Sunday, April 3, 2011
|What do you think?|
Thursday, March 31, 2011
|What do you think?|
Monday, March 14, 2011
President Present sure has had his hands full lately hasn’t he?
He’s had to vote present on a whole lot of things these past couple of years, but it seems like recently he has increased his work load to include even the more “big ticket” items.
“Assault on Unions” aside? Present.
Why that poor man has been so busy that it was recently reported that a staffer had overheard him say something to the effect of, “It would be easier to be the President of China.” That glorious personage probably doesn’t have to listen to quite as much criticism of his job, that lucky scamp!
I’m just glad that we pay him $400,000 a year in salary to handle all this tough Perfect Presidential Attendance. The only thing I ever got Perfect Attendance in was Wines and Spirits class in cooking college. Yes, really. I know first hand how difficult it can be to show up day after day to perform the grueling task of just being there.
That poor bastard.
At least he got a break from all that relentless physical existence by speaking recently against bullying in schools. He confided to the Nation that he too had been bullied as a child. He shared with us that his large ears and “funny name” were natural lightning rods for derision and ridicule. Now it’s his large deficit and funny economic policies that attract the slings and arrows of outrageously outrageous outrage.
He just can’t win, can he?
In other matters relevant to Obama, he recently fired the spokesman of the State Department P. J. Crowley for his vocal criticisms of the treatment of Bradley Manning by the Department of Defense. This went over wonderfully with his base as one might expect. A quick jaunt through Democratic Underground and FireDogLake show the esteemed readership there to be in polite disagreement with the White House’s actions.
It would appear as well that they too are noticing this trend towards the taking on of greater Sustainable Static Existential Responsibility within the Oval Office.
In the words of my father:
“If I didn’t think he despised me as much as I despise him, I might feel sorry for the guy”.
|What do you think?|
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
“This is why we can’t have nice things.”
So one degenerate goes and uses a 30 round magazine (See that? That's right proper English Language Definition, that is. Try it some time, MSM) to kill 6 people and attempt the assassination of an elected official and now we must all be punished. While I understand the strongest argument of the proponents of this measure in that such an item does in fact make it easier to simply spray wantonly into a crowd of people, I can also think of at least one other thing that we have that defies legitimization:
Cars that can go over 100 mph in a country that has 80 as the highest known (to this writer) speed limit.
Try legislating against this and you’ll see a bi-partisan effort mounted to stop you complete with the speech, “Sure, only a ridiculously small percentage of Americans go to the track and legally race their cars at speeds in excess of normal speed limits, but this is America and they can do so if they like!”
Yeah, it’s not what I like to do, but it is legal at a race track, and some folks really go in for that sort of thing. Kinda like some folks just love to go blow 30 rounds downrange to let off steam. Funny thing is, one of these things has a higher death toll than the other. Care to wager a guess as to which one?
If your primary argument for considering the banishment of anything is that your opponent can’t think of a single legitimate use for said item that satisfies you, then maybe you should review your premise and start over. Just my opinion, but I stand by it.
To view this from another direction, allow me to tell you about my EDC. An EDC for those of you who aren’t “hip” to my lingo, is one’s Every Day Carry. I consider my EDC to be more than just one handgun. It’s the whole set-up or “rig” in Firearm Enthusiast parlance. I carry a Glock 21sf on my right (strongside) hip, a Glock 30 in crossdraw on my left (weakside) hip, and a spare G21 magazine behind that. I carry other things daily as well, but let’s focus on the guns here.
I have modified my G21 magazines to hold 2 more rounds than the factory magazines can hold (13+2=15). I used extensions that can be easily purchased online for a small amount of money. All three of my G21 magazines now hold 15 rounds apiece. Additionally, due to Gaston Glock’s genius, these magazines can be inserted into the G30 as a reload to give a 15 round capacity to a gun that ordinarily holds 10 (+1 in the chamber). This means that:
EVEN WITH THE BAN, I CAN HOLD 30 ROUNDS IN TWO GUNS AND SPRAY DEATH INTO A CROWD.
