's presidency, FoxNews.com Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/03/most-famous-words-obama-presidency/#ixzz22Ug5Y0ts

Viewing life through the Conservative or Liberal lens (aka Jeff Foxworthy's "Fence Test")

I received this in a forwarded email earlier this week. This is really straight forward thinking and “calls it like it is....” It’s attributed to standup comedian Jeff Foxworthy though I couldn’t corroborate that from a brief internet search. If Mr. Foxworthy said this then kudos to him for his clever observations. If not, then kudos to whoever wrote it. But this pretty well sums up how Conservatives and Liberals view the world.

Jeff Foxworthy on the fence: Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect. (Remember, respect is always earned).

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host because of what he/she says, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A Liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

Friday, December 19, 2014

America needs you.....



Back in the mid-1970s, there was a popular song by an up-and-coming rock band named "Chicago." The Vietnam War was over - we'd just yanked all support from the government of South Vietnam causing the fall of its capital Saigon - US president Nixon had just resigned a year or so before that and the country was still reeling from all this and more. Hence, bandmember Robert Lamm wrote the song "Harry Truman" as a tribute to a former President the American people trusted — hard-charging and straight (and often profanely) talking Harry S. Truman.

Fast forward almost 40 years exactly to today. In his 6-year reign, Barack Obama has all but taken our country right down the tubes. He's all but destroyed the U.S. economy and all but neutered the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. He's circumvented federal law at every opportunity thru his endless run of Executive Orders, appointments of numerous unchecked and unelected Czars whose positions aren't authorized at all in the Constitution and his frequent use of recess appointments for positions that are. The guy acts like royalty jet-setting all around the world on endless vacations, golf games and fundraising junkets. Everytime the guy opens his mouth it's just to tell another lie or two or ten. His hatred for everything American (at least as it was before he came on the scene) is obvious as is his passion for tearing it all down and replacing it his socialist utopian alternatives. And as you know, dear readers, that's just scratching the surface of the damage the Obama Regime has inflicted in six years in power and he's got two more to go.

So, in tribute to about the last president that had any stones or that we could trust completely to lead us honorably, trustworthily and in accordance with the provisions and restrictions on the Chief Executive as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, I'm updating and modifying the song a bit:

America needs you,
Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Reagan, would you please come back?
Things are really bad -
I know it'd make you mighty mad -
To see what kind of men
Are ruining the land you loved.
America's wondering
Just how we got here
Mr. President, all we get is lies!
We're gettin' wimpier cars, 
but no more rocket ships to the stars
From those who sell us out
To keep themselves securely locked in power.
We'd love to hear you speak your mind
In your very poignant style.
Call it an 'evil empire'
and call down on them the fire.
Though you ate your jelly beans
We always knew what you'd mean
When you spoke of what was going down
With honesty and style
America's calling
Ronald Reagan.
"Gipper," you'd know what to do.
The world is burnin' down and we're losin' lots of ground!
Mr. Reagan! Can't we do something - anything! - to save the land we love
Oh woah woah woah
America's calling
Ronald Reagan.
Mr. President, you'd know what to do
Our world is fallin' down.
Uncle Sam is losin' lots of ground
Oh "Mighty Gipper," what on earth can be done to rescue this land we love
Oh
Mr. President, you'd be heaven sent, if you would come save the land we love
Oh,
President Reagan, This country's almost done. We need someone like you. Someone who's red, white and blue. Someone who will save this land we love





Thursday, December 18, 2014

A 3rd Bush family member running for president? Oh, no! Say it isn't so.

So, Jeb Bush - son of President George H. W. Bush and younger brother President George W. Bush and former governor of Florida - announced this week that he is 'actively exploring' a 2016 presidential candidacy on the GOP ticket.

All I can say to that is "Oh, my god, no! No, no, no, no,no,no!" This country does not need anymore Bush family baggage in a presidential race - let alone letting one who is a RINO* to say the least
It's not like either of the preceding Bush family presidents were anything terribly successful. In a lot of ways they were complete disasters. Both set up the most-liberal, most destructive, most-anti-American presidencies in US history to immediately follow theirs.

