Where's the struggle?

Simple, sweethearts: ditch the men. Ditch the religion. They're what puts you in danger.

Pretty much every Muslim man is likely to be violent toward you. They kill you if you complain.

A good Christian boy, on the other hand, might hit you. (The vast majority won't--most Christians respect women.) Then, you go to the police, have him arrested and sent to jail. He might hit you again if he gets out and is still mad at you (and you haven't had the sense God gave a goose and gone and bought a gun), but he likely won't behead you.

You can be a traditional Christian wife and mother without fear that your husband will kill you if another man sees your hair. Your husband can still be the head of the household, and you can continue not to think for yourself. Most women actually don't--otherwise, radical feminism would never have taken hold.

You don't have to be a total whore, ladies, even if you ditch Islam as a bad bet.

Again, don't struggle with the dichotomy between radical Islamofacism and Western freedom. Ditch Islam. Ditch the Islamofacist men.

It starts.

Walter E. Williams, economics professor and Townhall columnist, wrote a piece published today about various states debating and passing legislation reasserting the right to limited sovereignty under the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Though he makes a great comparison between the abuses Americans suffered while still a British colony under King George III, and Americans today suffer under an increasingly despotic legislature and judiciary, I can't help but think that so starts a second Civil War.

And I can't help but think back to our first one, where most of a generation of men were maimed or killed. States' rights was what the initial argument was about--a state's right to declare as a slave or free state as it entered the Union.

Granted, that was a bad argument. We look back now, from our pinnacle of moral superiority, and declare that no state should have allowed slavery, without looking at it through the perspective of the times--and through the perspective that the South was falling behind economically to such a degree that slavery likely wouldn't have lasted beyond another generation or two anyway.

The argument that will split the nation today is, once again, about economics and morals. Simply put, the fight today is about Capitalism v. Marxism: personal property v. providing for everyone equally regardless of how hard they're willing to work, and is, at its base, about whether the federal government has the moral right to take money from the few who achieve much to give to the many who work little (or not at all) and achieve less.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, permits for taxes to be collected "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." (It also says, right in the same clause, that all federal taxes are to be uniform--in other words, not only are the special, 90% tax levied on AIG executive bonuses unconstitutional, progressive federal income tax could be argued that way, as well.)

There is nothing, not one word, in the constitution that could be read as permitting the redistribution of wealth from those who've earned or inherited it to those who have not.

I guess that's why our current POTUS said that the Constitution was a good, but "deeply flawed" document: obviously, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is a better document, if one wants to seize personally owned and held property--and what is a publicly traded company but one that's personally owned and held by many?--to redistribute the money involved. To "spread the wealth."

"Cap and trade" legislation, legislation intended to limit "carbon" emission, is not so openly intended to have the same effect. However, what will eventually happen there is that the companies so taxed will pass their costs on to the consumers: they'll cut jobs and raise prices to offset the "carbon offsets."

Not the effect that the POTUS would like to see. But that's why they call it "the law of unintended consequences."

Much like the coming civil war.

Only this time, the secessionists will more likely have the United States Armed Forces, whose oath is to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, on their side.

After all, the current administration--almost all of it--is violating the Constitution, and the duly ratified amendments thereto, right and left.

They're nothing but scum.

Because only scum would threaten Red Cross workers.

"Religion of Peace" my ass. The only good Islamofacist is a dead one.

And until the "moderates" refuse to allow the radicals to commit violence, they're all Islamofacists.

Remember, there are "rights" and "privileges."

What's the difference? A "right" is something all people have. We have the right to keep breathing, and the right to attempt to earn enough money to buy the things we need to have.

A "privilege" is something that others allow us to have. One very good example is the privilege to buy our choice of automobile (and if you don't think this is a "privilege," look at the way D.C. is yanking the automakers around with CAFE standards).

North Korea argues that they have the right to test-fire missiles. Oh, sorry--launch satellites. Sure they do. And the rest of the world has the right to shoot down whatever they try to launch.

