Sorry boys, putting a gun rack in a Chevy Volt is just not acceptable.
-- Katie Pavlich
Via Looking in the Mirror
Guns are like sex, every generation thinks it all began with them. Greybeards stroke their walnut stocks and glass-bedded barrels and quote W.D.M. Bell and Townsend Whelen. Newbies are dazzled by Star Wars props wrapped around cartridges older than their parents and believe, deeply and sincerely, that looks can kill or at least ought to. Picatinny-mounted "tactical" cup holders can't be far off. Enthusiasts speak of guns in terms of received truthettes, say, ballistic coefficients or pressure profiles and the like, as if it were a kozmik kalling to proselytize among their fellows with no apparent benefit to either. Gun haters ask us to be shocked that firearms are "allowed" to the citizenry and intimate they appeared during the Kennedy administration as some reversible misstep, like tail fins on cars.
Demographics is a reliable indicator of preference. Those who came of age after World War II when the place was awash in surplus Garands and Mausers stand distinct and different from the following wave which lusted after wildcats so zippy the bullets were in danger of disintegrating into a blue cloud immediately upon exiting the muzzle. Now we're seeing the adoration of sheer mass, the "bullets as speeding locomotives" school harking back to the 1861 Joslyn or World War I tank busters. The intent seems to crush as much as to penetrate. There's something in this for everybody. Enthusiasts heft those cigar-size rounds and caress those chunky muzzle brakes with moistened eyes and reverent hands. Gun haters are happily re-shocked and demand to know what legitimate use there is for, say, a .50What gun, or guns, should the survivalist rely on? , knowing full well the legitimate use for any gun is to put a bullet down range. After that it's all opinion and tediously so.
I was reading an article from the Speed TV site, “Where have all of the Southern drivers gone?”, from a few days ago, and it got me to thinking just a bit. My going into ‘thinking’ mode usually involves an arrest, life-threatening injuries, a smashed box of Twinkies, and an unhappy child somewhere in Florida, so I warned my family to put on their ‘Dear God, Dad is thinking again!’ body armor, we primed the indoor fire sprinkler system, they ran to the basement, I sat down to my computer, put my hands on the keyboard, turned my head away as if the keyboard was going to explode in my face, and I began typing this.
While the author of that article throws around a few salient observations, she completely misses the point in such a way that it makes the captain of the doomed Exxon Valdez appear as if he had a mild ‘whoops!’ when he somehow missed the entire coastline of Alaska sitting there right in front of him: The dirty little secret is that the France Cartel has been attempting to weed the ‘South’ out of NASCAR for quite some time…but they’re still milking this geographic area for all it’s worth. Follow me a bit as I attempt to explain the logic behind my reasoning.
The left has had "its center of gravity in social issues" since the French Revolution, he says. "Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we've had a good illustration of it in the last month or so." [Emphasis mine.]
The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. "Nature's God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it's more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn't particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you're a social conservative."
Current and former service members staged a rally outside the White House today in support of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.The ironic thing is that many members of the military openly despise their slobbering Republican "supporters" who are so eager to show their enthusiasm for the military by waving flags as they send its members off to die for Afghan democracy, Iraqi oil, the national security of Israel... and whatever the purported rationale for being in Somalia was.
Several hundred troops and their supporters attended the event. The veterans were men and women, young and old, some in uniform and some in plain clothes.
The demonstration was a mostly silent affair, with the veterans standing calmly at attention in rows. An organizer bellowed that each second of quiet was for every military suicide since President Obama took office. A second moment of silence was for each soldier to die abroad under the current commander in chief.
Will the economy (stupid) again determine the outcome of a presidential election? Based on two important economic measures that I've examined and their relationship to the presidential races since 1956, Obama supporters have cause to worry.
All but the most recent of those races featured an incumbent, whether it was a sitting president (nine races out of 13) or a vice president seeking to move into the Oval Office (four out of 13). Based on consumer spending and unemployment—the two variables I tracked—Obama probably would have lost had he run for re-election this past November.
The numbers have improved since then, but not enough to tip the odds in the president's favor. (See summary data in the table below.)
|1956||Dwight D. Eisenhower||-0.6||Won|
|1964||Lyndon B. Johnson||3.6||Won|
|1988||George H. W. Bush||0.8||Won|
|1992||George H. W. Bush||-1.3||Lost|
|2004||George W. Bush||0||Won|
*Voters' Economic Well-Being = Consumer spending growth minus the jobless rate
It was all For The Planet, of course.
Global warming zealot Peter Gleick, in the name of defending “rational debate,” committed flabbergasting fraud to try and bring down the free-market Heartland Institute.
He’s finally ‘fessed up. But the Heartland Institute is going to fight for its reputation and for justice — in court.
........What’s left in France became the guillotine."