In fact, I could be more dangerous in such a situation because I have two delivery systems instead of just one. Take one away, and I’m still spraying death. And before you snidely suggest that we simply ban the practice of carrying two guns, stop and think for a second. How would you enforce such a law? The Police have better things to do than ask everyone they meet if they’re carrying two guns. Plus, people can say anything to an Officer of the Law or just shake their head "no" and keep going. Such a law would see it's vast application After The Fact realistically speaking. A Perp shot up a store and killed three people? He also had a second gun on him? Charge him with the extra law to lengthen the sentence. It didn’t stop or prevent anything, but it gave the Police more things to charge the Bad Guy with AFTER the Bad Guy Deed was committed.
All in all, this proposed ban is just a pleasant looking Band-aid on a very unpleasant Sucking Chest Wound. It will stop no one from committing heinous acts of inhumanity, nor will it prevent the use of high-capacity magazines in the commission of crimes. Felons can’t own guns legally, but they still get them somehow. Their criminals, ya know. They do criminal things from time to time.
I would be much more open to ideas that keep guns out of the hands of maniacs like Jared Lee Laughner. Like making it a part of the process to receive your Federal Firearms License (FFL; required to buy/sell firearms commercially) that you have to take a class on profiling like the airports in Israel use to find terrorists and other assorted Bad Guys BEFORE they get on the plane. Must work well, there has never been a single hijacking in the several decades of Israel's existence.
What I’m not open to is the outright banning of inanimate objects simply because some low-life decided to use one to commit a mindless act of violence. Blame the human, not the tool.
As to Laughner? Well, I propose a law that all his (and any future assassin's) “writings” both tangible and electronic should be stacked into a big pile at the bottom of a pit with him on top. Put 3 dirt-cheap .22LR rounds in his skull and light the whole thing on fire. Don’t “study” any of it. He’s crazy. Don’t immortalize him. He’s not worth it. Don’t acknowledge anything from him as anything but what we must all reject in our civil society. And when the fire goes out, fill in the hole and salt the Earth.
|What do you think?|
Thursday, May 13, 2010
You know, it occurs to me after seeing this video that there is something very wrong going on.
The open display of Hostile Intent as witnessed by anyone who watches this is indicative of a larger threat. The vocal admission of hatred and intolerance seen here demonstrates a clear and present danger to our society.
I want you to imagine that the man at the podium is not a Jew, but a Black American discussing Segregation and other related topics, and the questioner is not a Muslim college girl, but a southern White man. Now imagine the reaction that would be felt the nation over were the White man to profess his hatred of the Blacks and wish for their eventual removal from the Earth with a transparent statement of “For it.”
This girl’s open and disturbingly honest (she didn’t even blink) answer to an equally open and honest question is the smoke, and to me, that is the proof of a fire.
That fire must be found and extinguished.
The question regarding the extent of our Freedom of Speech begins to arise. How far can someone go before they have committed a crime that is recognizable by society as a whole? Not just by one part, or some, but easily condemned by everyone as “Evil” and therefore punishable by the Law. Has this girl committed such an act?
No she has not.
As deplorable as it may be, the admission of moral support to any cause, however sick and twisted, is not a crime. One may profess one’s love for any idea however wretched and decrepit without fear of reprisal by the Law. It is actions that concern the Law, and it is action that galvanizes a society to protect itself.
While the video above can be described as “Galvanizing”, it is not the scene of a crime. So who is the true culprit here?
This girl referred to the Muslim Student Association (MSA) not with the neutral “it” but rather with the inclusive “we”. She is a part of the MSA. She even demonstrated this inclusion by disclosing the fact that no one helps with the cost of their annual “Hitler Youth Rallies” (her words). Further, her question is not only requesting detailed explanations concerning alleged connections between her College Club (the MSA) and Terrorist Organizations, but also she is doing so in an obviously defensive and dismissively sarcastic manner.
