Friday, July 31, 2009

Big Brother is Here

If you thought the government was getting too intrusive before, wait until you see the Cash for Klunkers program. This is a nearly unbelievable report on a government website that, if you click on it, the government says it owns your computer and everything in it for any use foreign or domestic. Watch:

Tank about stupid government tricks. This government is simply vile.

Right to Health Care?

IOst the a right to health care? My answer is, "of course not. But what if there were? What would that mean, really? Teh Democrats leap from the "right" to government paying for it. Rich Hrebic put it well in an article in the American Thinker:
A right is not a guarantee that the government (i.e., other people) will provide you something for free. We have the right to engage in religious expression, but that doesn't mean that the government pays for the construction of the church. We have the right to peacefully assemble, but the government doesn't promise to supply your transportation. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but don't expect the government to provide you with a free firearm and bullets. You have the right to free speech, but the government won't grant you free radio or TV air time.
Even if there were a "right" to health care, it just means one cannot be refused health care provided on pays for it. Still, I don't think a doctor should be required, for example, to accept medicaid patients if the doctor does not want the collection hassle. Nor should a female doctor be forced to accept male patients if she prefers to specialize in females. Nor should nay doctor be force to accept me as a patient if they are already too busy ir if they just don't like me. See, there should not be any "right" to health care, especially if the right to health care runs smack dab up against a doctor's right to refuse a patient.

As an aside, all too many doctors have frittered away their rights to refuse to treat particular patients by becoming hospital employees. Now they have employers with all the rights of employers.

What a Country!

Only in America do the the taxpayers get to pay for housing for illegal aliens. Including Obama's Auntie.

Does anyone really this this is right?

Personally, I would have lots more sympathy for the woman if she were a working, productive member of our society. Our system for legal immigrants is outrageously bad. The bureaucrats seem to work overtime to punish those who try to follow the arcane rules. It is no wonder that there are so many here illegally. Still, taxpayers should not be subsidizing their housing. If they need subsidized housing, they should not qualify to be here (absent a genuine asylum claim).

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Is Barack a Racist?

Glenn Back presents that case the Barack Obama is a racist explaining definitions and using demonstrative quotes to build the case. Listen here.

I don't know where I stand on this, but Obama's reaction to the Henry Gates incident was disquieting. I don't like very many of Obama's policies. I do not like his Marxist economics. I am not yet ready to accuse him of being a racist. Nor am I ready to defend him.

If anyone wants to comment, agree or disagree, on Glenn Beck's case, I will publish it. I will not publish comments that merely attacks Glenn Beck or attacks Barack Obama without reference to the facts set forth by Glenn Beck. The comments must discuss the issue or his reasoning of the issue only.

I will censor out comments that merely insult the person rather than discussing the ideas presented. I said it twice. I mean it.

A Lawyer Who Gave His All

From the annals of history, here is one about a lawyer that gave his all to win his case:
Death by Jury Demonstration

After the Civil War, controversial Ohio politician Clement Vallandigham [wiki] became a highly successful lawyer who rarely lost a case.

In 1871, he defended Thomas McGehan who was accused of shooting one Tom Myers during a barroom brawl. Vallandigham’s defense was that Myers had accidentally shot himself while drawing his pistol from a kneeling position.

To convince the jury, Vallandigham decided to demonstrate his theory. Unfortunately, he grabbed a loaded gun by mistake and ended up shooting himself!

By dying, Vallandigham succeeded in demonstrating the plausibility of the accidental shooting and got his client acquitted.
From the 30 Strangest Deaths in History. H/t The Funeral Guy.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Government Censors Try to Stifle Republican Dissent on Health Care

There are two recent incidents by the Franklin Commission that uses your tax money to send out Congressional mail.

John Lott reports on the Franking Commission's insisting on changing "government run health care" to "public option."

Michelle Malkin reports on the refusal of the Franking Commission to approve the mailing of this diagram of the Democrats' proposed health care system.