The political beliefs of Barack Obama, said Rick Santorum last week, come out of “some phony theology. ... Not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.”
Given the opportunity on “Face the Nation” to amend his remarks, Santorum declined the offer and plunged on:
“I don’t question the president’s faith. I’ve repeatedly said that I believe the president is a Christian. He says he is a Christian. I am talking about his worldview and the way he approaches problems in this country. ... They’re different than how most people do in America.”
Obama’s surrogates on the Sunday shows charged Santorum with questioning the president’s faith.
Not exactly. What Santorum is saying is that in the struggle for the soul of America, though Obama may profess to be, and may be, a Christian, he is leading the anti-Christian forces of what Pope Benedict XVI has called “radical secularism.”
In Plano, Texas, last week, Santorum was even more explicit:
The President’s wants to end the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program (FFDO), also known as the armed pilots program. If Congress were to follow President Obama’s recommendation contained in his $3.8 trillion FY2013 budget proposal, they would be making a huge mistake. This anti-terrorism program has been a success and a cost effective means to protect the cockpits of commercial aviation from 9-11 style terrorism.
The President’s budget lists the FFDO program as one of the few “cuts” to federal spending. They have reduced the program from the $25 million they received this year to $12 million for FY2013. This massive cut to the program would destroy it. Consider this evidence that the Obama Administration would be more happy to rely on intrusive screening procedures being applied to toddlers, the elderly, and Senators, rather than pilots with guns to provide a last line of defense to aviation terrorism.There is a saying in sports that the best referees are the ones you don’t even notice. Not many Americans understand the breadth and effectiveness of the armed pilots program, because the program has been scandal free. Our nation has not experienced another 9-11 style terrorist attack thanks in no small part to armed pilots in the cockpits of commercial aircraft to stop terrorists intent on using planes as weapons of mass destruction.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano disrespected Federal Flight Deck Officers (armed pilots) during a hearing yesterday in testimony presented to the House Homeland Security Committee. Sec. Napolitano showed a lack of knowledge about the program in addition to an intent to kill it over the next few years.
How would you define “unemployment?” Statistics on unemployment are bandied around in the media all the time. Changes in these statistics are hailed as good or bad news for the President, with varying degrees of emphasis from the news networks, depending on which party the President belongs to. But what do these statistics truly measure?
Would you define “unemployment” as measuring “people who want a job, but can’t get one?” This is, broadly speaking, the definition embraced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The trick to making those numbers dance lies in measuring “people who want a job.” The widely reported U-3 unemployment metric, currently standing at 8.3 percent, is very aggressive in shaving off people who have not made recent efforts to find work. It is further distorted by massive “seasonal adjustments,” which made over a million people vanish into thin air last month.
This is why the official unemployment rate gets lower when the American workforce contracts. Workforce contraction is a very bad thing. People who simply cannot find work, and languish on unemployment insurance for years, are the last thing a prosperous country needs… but those people don’t count in the official unemployment rate. For example, if everyone under the age of 25 abruptly stopped looking for work, it would be an economic disaster, but the official unemployment rate would go down, because the pool of people looking for work would get smaller.
American firearm sales and concealed handgun permit applications are at all-time highs since the 2008 election of President Barack Obama. President Obama's perceived hostility towards gun owners has been one of the key factors behind the multi-year financial boom the firearms industry continues to enjoy. In fact, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is actively preparing to work to defeat President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, according to Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA, who recently said the following at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C.:
"Lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term. We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution...When the sun goes down on election day Barack Obama will have America’s gun owners to thank for his defeat.” -
Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, February 10th, 2012
Ironically, the perceived hostility towards gun owners by President Obama has actually helped the firearms industry tremendously. Since the 2008 election, more Americans than ever before are purchasing firearms & ammunition. This has meant massive increases in sales by firearm & ammunition makers, billions more in federal and state tax collections related to guns & ammo, increased membership in the NRA, and hundreds of thousands of new Americans carrying concealed handguns. Therefore, should the firearms industry support President Obama for a second term or not?
Courtesy of Ammo.net
I believe the following:
I believe in the Bill of Rights.
I believe that the rights of American citizens supersede those of non-citizens within the borders of this great nation, yet the government desires to institute an international or global standard of jurisprudence upon the people.
I believe in using cash to prevent the risk of credit fraud or excessive waste and accumulation of debt for everyday or weekly purchases, while avoiding enslavement to the banks as a debtor.
I believe in acquiring goods and services in large quantities or small without having to answer to others.
I believe the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution only asks that I demonstrate that I am sane, legally able to, and of age to acquire firearms and ammunition but not explain why I wish to purchase a firearm to a neighbor, stranger, or bureaucrat.
I believe the United States must divorce itself from foreign entanglements and begin the process of repatriating our troops home, while honoring those who have served, and assisting the families of the fallen.