This eliminates the ability for us to reflexively write her off as an “Individual”, a “Lone Wolf”, or an “Outsider”. The possibility of her being a “Rogue” is possible, but I do not think that this is the case, as I hope to show. Regardless, it is safe to assume that she is someone’s apparatchik. A puppet led by strings from above. She is a symptom, not the disease, and I am more than willing to propose for the sake of argument that she is not alone.
So my next question is where did she receive her indoctrination? How did she become so filled with hatred for the Jews? I posit that the MSA had something to do with it. Between her jarring answer and Mr. Horowitz’s statements describing previous experiences with the same group on other UC campuses (and I’ll show that they are in other places as well), it would seem that they were instrumental in the fomenting of her naked aggression.
Other sources lend weight to this idea, and I would remind you that this videographed incident did not take place in a vacuum.
The fact that Faisal Shahzad, notorious for his attempt to bomb Times Square in New York, attended the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut from 2000 to 2005 is one of those supporting sources. You see, the University’s own website proudly shows the MSA to be one of their Registered College Clubs.
You don’t suppose that a man born and raised in Pakistan to a Muslim family that later came to America would join something like the Muslim Student’s Association in college would you? I would.
Am I saying that the MSA might have something to do with the attempted bombing of Times Square?
If the girl in the video is any indication of what “rolls off the assembly line”, I doubt that they would argue much with the motivations necessary for such a horrific act.
This whole thing reminds me of a case that happened in 1970. A man was put on trial for murder, but not for any actual killing committed by him personally. He was a charismatic leader who convinced his “Family” to do it for him. That man was found guilty.
His name was Charles Manson.
He is currently living in the California Penal System, and every year, they bring him out to verify for the world to see that he is in fact still crazy, hateful, and perfectly willing to continue killing. California, to its credit, will never parole Charles Manson. No one who is right in the head thinks that he has any business out among the rest of us.
Mostly due to his existence as an Indelible Image of Evil, I imagine.
To sum it up, I think that it is time for the Federal Government to begin investigating certain groups to see if they have violated the law by doing the same thing. By preaching their particular brands of hatred to our impressionable youth, they are creating in effect thousands of potential seeds. The greater the number of seeds planted, the greater the chance of another Times Square attempt, another Oklahoma City Bombing, or another murdered abortion doctor.
Was Faisal Shahzad in the MSA? Did the MSA steer him in the direction of Radical Islam? If so, should the MSA or the responsible individuals within that organization face a Grand Jury on murder charges using the precedence that convicted Charles Manson? Can any organization in this country that promotes hatred and violence towards any other sub-section of society be held accountable for it’s evil teachings?
I don’t know.
But someone should find out, and soon…
|What do you think?|
Thursday, August 6, 2009
I haven't written anything since July 4th, and that fact has been bugging me ever since. In all fairness to you, my readers (all glorious 3 of you), I will cease any activity on this site effective immediately.
I am currently working on a project that I hope will impact politics in this country with a friend of mine. He and I will be devoting our time and efforts solely to it's success, and as such, we cannot afford the distraction of attempting to write about the "Daily Grind" of American Politics.
I appreciate your dedication in following me, and I want to thank you for your kind words of encouragement during my brief tenure as an amateur journalist.
I may from time to time write something here about the project and give you the "inside scoop" as to it's progress, but that will not be for some time.
Thanks again, and God bless you all.
“The secret to a rich life is to have more beginnings than endings.” ~ David Weinbaum
|What do you think?|
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Now, on to the news:
So, Palin has resigned as Governor. Wow. Her interesting and vague statement regarding "lame-ducks" as a reason for her decision is...
Aside from my belief that the retired writers of the now defunct "Guiding Light" have begun to write the script for American Politics, I am thoroughly surprised by this move from Alaska's erstwhile Governor.
After only a little over 30 months in office, and a particularly vicious Vice-Presidential run, she is effectively throwing in the towel. From Wasilla, we hear a resounding "No Mas!"
Why? I suppose that I must give some credence to the theory that a scandal of Alaskan proportions is looming, but most politicians prefer to ride out storms as opposed to simply abandoning ship before they hit. Perhaps it is to give her constituents a Governor who has less distractions from lawsuits and media coverage. Maybe the weight of her family is finally taking it's toll. We may never know.