Do you Believe in the Constitution?

"Sure I do. I've even seen a copy." That is about as close as most of Congress gets to the Constitution, much less the principles embodied in it. From the Tenth Amendment Center:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Our Founding Fathers – specifically Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Patrick Henry – demanded the original Constitution provide for a legal means of bringing finality of any government’s legitimacy directly back into the hands of the people at large whenever the people so desired. The framers broke the Mighty 10th into two actionable lines of defense against a King George government:
1) the states (“powers…are reserved to the States respectively…”), and
2) the people (“powers…are reserved…to the people.”)
The Tenth Amendment makes it clear to those who can read with an open mind that Congress has only that power specifically delegated to it. No more. Yet, Congress and the Supreme Court have exercised and permitted the exercise of powers far exceeding those limited powers.

By doing so, Congress and the Supreme Court have usurped rights of the states and rights of the people.

Where in the Constitution is Congress specifically authorized to adopt totalitarian health care. Nowhere. Not the "general welfare clause." Not the "interstate commerce clause." Not read or understand as the framers of the constitution understood them, anyway.

Read the Bill

John Conyers. What a doofus.

He can't understand why he should have to read a 1000 page bill. He apparently thinks that it is OK to vote on a bill and not know what is in it.

Repeal Congress. Now.
Fire. Them. All.

Obamacare versus Canadacare

From Social Science Research Network:

Using recent survey data, this article examines how Canadians compare with insured Americans and uninsured Americans in their level of satisfaction with their health care. The data reveal that the vast majority of Americans, whether insured or uninsured, get timely access to quality care and are satisfied with it. It further finds that for most comparisons, Canadians are experiencing satisfaction levels much closer to that of America’s uninsured than they are to America’s insured.
If we enact Obamacare, how many millions of Canadians will be left without a health care safety net when they can't get timely care in their own country.

Robber Defended by Illiterate Product of Our Schools

I am always interested in news about ordinary citizens defending themselves from violent criminals. The following was reported by WFTV, Orange County, Florida on July 25:
Deputies say Miguel Jimenez was walking into his apartment at Villa Tuscany near Ocoee when 18-year-old Andri Benjamin ran up, put a gun in his face and tried to rob him.
But Jimenez was carrying a loaded revolver and a concealed weapons permit to go along with it.
He pulled his gun out and shot Benjamin several times, killing him.

There are lots of these stories. But what really struck me was to be found in the comments section in which nearly all commenters said that the would-be robber had it coming:
U guys are racist and has no heart bra that was my friend who got shot and killed me and him went to the same school we was in the same class telling jokes and we graduated togther. he had job i dont know why he did somthing like this but this is life everybody makes mistake. but to that guy Miguel Jimenez you didnt have to shoot my homeboi seven time you could at least shot him at leg but new you gonna shoot my dawg seven time to he bleed and die. now i got to go to my dawg funeral what type of stuff this since you all big and bad why you aint shoot the other victim.this is bull but i aint got say no more imma let GOD handel this. R.I.PAndri Benjamin

Jul. 26, 2009 11:34pm EDT | from zoe
Wow. "... me and him went to the same school we was in the same class ...." What does that say about the robber, given the literacy shown by Zoe?

Why should a guy get killed just for making a mistake like shoving a gun in a victim's face? What a thought process we see in the likes of Zoe.

As for Zoe's logic against all the racists who think robbers who shove guns in victims faces deserve to get shot, "why you aint shoot the other victim[?]" The other robber who did not get shot is a "victim" now? By the way, the race of the deceased criminal was not mentioned in the print article.

Watch it folks, the schools are letting the Zoes of the world out on the street. And they are voting, too.

Homergrown Jihad Arrest in North Carolina

Here is a report of the arrest of accused homegrown terrorists planning jihad attacks somewhere abroad. Interesting. The words "Muslim" and "Islam" are never mentioned. However, note how the report managed to communicate that the arrestees were in fact Muslim. Watch.