Oh wait, that's a privilege, isn't it?

Now, this might work.

Mexico is offering a $2 million bounty for their top drug lords. You know, the ones destabilizing the country.

That will not, however, end their troubles. The only thing that will is completing the border fence and stopping all drug smuggling and illegal aliens coming across our southern border.

Oh, wait: according to Nancy Pelosi, attempting that is un-American.

What one Marxist dictator does...

...another will do. Eventually.

I don't care what you do, but...

On March 28, 8:30 p.m. local time, I'm turning every electrical appliance that I possibly can on.

"Earth hour," my ass. Try "Let's get them used to being sent back to the stone age so that they don't think to complain" hour. Or, "If we can get them used to voluntary blackouts, maybe they won't notice when cap-and-trade legislation makes it mandatory on a household level" hour.

Or, "If we can make them lose power for an hour, maybe we can ration the power that the little man uses so that he gets used to government rationing everything in his life for his own good" hour.

In any case, I ain't buyin' what they're sellin'. And I won't buy it at any price.

Of course.

There's no way Hamas would not be happy about the administration re-labeling enemy combatants as something else, or that the administration is closing Gitmo. They know that by controlling language and terms, thoughts and thought patterns are controlled. They know that this administration is pro-terrorist, pro-facist, and anti-Israel.

TQFU* wll likely FUBAR this.

Poland shouldn't count on that missile defense shield. Obama's already said he's planning to withdraw funding because it hasn't been proven to work. At least, not in a real world situation. And he'd rather build battle-bots (obviously hasn't seen the Terminator movies).

Well, that, and he's kissing the KG--er, sorry, FSB's ass. He is, after all, showing Stalinist tendencies.



*Credit for the acronym goes to Vilmar of Kickin' and Screamin'. If you're curious, go there to find out what it means.

More unconstitutional judicial activism

A federal judge reversed a Bush decision to permit concealed carry of firearms in national parks.

Given that this individual moonbat ruled on behalf of three groups of moonbats, I doubt visitors to national parks will be permitted to carry openly, either.

Talk about a government violation of our rights--and our safety. I don't know about you, but I don't think a bear would respect a restraining order.

an example of minority racism

Michelle Obama was taunted for "talking like a white girl" when she was young.

Black schoolchildren frequently taunt one another for "acting white": anytime a black child earns a good grade, his black peers that don't, and are proud that they don't, pick on him* for it.

I've noticed that the nastiest racism today isn't white on black but black on white. Don't believe me? Listen to rap and hip hop.

*I say "him" because various studies I've read--as well as the ratio of black women to black men in college--show that the taunting is predominantly boys taunting boys about acting white.

I am not a terrorist.

Missouri has become the vanguard behind which the other states will follow.

Apparently, if you have a pro-life bumper sticker, an NRA bumper sticker, a Confederate flag bumper sticker, an anti-illegal aliens bumpersticker or any number of other conservative and/or redneck bumper stickers, you will be noted, and placed on a watch list.

Apparently, if you're conservative, believe in God, and believe that the Bill of Rights lists rights that God gave you, and that the government cannot infringe upon, you're a potential terrorist.

Funny...I've seen far more violence lately from radically intolerant Muslims than radical fundamentalist Christians, lately. I've seen a lot more gun violence perpetrated by illegal aliens drug gangs, such as MS13, who cannot legally own firearms in the first place than I have from NRA members.

And I've seen far worse violations of all of our rights--black, white, brown, or polka-dot--from the government than I've seen from "Southern White Racists."

Hell, I've seen worse racism in the last month from the so-called "minority races" than I have from any white person in the past five years.

Missouri's leftist governor, Jay Nixon, fears the "vast, right wing conspiracy," and the militias attached to it. He fears that such militias will spawn domestic terrorists.