Regardless of these thoughts, I feel that her action here is a dereliction of duty. While I have never been her greatest fan, I have always respected her as a tough person who has taken quite a beating in the public eye and continued to smile throughout. This move may forever taint (in my eyes at least) her image as a consistent and dependable leader.
She was elected by the Alaskan People to lead them, and now she has, for whatever reason, decided to abandon them. Perhaps if her explanation was a little more detail and reason, and a little less vague and mysterious, my opinion would be different. As it stands though...
Oh well, as Charles Krauthammer said, she's young, and she'll be back.
But will her supporters?
In other news, I have to weigh in on Mark Sanford and his self imposed Catastrophic Kill of his career (and family).
I have heard some defend politicians in general and their sex scandals. While I understand the reasoning behind the idea that, "As long as they do their jobs, I don't care what they do", I must strongly disagree.
Consider the responsibility that these people carry. All that they are entrusted to do. The oath of office that demands a higher echelon of service and dedication. Now consider the fact that anyone who would do to their own family what people like Mark Sanford has done to his, would likely not think twice about doing to a complete stranger, regardless of their votes, districts, or other assorted political ties to them.
It breaks the sacred faith between a leader and their people. I know that I am waxing idealistic here, but should we not hold these politicians to a higher standard? If we don't already, isn't it about time we start? In addition to the irreparable damage that Mr. Sanford has done to his own family, he has also damaged our party, our trust, and our ability to take anyone in politics seriously.
For these reasons, I must insist on denouncing him.
It is time for him to step down.
Plus, his idiotic and childlike handling of all this is NOT what I want to see in a Presidential Hopeful.
Okay, it's out of my system now. Happy Independence Day!
H/T: Hot Air
|What do you think?|
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Gay Rights have been dangled out in front of the Gay Community every election cycle like clockwork to garner the votes of approximately 5-7% of all Americans (current estimate puts the Gay population at around 10% so I'm giving a rough conservative estimate). Following the election, the whole idea is shelved until needed again in two years. This dishonest and disrespectful treatment of a constituency is a golden opportunity for us on the Right.
It occurs to me that if the GOP wants to break the image of "The Party of No", as well as the impression that we are out of touch, and shake up the opposition, we should address this matter.
I have written about how the issue of Gay Marriage should be handled, so I won't reiterate it here. However, the approach to such would be a win-win-win situation if we only had the testicular fortitude to use it.
Basically, we would do the following:
1. Secretly write up a bill outlining the above linked idea.
2. Introduce the bill directly after the mid-term elections. This would be somewhat underhanded, as we would be going against our base. So, to counter that effect, give the people lots of time before the next available election to get used to the idea. Given that no Democrat worth his membership to Progressionism would dare to attack us on the measure, the only ones to worry about would be the Republican Junior Representative and their Senate counterpart hopefuls in 2012.
3. Watch the fur fly on the Left.
Obama would be in a bad spot as he would have to make a no-kidding real tough decision. Would he anger the Gay Community by Vetoing the bill, or would he risk the ire of the Black and Latino Communities who indubitably gave their support with the inclusion of a "short list" of things to not do (Gay Rights being on it, I assure you)? Either way, he would lose votes (roughly 5-7% either way in my estimation), and we would gain them. In addition to the direct fallout from his actions, we would also enjoy a measure of sympathetic gratitude from (mostly moderate) voters who would see this as a real "change" in our party.
The Left in general would seethe over having this issue ripped out from under them. The base would scream bloody murder at us, but they would be more angry with their own for letting us take the glory on it. In Washington, every Democrat in Congress and the Senate would have to smile and praise us publicly while cursing our existence in (very) private.
The Serpent Immortal of the Gay Rights issue would be at last defanged, with only Military Service remaining as a semi-serious bone of contention.
You see, as soon as the Black and Latino Communities realize that Obama will need an extra boost to his polls to get through the 2012 election, they may give the "Green Light" for such action on the Left. As such, we need to preempt them by "poaching" it for ourselves.