Obama Consistent -- In Supporting Our Enemies

Hot Air commentary points out that the Obama administration continues to toady to Honduran Marxist former dictator-for-life (now deposed) by refusing visas for current Honduran officials (who want to live in peace with a constitutional government). On the other hand, Obama is seeking to open negotiations with the Taliban (who wants to kill us).

Would anybody in their right mind vote ever for that guy (Obama) in any election?

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Mary Jo Kilroy Embarrasses Ohio

I suppose this is old news, but I ran across a clip of Mary Jo Kilroy embarrassing herself and the voters or Central Ohio by filibustering a non-answer to a simple question when she was asked to explain a vote.

The sad thing is that based upon the information that I have (admittedly incomplete), I probably would have voted the same way. Off the top of my head, I can think of four simple and direct answers that Kilroy could have given. But instead, she made a fool of herself -- and us in the 15th Congressional District of Ohio.

I suppose she does not know why whoever is pulling her strings told her to vote that way. What else can we conclude?

Mr. Obama Continues to Fuel Birth Controversy

I am definitely not a birther. However, the birth controversy will never die until a copy of Obama's original birth record is produced. The Hawaii officials say that they have an original birth record, but state law prohibits them from releasing a copy for privacy reasons presumably without Mr. Obama's consent. Some contend that Mr. Obama won't consent because the birthers won't be satisfied anyway. They will come up with forgery theories or some such.

I suspect there is a different reasons.

I suspect the birth record states the baby Obama's religion is Muslim. If so, that would result in additional controversy.

Now, I do not believe Mr. Obama is a Muslim. He attended the United Church of Christ for 20 years. I don't contend he is a Christian, either, from what I know of that church's beliefs, but he might be. In any event, no matter what his birth certificate might say, he is not a Muslim, culturally or by faith.

Obama's Gates Gate

There is no doubt the President Obama rushed to judgment when, admitting he did not have all the facts, he pronounced that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly." The Cambridge police officers, black and white, support their guy:

There a still facts of the incident missing from our knowledge. We don't know what was said to Professor Gates that set him off. We don't know if Professor Gates's tirade was gathering a crowd outside on the street, which would make an arrest for disorderly conduct necessary to prevent an escalating public disturbance. We don't know whether there was some sort of bullying by police officers. All that will no doubt come out over time.

We do know this. When it came to race-based accusations, President Obama lept into the fray without his facts.

It is pretty scary to have a president where race wins even if he does not have facts.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Obama Reacts Swiftly -- and Wrongly

In August 2008, the Russians invaded Georgia. John McCain's campaign immediately issued a statement denouncing the invasion. Candidate Obama's campaign took a wait and see attitude, saying it did not yet have all the facts.

Fast forward almost one year. An African-American buddy of Obama's gets verbally abusive with police officers who were trying to protect his home from a reported potential burglary, President Obama immediately announces that the Cambridge police acted stupidly even while admitting he did not have all the facts.

Hmm. What are we to take from this? It seems that Obama is not the post-racial president after all. If a Black is involved, he immediately assumes that the Black was right and the white was wrong -- not knowing that a Black and a Hispanic officer were also involved.

Is this a sign of more of the same to come?

The actual incident report supports the Cambridge police action. The white officer involved has a history of action, including the (unsuccessful) mouth-to-mouth rescusitation of a Black victim. But, I emphasize the not all the facts are in, yet. It was wrong to call the police actions stupid without having all the facts.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Palin Ethics Complaint Probable Cause Finding

Governor Sarah Palin has need subject to many frivolous ethics complaints. Now one complaint has been investigated and the investigator has issued a report stating that there is probable cause to believe that the Governor's legal defense fund is a breach of the Alaska ethics law.