Currently, most militias that I'm aware of are peaceful gatherings of individual citizens. They gather, watch, protest peacefully, and call legitimate law enforcement if something goes wrong. The Neighborhood Watch is a good example of a modern militia. So are the Minutemen who watch our borders where Border Patrol is spread too thin--though, given the leftist response to them, I'm pretty sure they'd be considered as dangerous as the Ayrian Brotherhood used to be.

Modern militias are peaceful, for now. I don't believe, as the government seems to, that they'll become inflamed and violent as easily as the Muslims do.

However. That said, if the government starts harassing them and treating them as terrorists and criminals without provocation, I'm not too sure that they won't decide to do what they're being punished for.

I hope it doesn't come to this. I pray it doesn't come to this. The last time this nation was so divided, some 150 years ago, it took hundreds of thousands dead in a country where the population was only a few million. The casualties this time, given the higher population and population densities of likely target centers on both sides, would be truly horrendous.

Innocuous but ominous

The March of Dimes has released a report that the government's "single payer health care" system is going to bolt with.

I'm not ascribing ulterior motives to the March of Dimes. I think that their main reason for releasing the report is to try to get every woman that gets pregnant in the United States to seek prenatal care, and do their damnedest to prevent the preventable causes of preterm birth.

However, releasing a report about the costs involved is going to lead us into the same inhumane cost-cutting as British hospitals routinely use: refusing to save preemies. I can't find the news story now, but about two years ago, I read that some hospitals in Britain's socialized medicine system were refusing to try to save babies born earlier than 27 weeks, because it was too expensive.

With the current administration's support for late term abortions (i.e., after the point the baby has a chance of surviving outside the mother's body--in other words, infanticide), and noted lack of support for legislation requiring medical care for infants who survive their attempted murders, I doubt it will be long before American hospitals are directed to do the same with babies whose mothers are covered by "single payer health care."

This may just be me, but that's one bill I don't mind my tax money going for.

I do have a dog in this hunt, remember. My son, a healthy and happy five month old baby, was born eight weeks premature. I took the prenatal vitamins, didn't smoke, drink, do drugs, or do anything that would risk preterm birth. He was born early anyway, and none of the doctors had any idea why.

In other words, not all preterm birth is preventable. However, I wouldn't put it past the current administration to refuse treatment just because some cases are preventable, and all cases are expensive.

Russia's further attempts to weaken us

Russia has declared that they're taking a hard line with us. No surprise, there. Our current POTUS is no Regan when it comes to international relations.

They're selling missiles to Iran. No surprise there, given that they've decided to be belligerent with us again. After all, how long did we spend in a proxy war with the USSR? Who's the one in charge over there? Yeah, exactly.

To further weaken us, they're one of the prime movers with the idea of a world currency that isn't the dollar. While I don't blame them--not with current fiscal policies--this is intended, on their part, to be a blow to us.

We are in trouble. We're facing more, and more dangerous in the long term, enemies than we really saw under President Bush. It doesn't matter whether you want to argue that it's just because Bush ignored them or because Obama's looking to be a wimp--either way, we've got a problem.

With apologies to Shakespeare...

...a skunk by any other name stinks just as much.

Our Dear Leader has decided we will no longer use the term "enemy combatant" to refer to the enemies that attack our troops.

Why?

I have my suspicions. They all center around Guantanamo Bay, current treatment of captured terrorists, Obama's determination to cripple our military, and Obama's overall vision of how this country should be.

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica,

"The third Geneva Convention of 1949 required what is called an organized resistance movement to possess four characteristics before its members could be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. These were: (1) being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, (2) having a fixed and distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, (3) carrying arms openly, and (4) conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

There's been further clarification of how a guerrilla can be defined as a legal combatant:

"...article 43 of the Protocol requires all combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. However, even if a combatant does not do this, he will still be entitled to treatment as a lawful combatant if he carries his arms openly during each military engagement and during such time as he is visible to the adversary while engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate."