I believe though, that the greatest benefit from this action (aside from votes) would be the improvement in PR and Brand Image. Even our fiercest detractor would have to acknowledge this as a move in the right direction (no pun intended).
The only problems that I could see would be the base's reaction to such a thing. Many would rail against it, and the Left would certainly help that along, but with proper presentation and planning, we could minimize the "homefront backlash" and call out any Democrats attempting to assist the opposition from the right.
To conclude, I will say this:
I have always found myself more respectful and even trusting of an honest enemy than a dishonest friend.
|What do you think?|
Sunday, June 21, 2009
I have seen today a lot of Right-wing sites criticizing Obama for taking his girls out for ice cream while Iran burns. The main cry from these sights has been "What if Bush did this?" Of course they are referring to the fact that the MSM would have been quite critical of such a thing and would have stretched the story out for days to support the meme of an uncaring President. Well, to turn this question on it's ear just a bit:
We would have defended him, and rightly so.
Are we to believe that Obama cannot take out his daughters for some ice cream because the world is doing it's absolute best to forget the words to "Kumbayah"? Must his duties to his family suffer for the "good" of whatever ideal we choose to apply? It has been pointed out that while no one really has the black heart to say that he cannot take his family out, appearances are meaningful, and he should have chosen a better time to do such a thing.
Like when? When the world stops being full of hateful and evil people who desire death upon their neighbors? Not gonna happen folks, not gonna happen.
I see this more as an onset of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) than anything else. Especially when there are so many other things to be rightly critical of (See, I am still a Conservative, I just reserve my ire for those issues that deserve it):
1. North Korea threatening to provide a fireworks display for Hawai'i on the 4th of July and the Media silence that enshrouds it. This little problem is, in my mind, an open act of war. I know that we are deploying missile defense (funny how those have become useful now, hunh?) units to shield the 50th state, but them used to be "fightin' words" back in the day. I even have my doubts about us actually doing anything of substantial value if they try it, and I get the distinct impression that even if they launch, and we shoot down a Taepodong-2 missile, it will be news for about a week, and then watch it quietly sink beneath the waves of Socialized Healthcare and Unemployment.
2. The ABCNEWS plug for Obama's Healthcare. They have refused any opposing viewpoints to be broadcast as part of a one-hour "Infomercial" regarding Obama's proposed outline for Socialized Medicine. Not only is this a disgrace to objectivity in the media, but it smacks quite loudly of desperation. The polls are now dead even (from higher support earlier this year) when it comes to support for these measures, and I would ask anyone who challenges this assertion to answer me this: If it is such a popular move, why is he trying so hard to sell it?
3. Obama cut the spending for pro-democracy groups in Iran via the State Department. Recently. Like during the Iranian crisis that is currently getting worse. This is a perfect example of a horrifying mixed message, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was an oversight by some well-meaning staffer who didn't know what they were cutting. I certainly hope so, at least.
4. Uighers (terrorists) now living in Bermuda. Watch the video (You only need the first half...). Look around your house. Look at your checkbook. Check the stock market. Remember that the economy is really bad off. Remember that you are an American Citizen. Sharpen the pitchforks. Prepare the torches. Get back to me. One word: Inexcusable.
See? These are legitimate sources of outrage. You can feel wholesome and angry all at the same time. Sometimes these things just come together.
Oh, and another thing. Remember when the Iranians were bad? I do. I am going to be cynical here and say that I think that this situation is one of those "support today, fight tomorrow" kinds of things. I know that Mousavi and the others were the only choices that the Iranian people had, and that he was the "lesser of the available evils", but I will reserve my undying love for those who have proven that they deserve it.
Do not take from that statement that I wish any harm on anyone. I cheer the demonstations that cry out for democracy and peace. I am moved to tears by some of the horrific videos that we are seeing. I applaud the Iranian people's courage in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. I just remain guarded and cautious when it comes to a country that has a history of enthusiastically hating us. I remember (barely) the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and I seem to recall seeing cheers in the streets all over the muslim world when 9/11 happened.
