Archive for 11 Dec 2008

On Gun Control

Posted: 11 Dec 2008 in (2nd) Second Amendment, Guns, Terrorism
Tags: ,

Gun control is suicide for any nation that espouses it. Ask the Brits what they think. Then again, they aren’t all that bright there. India is now the victim of strict gun laws. Look at the facts, and you’ll realize that all attacks that have more than three people killed, are committed in a “gun free” zone. It’s a fact, and it is a fact that screams for right to carry laws in America. Wake the hell up people. Guns save lives, guns maintain liberty, and guns are my path to happiness.

Strict Indian Gun Law Aided Mumbai Terrorists in Attack

AK-47 armed terrorist in Mumbai, Nov. 26, 2008. (AP photo/from Japanese TV footage)

(CNSNews.com) – India’s strict gun laws are partly to blame for the success of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, according to the head of an Indian gun rights group and a U.S. expert who has examined the impact of gun laws on crime and terrorism.

Abhijeet Singh, founder of Indians for Guns, told CNSNews.com Tuesday that if the citizens of Mumbai had been allowed to carry guns, terrorists would not have killed as many people as they did–and might have been deterred from attacking in the first place.

In last month’s Mumbai attack, when terrorists armed with AK-47 assault rifles took over two resort hotels, local residents, hotel security guards and even local police were caught empty-handed and unarmed.

More

Think tank: If each of us carried a gun . . .

. . . we could help to combat terrorism

The firearms massacres that have periodically caused shock and horror around the world have been dwarfed by the Mumbai shootings, in which a handful of gunmen left some 500 people killed or wounded.

For anybody who still believed in it, the Mumbai shootings exposed the myth of “gun control”. India had some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, going back to the Indian Arms Act of 1878, by which Britain had sought to prevent a recurrence of the Indian Mutiny.

The guns used in last week’s Bombay massacre were all “prohibited weapons” under Indian law, just as they are in Britain. In this country we have seen the irrelevance of such bans (handgun crime, for instance, doubled here within five years of the prohibition of legal pistol ownership), but the largely drug-related nature of most extreme violence here has left most of us with a sheltered awareness of the threat. We have not yet faced a determined and broad-based attack.

More

Speaking of guns. The Crossroads of the West Gun Show is coming to Ontario on the 3rd and 4th of January. I plan to be there. Woohoo!

Obama and Corruption

Posted: 11 Dec 2008 in Axis of Idiots, Comarade Obama, Politics, Stupid People
Tags: ,

I keep hearing that Mr. Obama has no ties to this. I can’t believe for one second, that Mr. Obama wasn’t involved up to his eyeballs in corruption. Illinois is big on corruption. Chicago, even more so. You can’t tell me that you didn’t know about it, or that you are squeaky clean coming from that environment. Not a chance. Similar to sitting in a pew for 20 years and not being a racist after listening to the garbage coming from a black theology church. Nice try though.

Liar.

Obama Was Mute on Illinois Corruption

This week Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on charges that he conspired to sell Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, among other misdeeds. At first the president-elect tried to distance himself from the issue: “It is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment.” But it quickly became clear that Mr. Obama would have to say more, and yesterday he called for Mr. Blagojevich to resign and for a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat.

What remains to be seen is whether this episode will put an end to what Chicago Tribune political columnist John Kass calls the national media’s “almost willful” fantasy that Mr. Obama and Chicago’s political culture have little to do with each other. Mr. Kass notes that the media devoted a lot more time and energy to investigating the inner workings of Sarah Palin’s Wasilla, Alaska, than it has looking at Mr. Obama’s Chicago connections.