The report is supposed to be confidential. Is anyone surprised that the leftists have leaked it? The report is here. The complaint contends that the Alaska Trust Fund, by paying Governor Palin's personal attorneys' fees, will result in her getting a prohibited financial benefit from her being governor. The report is notable in two respects. The investigator, Thomas M. Daniel, appears to by sympathetic to the injustice of his conclusion, because he recommends that the legislature provide for reimbursement of attorneys' fees defending complaints that are dismissed. However, he concludes without adequate analysis that "There is little doubt that the Alaska Trust Fund will provide a benefit tot he Governor's financial interest." He cites no supporting case law for this conclusion.

The actual statute 39.52.120. reads, "(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain...."

It seems to me that Mr. Daniel has misunderstaood the statutory language and intent. Sarah Palin is facing numerous non-meritorious ethics complaints (including this) because of her position as governor and because of her national prominence (not to mention the Palin derangement syndrome of the political left). Far from using her position for gain, she is simply trying to break even. When she leaves office, this fund will not make her richer. It will merely protect her from being poorer.

The defense fund is not a financial benefit; it is expense reimbursement for expenses necessarily incurred as a consequence of being governor of Alaska.

Was this complaint one of the reasons that she is stepping down as governor? So she can get her attorneys fees paid?

Where Does He Find These People? Redux

The Obama administration has now sworn in a moonbat anti-war activist to be an Assistant Deputy Director of Defense at the Pentagon. Her name is Nancy Boyda. This time we know that Obama found her in Congress. She was a Democratic Representative from Topeka, Kansas.

The good news (if you can call it that) is that her reputation precedes her so that Pentagon Security can be extra watchful. And there is always the possibility that her exposure to hardworking rational people at the Pentagon and to the real military issues our country faces will actually convert her.

The list of poor appointments continues to grow. Like weeds.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Russ Carnahan Fools No One in Audience

Russ Carnahan (D MO) must be pretty stupid. Or completely intellectually dishonest. Fortunately, his audience wasn't.

Watch and enjoy.

On Friday the Congressional Budget Office reported that the Obamacare bill is a complete budget-buster. Deficit neutral indeed.

Especially enjoy the final question from the audience.

Barbarism in Iran

If you don't think this Islamic practice is disgusting, get out of my blog. The following comes from an interview with a former Iranian prison guard as reported in the Jerusalem Post:

He said he had been a highly regarded member of the force, and had so "impressed my superiors" that, at 18, "I was given the 'honor' to temporarily marry young girls before they were sentenced to death."

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a "wedding" ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard - essentially raped by her "husband."

"I regret that, even though the marriages were legal," he said.

Why the regret, if the marriages were "legal?"

"Because," he went on, "I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their 'wedding' night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.

"I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over," he said. "I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her."
The odd thing is that he appears to be one of the good guys, a member of the Iranian worse is that set free youthful protesters and was sent to prison for it.

I hope this barbaric practice was limited to the Islamic Republic of Iran, but I wonder.

h/t The Funeral Guy

New Constitutional Right?

Every state, as far as I know, recognizes a right to self-defense as a matter of state law. Nowhere in the United States Constitution is there an enumerated right of self-defense. The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution -- long (and foolishly) disliked by certain conservatives because of its use to support a woman's right to have an abortion -- states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Will a right of self-defense be the next unenumerated right recognized by the courts?

An interesting blog run by Law Professor Eugene Volokh discusses whether self-defense is now a constitutional right implied by the Heller v. District of Columbia decision that struck down DC's gun ban in part to permit self defense in the home.

Diversity Hypocrisy at the Times

I wrote with approval about the Supreme Court's decision in RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL. and the next day, to no one's surprise really, the New York Times editorialized, "On Monday, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to diversity in the American workplace." On July 14, 2009, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote a critical column called, "White Man's Last Stand."