There's also been clarification of how a guerrilla fighter loses his definition as a legal combatant: "A member of the armed forces of a party to a conflict will lose his status as a prisoner of war upon capture if he commits an act of hostility while wearing civilian clothes."

Interestingly enough, no one really disagrees that al-Qaeda are illegal combatants. Nor does anyone disagree that any individual that commits an act of terrorism (e.g., Hamas [despite their election to the government of the Gaza Strip], or the Taliban) is an illegal combatant. No, the disagreement comes in with the punishment for such acts:

Traditionally, at least in theory, unlawful combatants could be killed out of hand, entitled to little more than a blindfold by way of procedure [23]. During World War II, unlawful combatants were often subject to summary disposition, and the war crimes tribunals established after the War acknowledged that their deaths would not justify later criminal charges against their executioners [24].

In other words, "enemy combatants" who do not report to a higher authority, and who hide in civilian populations to attack our troops are illegal combatants, who are entitled to nothing more than a bullet to the head.

However, our Dear Leader, and his bug-eyed secretary for Homeland [In]Security are redefining terrorists from "enemy combatants" to something as yet to be determined, and terrorism from "terrorism" to "man-caused disasters."

They do not want us to realize that those captured and held in the jihad against the United States are being treated as full prisoners of war in defiance of the Geneva Convention. They do not want us to realize that, by breaking the laws of war, those "enemy combatants" that they're trying to redefine are unlawful combatants, and as such, are subject to torture, to summary execution as soon as they're no longer useful. They are not subject to repatriation, nor even to humane treatment.

I believe that this is immediately prior to redefining the proper reaction to acts of terrorism from a Defense matter to a Criminal Justice matter, dumping Gitmo detainees (and all others in military custody) back into their home populations, and yanking our troops out of the Middle East entirely.

And I believe that that is immediately prior to an NBC attack on our soil.

And I believe that, if the attack hits us just right, or the response isn't strong enough, we are done as a free, democratic republic, with equal rights for all. The United States of America will become just another third-world Islamic shit-hole.

God help us all. Because I also believe that our Dear Leader isn't acting foolishly, but is doing exactly what he intends, and will be creating the result--a disenfranchised majority, ruled by a self-declared elite--that he intends.

New blog added.

I don't usually announce new blogs that I discover, but I thought that this one was well worth it for two posts: I'm Tired and An Essay--This I Believe.

The opinion pieces I linked to above, written by Mr. Robert Hall, a Vietnam veteran, resonate with me, and I suspect with far more individuals than those sanctimonious hypocrites in D.C. believe feel that way.

This is not good.

A judge in North Carolina, in an unprecedented abuse of judicial powers over individual citizens, ordered a mother in a custody battle to place her homeschooled children into public schools.

He said it had nothing to do with religion, but that he believed that exposure to modern scientific theory was in the best interests of the children. Children who, under their mother's tutelage, test two grade levels beyond their peers. Both he and the children's father admitted that the children had not suffered under their mother's teaching.

In point of fact, it has everything to do with religion--in the denomination that the mother follows, all children are homeschooled.

This bodes ill for those who do not have the "correct" political leanings, and who homeschool their children for solely academic reasons.

More tranzie bullshit.

Illegal aliens HAVE NO CIVIL RIGHTS. They BREAK THE LAW coming here. They BREAK THE LAW staying here.

It IS NOT A CRIME, nor is it a VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS THEY DO NOT HAVE, to hold illegal aliens trespassing on your property at gunpoint while you call ICE to come and round up their law-breaking asses.

It DOES NOT VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS THEY DO NOT HAVE to arrest them, and deport them back to their country of origin.

It IS NOT A CRIME to shoot a fleeing drug smuggler in the butt.

Stop harassing our law-abiding United States Citizens for protecting their property, and our wonderful law enforcement officers for doing their jobs.

Okay. First things first.

A fourteen month old baby cannot show "disrespect." Nor can they show "respect." It takes at least two more years to understand the concept.