More

Blagatrocious

I was puzzled by Obama’s almost immediate denials that he had been in any way in contact with the Governor’s office. Why? Because for the last month it was simply understood, both by his own admission and by David Axelrod’s interviews, that his own preference for his Senate replacement was probably made known to the Governor. And fittingly so. Of course, there would be nothing wrong about Obama simply saying, “I am surprised as the next person, since I have discussed my replacement as would be natural with a governor of my own party responsible for the appointment, and I never detected anything out of the ordinary on his part.” Why instead the unbelievable denial of any communications that in turn earns the more unbelievable “misspoke” on the part of Axelrod? All that brings us back to the now familiar territory of “only a neighborhood acquaintance” and “not the (fill in the blanks) I once knew” and “I was only (fill in the appropriate adolescent age) when I was supposed to have (fill in the blanks)”. The problem with Obama is that any one “pal” (to use that now taboo word) from the past in and of itself is no problem. But each one thrown under the bus—a Rev. Wright, a Tony Rezko, a Bill Ayers, a Father Pfleger, a Governor Blagojevich, a Rashid Khalidi, et al—serve to expand the possibilities that any one of them might come clean (or come dirty) and give us a very different picture at just the time Obama needs unity to govern the country. E.g. A Rev. Wright memoir will come out with perhaps different memories of Obama’s attendance; a Tony Rezko plea bargain might reinterpret the Obama land deal; a creepy and conniving Blagojevich might have evidence of conversations that supposedly never occurred; and so on. The problem is twofold: Obama’s Chicago past was considered embedded within race and off-limits and thus never thoroughly investigated by a fawning media who did us all a disservice; and, two, the American public is not fully aware just how corrupt Illinois politics are, and thus how Obama is probably unusual by not being much more thoroughly tainted. (cf. The Blagojevich’s apparent anger that Team Obama is quite lawfully dictating a choice without ponying up any cash). I wish Obama well in governing us in times of peril, but I also wish he would just stop the stuttering in ex tempore settings, and come clean the first time.

More

More Economics

Posted: 11 Dec 2008 in Axis of Idiots, Comarade Obama
Tags:

Apparently, no one is paying attention. Learn from history, or you are destined to repeat it. Here we go again!

Fascism vs. Economic Liberty

Readers who object to characterizing liberal Republicans and Democrats as fascists simply don’t understand the meaning of the term.

Read More…


function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) {
if (type == “comments”) {
extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID));
extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID));
} else {
extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID));
extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID));
}
if( document.getElementById ) {
if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) {
if( entryLink != 0 ) {
document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”;
document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”;
htmlObj.blur();
} else {
document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”;
document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”;
}
} else {
location.href = entryLink;
return true;
}
} else {
location.href = entryLink;
return true;
}
}
Our debased educational system teaches students to apply the term fascist indiscriminately to any object of loathing.  I am instead using the term to describe the specific characteristics of a class of economic and political thought.

The most basic dividing line between sociopolitical outlooks in the Western world is regulation and control vs. limits and balances, collectivism vs. individualism.  American liberalism is based on the former.  Our Constitution, on the latter, expressed by Jefferson’s aphorism that the best government governs the least.

Fascism is not a unique phenomenon.  It is a logical conclusion to one of the two basic conceptions of social order.  If one believes that, without the guidance of government, most people are incapable of knowing their own best interests and of doing the right thing to further their interests, then he is already moving in the direction of Fascism, albeit with the best of intentions.

Hence the liberal social-welfare, nanny-state, summed up by President Clinton’s press secretary Dee Dee Myers, who said that only the Federal government has the power to improve people’s lives.

More

Buying Votes

Liberals, both Republicans and Democrat/Socialists, cynically keep reciting socialist fairy tales to a public, which unfortunately, believes them.

Megalomaniacal President Franklin Roosevelt in the New Deal created the myth that government can manage the economy as if it were a single private business.  Bureaucratic planners, operating under Fascist-style collective powers to control agriculture and business, wrapped the economy in red tape.

Everything. however, boiled down to the proposition that problems in the economic cycle could be fixed only with large doses of government deficit spending.

It failed to work – in fact, made matters far worse – from 1929 until 1941.

It still doesn’t work.

Read the recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Of Jobs and ‘Stimulus.’

More

The New Deal Would Have Worked, If…

Liberal-progressive-socialists again eagerly anticipate returning to the disastrously failed economic policies of Franklin Roosevelt.  Apparently religious faith in socialism outweighs rational consideration of evidence.

Read More…


function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) {
if (type == “comments”) {
extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID));
extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID));
} else {
extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID));
extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID));
}
if( document.getElementById ) {
if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) {
if( entryLink != 0 ) {
document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”;
document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”;
htmlObj.blur();
} else {
document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”;
document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”;
}
} else {
location.href = entryLink;
return true;
}
} else {
location.href = entryLink;
return true;
}
}
The standard liberal-progressive-socialist litany is that socialism, in the New Deal and subsequent years, would have succeeded, if only the government had spent more money for a longer time.

Many liberals lament that the New Deal didn’t go far enough in socializing the economy.  That was a major reason for the savage antagonism between the liberal establishment of the 1960s and the New Left student radicals like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the spiritual parents of president-elect Obama’s educational policies.

In addition to blind religious faith in the secular religion of socialism, liberal-progressives are beset by ignorance.  For three generations, students have been taught a completely false version of the Depression’s causes and of the actual results attained by President Roosevelt’s New Deal.

More