Today the American Spectator takes on Ms. Dowd and the Times for their diversity hypocrisy. It seems that the Time editorial board if very white (12% Black and Latino), as is the Op-Ed team of columnists including Ms. Dowd (19% Black, 0% Latino)) -- much whiter that the New Haven Fire Department (43% minority). A sample:
That's right. At the core of the beating intellectual heart of the left-wing establishment where such things are studied with the detail of Talmudic scholars, the New Haven fire department is doing more than three times better on race than the very liberal elites who have set themselves up as its sniffy critics. Perhaps instead of seething about "Firefighters and Race" the Times would have been better served by pondering "Editorial Writers and Race." Or perhaps: "Too Black to Write; New York Times Column Writing and Race."
It is well done. (Note: I do not accuse the New York Times of being any more racist than any other liberal group, i.e., the subtle Racism of low expectations, and typical liberal condescension, just affirmative action hypocrisy.)

Where Does Obama Find These People?

The whole cap-and-trade thing is bad enough, penalizing Americans for their (fictional) part in the man-made global warming fantasy. Now Obama's Commerce Secretary has said that Americans should pay for China's (again, fictional) contribution, according to Reuters and the Wall Street Journal.

Here is Commerce Secretary's Locke's original statement:
It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that.

Here is the Department of Commerce's "clarification" (or, more accurately, obfuscation:
Secretary Locke has been very clear on emphasizing the importance of fair trade as a part of the United States’ relationship with China. He believes U.S. companies should not be disadvantaged by Chinese imports not bound by responsible policies to reduce carbon emissions. China and the US must work together to ensure a level playing field and reduce our carbon footprints. The Secretary’s trip to China demonstrated his commitment to fair trade and his belief that both the United States and China can benefit from shared investments and cooperation in clean energy that will lead to commercial and environmental benefits for both countries.

Isn't it amazing that when one of the Obama folks say something stupid that they always come back with the fib that they have been very clear in saying something different?

In this case, the later obfuscation talks in terms of "fair trade" and "responsible policies" leaving all the fuzziness of what is fair and what is responsible up to anyone's interpretation. Note that the later obfuscation is not a repudiation of the original foolish statement.

They all need to be fired. Now. All of them.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Barbara Boxer, [insert epithet here.]

This is really hard to watch. It is really hard to watch this woman and not blurt out, shout out, yea, SCREAM, epithets that insult her over her arrogance, sex, politics, demeanor, intelligence and on and on.

What a _____! [you fill in the blank.]

Stimulus: Immediate? Not?

Would you buy a used car from this man?

Me either.

Promote Competition by Outlawing it -- Obama Style

Health care. Remember when President Obama said that he want a "government option" in the marketplace to "promote competition." Well, it seems that the way the administration's health care bill "promotes competition" is to prohibit competition from private individual insurers. Yes, that is what is buried in the 1018 page bill as reported by the Investor's Business Daily:
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
Read it all -- the article, not the bill, that is. Except Congresspersons. They should read the bill -- all of it -- for a change.

Why did Obama say one thing and his health care bill do something quite the opposite? Hmmmm?

Missing the KISS Principle

At least Obamacare is keeping it simple. Anyone could follow this flowchart, couldn't they?

Now, who do you call when Massa Government has refused Momma's needed hip replacement, because she is "too old" and "no longer productive," Comrade?

Porkulous Fails. Only Democrats Surprised.

From the Columbus Dispatch:
Ohio's unemployment rate reached 11.1 percent in June, up from 10.8 percent a month earlier, and the state lost another 33,000 jobs during the month, state job data released this morning show.
Thanks for the Porkulous. It is working so well. So much for the promise that the porkulous bill would keep unemployment below 8%.

Thanks, Barack. When your understanding of economics is based on Marxism (as yours is), no rational person is really surprised that your economic policies don't work.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Gaff-A-Day Joe Does it Again

CNS News reports:

Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.
What a goofball. And only a heartbeat away!!

Here is what the director of the Congressional Budget Office says:

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law.

Biden. What a joke.

Pull Out of Washington Now!

The following comment was reportedly published in the Australian Shooter magazine:
“Considering that there's been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives the Iraq war a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C . for the same period was 80.6 per 100,000.

That means you're 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. capital (which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S.) than you are in Iraq.”