George Herbert Walker Bush's single-term presidency was anything to get excited about. Certainly his was a "closet liberal" presidency marred by clumsiness like "Read my lips! 'No new taxes!" when he turned right around and went along with Democrat-majority congress' proposals for a bunch of new taxes. Yet he defeated Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and evicted his invading army from Kuwait just as he promised. And afterward he had one of the highest approval ratings of any US president...only to let it wither away a year later and lose - resoundingly - to the draft-dodging, self-admitted dope smoker (but remember; he 'never inhaled') Bill Clinton.

And certainly the two-term presidency of his oldest son, George W. Bush, Clinton's successor, was marred with controversy and turmoil both political and economic. Though he steered the country through the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil (September 11, 2001) and quickly defeated the Taliban which had sponsored it on the battlefield in Afghanistan and kept the country free from attack for the remainder of his presidency, Bush quickly squandered the country's new-found patriotism after 9-11 by engaging it in an unpopular war in Iraq (eventually deposing and executing Saddam Hussein). And his economic policies and sympathies toward amnesty for illegal aliens and other "big money" interests alienated the Conservative political base that had swept him into power post-Clinton in 2000.

But for the GOP to even consider Jeb Bush as a leading potential presidential salvation after 8 years of economic, political, judicial/legal and otherwise destruction poured out on this nation by the regime of "president" Barry Hussein Obama just goes to show the moral and leadership bankruptcy of the Republican Party.

Small wonder I changed my political affiliation from Republican a couple elections back. And each stupid move like this one just convinces me I did the right thing.


*Republican In Name Only (as in registered Republican but liberal/Democrat politically)

Now we have North Korea dictating what movies we can watch here in America.

Well, as if the American way of life hasn't been choked out enough since Barry Obama's soft tyranny regime took over this country, now the fuzz-topped, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is apparently going to be able to dictate what movies movie theaters can show.

Sony Pictures had planned a Christmas Day theatrical release of a new comedy called "The Interview" which as part of its plot involved a fictional assassination attempt of that punk from Pyongyang, Kim Jong-Un. He took offense to the movie and so North Korea launched a cyber attack on Sony Pictures threatening another 9/11-style attack on any theater that dares to show the movie.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said there was "no credible intelligence to indicate an active plot against movie theatres within the United States”*.But, enough movie theater chains decided not to show the movie that "In light of the decision by the majority of our exhibitors not to show the film The Interview, we have decided not to move forward with the planned 25 December theatrical release," a Sony Pictures statement said.*

"White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the cyber-attack was being treated as a serious national security matter, and a 'proportionate response' was being considered." Yeah, right; I ain't holding my breath waiting for that.

So, as if our country, its greatness and way of life haven't sunk far enough, now apparently we're going to show the world that they can get their way thru threats of terrorist attacks right down to dictating what movies we go see.

What's next? The anti-Christian Islamic terrorist decide they want to eliminate Christmas? Are we going to let them do that too?



Regarding "Beloved Leaders"
Kim Jung Un



Kim Jung Un had NO military experience whatsoever before Daddy made him a four-star general.

This snot-nosed twerp had never accomplished anything in his life that would even come close to military leadership.

He hadn't even so much as led a Cub Scout troop, coached a sports team, or commanded a military platoon.

So he is made the "Beloved Leader" Of North Korea.

Terrific!!!

Oh crap!
I'm sorry.

I just remembered that we did the same thing.
Barack Obama
We took an arrogant phony community organizer, who had never worn a uniform, and made him Commander-in-Chief.

A guy, who had never had a real job, worked on a budget, or led anything more than an ACORN demonstration, and we made him "Beloved Leader" of the United States.

TWICE !!!

I'm sorry I brought this up . .. . Never mind.

*Unk. (18 December, 2014) Sony cancels Kim Jong-Un movie after threats, Sky News, Retrieved 18 December, 2014 from http://news.sky.com/story/1393777/sony-cancels-kim-jong-un-movie-after-threats