Let's just say that I am taking a stance of "We'll see..."
How do you conclude a widely ranged rant like this one? I suggest a quote:
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." ~Molly Ivins
H/T: AofSHQ, FOXNEWS, Rasmussen, The Daily Show
|What do you think?|
Thursday, June 18, 2009
I suppose that everyone there in the various seats of theocratic power is busy dealing with those troublesome youths and their uppity ideas about fair elections and something called "Democracy".
Poor fellows. Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of guys, I tell you what.
In all seriousness, the reports and images leaking out of Iran are describing a political movement of such scale as to make any number of Washington politicians throw their wallets and pocket change and run screaming in the other direction.
I do so wonder what Mr. Ahmedinejhad is doing right about now. Does he have an "Undisclosed Location" guarded in this instance by Hamas and possibly Hezbollah thugs? Is he beginning to question the legitimacy of his regime, or at least reading the writing on the wall? Has he seen the banners at the soccer games that say "Go To Hell Dictator"? Does he realize that that is his glorious self to which they are referring? Does he care?
Information is slowly coming out, and we are all watching carefully to see how this develops. I must admit that while I would like to hear more definitive statements from Obama to the effect of supporting the Democratic Process and the Will of the People, I suppose that he is being cautious due to the fact that we have become the World's de facto Iranian Negotiator and he needs to avoid overtly taking a side (other than the people's) due to the unfortunate possibility that he will be back to the Talkin' Table with the one guy that has just GOT to be a blast at parties.
I know, I know, I'd like to see him rend his shirt from off his chiseled pectorals and announce from atop the Rotunda that America will not stand for such injustices too, but then how could he sit down with the World's Most Cheerfully Brutal Dictator and talk about peace (No really, the guy looks just so happy almost all of the time. Like he's just having the time of his life hanging folks from cranes all day. Creepy...)?
The truth is that I am not surprised to see France, Germany, and now Canada display their solidarity with the Iranian People. This time, they get to make US look like panty-waists. Thanks guys... I suppose it is easier to pick a side and cheer when you don't have the testicular fortitude to actually be the one (no pun intended) to talk to this wretched little man.
Look, I am not the biggest supporter of Obama, but he is our President and I honestly think that he is taking what may very well be a prudent course of action. It will hurt him here, and as reported by Kianoosh Sanjari (via: Gateway Pundit):
"The people of Iran will not forgive Barack Obama for siding with the evil regime."
As much as it will damage our "Public Image", retaining the chance to negotiate Iran out of the Nuke is an important card to keep in our hand. Besides, he may be privy to more information than we are getting.
Or I could just be hoping that that is the strategy...
Regardless of here at home, the real issue is the Iranian people. They are finally demonstrating their displeasure with the current way of doing things, and have made quite clear their desire for a more moderate leadership. I understand that Mousavi is hardly a saint, but a step in the right direction is always a good one.
I congratulate them on their bravery and perseverance, and wish them the best for their future's sake. I will pray for them all.
Oh, and the Mullahs' claim that America is meddling? "Bovine Leavings", you say?
I don't suppose you can "Tweet" back on Twitter to any of those Iranian Student "Citizen Journalists" with your encouragement can you?
Because if you can, that may become evidence on some kid's cell phone or computer to convict them of treason. Such evidence would be catalogued, remembered, and pushed in our faces. Maybe Obama shouldn't worry about trying to save the remaining few shreds of diplomacy for Ahmedinejhad and just start climbing the Capitol Building after all...
H/T: (Gateway Pundit) and Hot Air
|What do you think?|
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The disgraceful attempt at humor came during the opening monologue of the “Late Show” when he made the statement that Mrs. Palin’s 14-year-old daughter Willow had been raped at a baseball game by Alex Rodriguez, a baseball player.
I am not the biggest fan of Mrs. Palin, but I am a human and a father. Such horrendous and disgusting vitriol would anger me if it had been said about the Obama girls or any other individual’s children. To brutally attack someone’s family with such words for the purported purposes of humor is an abhorrent act. This is not levity or good-natured ribbing, this is cruel and vicious degradation.