Conclusion: "The U.S. should pull out of Washington!"
Too true. Stop the carnage. Pull out now.

Bring a Gun to Church Day

Read about the aftermath and assessment of the Bring-A-gun-to-Church Day.

Making churches "gun free zones" does not make me feel safe. How about you?

Protests Over Lack of Publicity of Horrible Crime

Mahmoud El-Yousseph, a local Muslim activist, with whom I am on friendly terms but with whom I frequently disagree, has contacted me about the case of Marwa El-Sherbini who was the victim of a despicable murder that actually occurred inside a courtroom in Dresden, Germany.according to the UK Guardian:
Unemployed Alex W. from Perm in Russia was found guilty last November of insulting and abusing Sherbini, screaming "terrorist" and "Islamist whore" at her, during the Dresden park encounter. He was fined ¤780 but had appealed the verdict, which is why he and Sherbini appeared face to face in court again.
During her testimony in court, "Alex W." (who is oddly not identified in the article with his actual last name) strode across the courtroom and stabbed her 18 times. Her three-year-old son was present in the courtroom as was her husband. Apparently her husband was shot trying to save her when the court security officer mistook him for another attacker. There seems no question that Alex W. was motivated by anti-Muslim animus. The guy deserves the death penalty if they even have that penalty in Germany (which I doubt).

Mahmoud complains about the lack of international publicity over this horrific case. Of course, there are "street protests" (riots?) in Egypt, because the case is not getting enough international publicity. (They seem to have an awful lot of street protests over there. Maybe because they don't have American Idol to watch at night.) There was no rioting in Egypt or anywhere else when the persecution of Coptic Christians routinely get little international publicity either. See here and here.

To me the only reason that new media would want to give this horrible case more publicity is (1) the incredibly bad security in the German court that allowed it to happen; (2) the pubic interest in the awful and tragic circumstances and the true rarity of violence against Muslims for their religion, as opposed to the far more common violence in the other direction. Dog bites man is not news, man bites dog is news. (No., I am not calling this poor victim and her husband dogs. "Man bites dog" is a commonly states, time-honored test of newsworthiness.)

So why the street protests? Isn't Germany going to the prosecute the guy? Of course it is. It seems to me that the street protests are a supremacy thing.

Update:There is an interesting series of articles on the moderately left-wing Harry's Place about differences in reporting of Muslim terrorists versus non-Muslim terrorists.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Who Did That?

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Who did this? Obama? Sounds like him, doesn't it? The quote is from the Declaration of Independence and one of the reasons we fought a war with England.

Are we now to accept from Washington outrages that we fought a war to get away from? Think about it.

Sotomayer and Gun Rights

If you love the freedom to own guns for self defense, today's answers by Judge Sotomayor have got to make you nervous (from Yahoo news):
Here's a capsule: Coburn, a strong advocate of individual gun ownership, found an intriguing way to question Sotomayor on that issue. First, he asked her how she could consider that the right to privacy (not mentioned in the Constitution) is settled law but the right to keep and bear arms (the Second Amendment) as unsettled.

Sotomayor started with her usual answer that judges don't make law.
A non-answer.
And she noted that the federal government and many states have laws restricting guns, such as possession of firearms by felons.
Apparently justifying future restrictions that any gun rights supporter would see as unreasonable.
Then the sparing got more interesting.

"Do I have a right to personal self-defense?" Coburn asked.

Sotomayor: "That's an abstract question."

Coburn: "That's what the public wants to know. Yes or no? Do we have that right?"

The judge thought for a moment, then came up with an answer based on her experience as a New York City prosecutor: "If there's a threat of serious injury you can use force. How imminent is the threat? If the threat is in this room and I go home get a gun and come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law."

Coburn: "What the American people want to see is what your gut says."

Sotomayor said that's not how judges decide cases.
.In other words she punted with as much of a non-answer as she could.


Dumbing Down

I am on record, if not here then elsewhere, that the election of Al Franken would dumb down the Senate. Al is working overtime to prove me right by asking Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor questions about Perry Mason episodes.

Unbelievable. And we are paying them for that.


Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Blood in the Streets

Whenever lawmakers enact rational gun legislation (i.e., fewer gun restrictions, such as concealed carry), the anti-gunner unfailingly predict "There will be blood in the streets." Of course the predictions of the anti-gunners are consistently, unfailingly wrong.

However it occurred to me that some increase in blood in the streets is not a bad thing, as long as it is blood shed by criminals as a result of their would-be victims defending themselves.

True examples from the news are collected at the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog.

Check it out.

Political Humor

I don't normally post humor on this blog, but I could not resist the following received in today's email:

Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little over 60 years ago,
witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens
aboard crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico
. This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by
the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations.

However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine
months after that historic day, the following people were born:

Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
John F. Kerry
William J. Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer

See what happens when aliens breed with sheep and jackasses?

I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for
you. It did for me.

No wonder they support the bill to help illegal aliens!

Now You Know.

Irish Eyes are Crying

Obviously, the lawmakers in Ireland, formerly a free country, have not been paying attention to the free speech debacle occurring in Canada with Canada's badly misnamed Human Rights Commissions. Now Ireland has made insulting anything held sacred by any religion into a crime. Irish Times. The law even includes a book-burning provision.

These sorts of laws have been commonly used by radical Islamists to stifle any criticism of Islam. In their view, any criticism of Islam is blasphemous. This law is like handing C4 to a suicide bomber.

Are they out of their minds?

Even scarier, the United Nations is contemplating an international proposal to do the same thing.


Monday, July 13, 2009

CMHA Official Calls Others "Knuckleheads."

In Columbus, Cleveland has long been known as the mistake on the lake. Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority officials seem determined to prove the truth of that epithet. CMHA officials object in the most publicly insulting terms to federal legislation that would require public housing projects to honor residents' Second Amendment right to keep firearms in one's own dwelling, even if that dwelling is public housing, according to a report in the Columbus Dispatch (note: link will probably go bad in five days). CMHA's police chief Andres "Andy" Gonzalez called Federal lawmakers "knuckleheads" for proposing to give people their constitutional rights.

If the Second Amendment were not clear enough, the Ohio Constitution is even clearer:
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
I suggest that the CMHA has its own knucklehead as chief of police. It seems to me only a knucklehead would believe that people are safer in their homes if they have no means of self-defense. After the history and experience of gun bans throughout the United States, it has become abundantly clear that gun bans make people less safe, if anything. However, knuckleheads don't need facts. History and logic don't matter.

If you ban guns, criminals won't have guns. Yeah, right.

I suppose, because we are addressing public housing, the residents should have the only the rights of slaves (i.e., no actual rights, only privileges granted by Massa government).

Of course this is nothing new for Cleveland. Cleveland is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Buckeye Firearms Association because Cleveland refuses to obey Ohio law on concealed carry permits. Read about it here and here.

Mistake on the lake. City of knuckleheads. All too true

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Mossberg 500

My wife has been after me for months to improve our home defense with a shotgun. Finally did it today at the gun show. Pistol-handled, pump action, 12 guage, Mossberg 500. My wife believes that mere sound of chambering the shell (ka-chunk) will scare off all but the most drugged-up burglar and the shotgun makes him or her hard to miss. So much for range practice with the Springfield and Glock handguns. No confidence in my skills with those, I guess.

I am grateful for her, though. Any guy should consider himself lucky when his wife wants him to buy another gun!

And she says she now feels safer in our (already safe) home.

For my libertarian-conservative commentary on the news, check

Thursday, July 09, 2009

Criminals Should Read This Blog

I believe, and statistics confirm, that gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens prevent crime. Police catch criminals. That is their job. Preventing crimes from happening to you is YOUR job. Having said that, more criminals need to read the Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog to get real world examples about why being a criminal is hazardous to the health. It is good for the rest of us to read, too.

Gender Silliness