What further angers me about this situation is the fact that it is apparently up for debate as to the “merits” of the statements themselves. As though these remarks made in supposed “jest” have any business being uttered over the airwaves and sent into our homes by someone whom we have invited into them. As though the comments were well within the standards of basic Human Decency. As though it is acceptable to attack an individual’s family due to their difference from yourself in any way.
The repulsive issue has prompted some to state that Letterman was simply making a joke, or that as an entertainer, he has free license and carte blanche to say whatever he pleases about anyone. I fully support Freedom of Speech, but there is a line of respect and decency that should not be crossed when performing for such a broad swath of the public. To say such things in private is still reprehensible, but it is in private, and the damage done is minimal and self-punishing. To say such things in public, before a live studio audience, and with the reasonable expectation to be heard by millions is a blatant and irresponsible disregard for one’s own Humanity and Society’s basic principles of conduct.
Mr. Letterman, for all his seniority in television, and as a father, should have known better and refrained from such low and classless behavior.
The CBS apple, it would seem, has fallen very far from the Murrow Tree…
H/T: Gateway Pundit
UPDATE: I was apparently in error when I reported that Mr. Letterman had said that Willow, Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter had been raped at a baseball game. He said that her daughter (allegedly referring to 18-19 year old Bristol) had been "knocked up".
I apologize for the shoddy reporting and will do better in the future. That having been said, I still feel it to be in poor taste to make such jokes about someone's family. Class by example is sorely lacking as it is in this country...
|What do you think?|
Saturday, May 30, 2009
After some thought, this becomes almost a laughable idea.
Consider the fact that of all the industries in this nation, the only "recession-proof" example is the Firearm Industry. What I wouldn't give for stock in Glock right about now...
In a market that has seen entire calibers of ammunition become practically extinct overnight due to mass sales (.380 ACP, I'm looking at you...), I have begun to wonder how much money is being put into legal defense and 2nd Amendment Support Organizations. Since no one else has any money, I would guess that it's quite an impressive amount.
Obama is busy printing money that is going to be about as solvent as currency as Pelosi is as a credible witness, and the Gun Industry is sitting on a fat mound of liquid capitol. Hmm... I'm no economic expert, but I think that I see a small speedbump forming for the "gun-grabber" crowd. We all got so worried about the possible policies of the far Left, that we all went right out and supported our rights in the most effective way possible. We bought into the market and bought their products (yes, me too). Some people went for the big and bad .45 ACP, while others stayed in the high capacity and availability route with the 9mm. Shotguns, rifles (both assault and hunting), pistols of every type and size, you name it; if it shoots something out the muzzle, it got purchased by someone.
All that money is now in the hands of the manufacturers who will make very sure that you will continue to legally buy their products as soon as you can afford them.
I'm by no means attempting to place a dark patina on the industry here, I'm just stating a fact. They most likely like being in business, so they will protect that business as much as possible. No kidding, hunh?
Furthermore, now that the ratio of guns to populace has indubitably changed to an increased percentage, it would be even harder to get all the guns now than ever before.Not just because now even more people are armed, but because of the fact that America has spoken quite clearly in regards to it's desire to continue owning guns. Rather than the "usual suspects" of White Conservative Men being the only market for weaponry, women are buying them in droves too. Hold fast Dear Reader, for I have heard tell that Liberals are making the occasional purchase of the World's Most Demonized Tool as well. I guess they figure that perhaps they might want to live the novelty that is Responsible Gun Ownership before it becomes a thing of the past. You know, just in case, or something.
(As a note to any Liberals out there who fit this description, please be careful with your new firearm. It is not a toy, and we don't want any more statistics. Read all instructions before use, and practice safe handling techniques. Thank you!)
Heck, at this rate, and with Obama receiving honors such as the Gun Salesman Of The Year Award, I wouldn't be surprised if the Gun Industry gives a donation to the DNC just for a kicker to the 2010 sales forecast.
I'm joking, of course.
"A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns." ~Mario Puzo
|What do you think?|