Spending an hour beating a baby with a belt, and hitting his pregnant girlfriend when she tried to intervene demonstrates that the so-called "man" in question is no man at all.

Tranzies go to hell.

No, not transvestites. I don't give half a damn whether a man wants to dress up as a woman and make a total fool of himself.

Transnational Progressivists. Go die. This means you, Barbara Boxer. And you, John Kerry.

I am a proud American. That's American, you shitstains. I am not, nor do I want to be, a "citizen of the world." I don't like the rest of the world. My ancestors left Europe because they could see, three hundred years ago, that Europe was going down the crapper. They could see that, without the King's or Emperor's or whatever's agents right up their asses, they'd have the freedom to make a good life for themselves, their children, and their children's children.

This is the land of opportunity. Yes, there are a very few up at the top of the social scale, and a whole lot at the bottom. Yes, I understand that you think it's not fair.

But I've got your number on what's "not fair," and it's not that people are poor.

It's that, with a couple of missteps, you could find yourself at the bottom of that social scale.

You stinking transnational progressivists cannot stand the idea that those at the bottom can, in this country, work hard and get themselves out of poverty. Without your help. You can't stand the idea that you, the elite, are equally mobile in the opposite direction.

So, what do you do? You sniveling weasels try to sign away our soverignty as a nation to that group of European elites that run the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned U.N.

Barbara Boxer thinks all parents abuse their children until proven otherwise by the "intellectual elites" in Switzerland--eighteen individuals, probably none of whom have successfully raised a child.

John F. Kerry thinks that the United States should sign over all rights to its territorial waters to the U.N.

That last scares me almost more than the first. After all, who is the U.N.? It isn't an actual government. It isn't an actual nation. It's a club house that is made up of members that, when they're united in anything, it's hatred of the United States of America. The U.N. is not our friend. It's our enemy.

And the U.N. is our enemy because they cannot stand that this single country has the ability to prove all of their philosophies wrong, and has spent the last thirty years proving socialism wrong. They cannot stand the idea that we could demonstrate that their self-chosen elite are not able to compete with a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

They know they cannot defeat us from without. Therefore, they work to defeat us from within.

And, should these treaties be ratified--the UNCRC, and the LOST--they will have won.

OUR OWN CONSTITUTION will see to that.

Mistakes like this can be costly.

According to the AP, the Taliban's current Chief of Operations in southern Afghanistan was a Guantanamo Bay detainee released into Afghan's custody.

Afghanistan, in a demonstrations of solidarity with their allies, released the son of a bitch to attack our soldiers. Again.

And our Dear Leader wants to close Gitmo, and release all of the detainees back into their home countries' custody.

And the insurance companies win again!

A doctor in New York City had an idea: charge a monthly fee per person for individuals and families who were uninsured to come into his office for as much medical care as they need.

The insurance companies protested, and got the politicians to tell him he couldn't do that without an insurance license, forcing him to charge a per-visit fee that will almost certainly cost more to those who need it most.

And people wonder why medical care costs are skyrocketing.

I thought about a political topic, but...

I decided it wasn't worth the headache today.

Especially not after receiving a letter from my insurance company (Golden Rule, for those who don't follow The FFOT, linked to the right) stating that they will not pre-approve my son's Synagis shots for RSV. That I have to have the prescription sent to the pharmacy (it was), the shot delivered and administered, with the claim sent after the fact before they'd admit whether they covered it or not.

In other words, I'm not only going to have to cover the two $1400 injections that they didn't admit they wouldn't cover from a specific pharmacy until they refused to pay for them, but risk covering all of the now-$2000+ monthly injections for all of next season (late October through mid-April).

You know what? Next year, I think I'll just save up the $12 grand, if I can, and find a pharmacy that'll cut me a discount if I leave the insurance totally out of it. As for now? I can't afford to pay for the shots, so I'll have to keep him out of public circulation as much as I can until RSV season is over.

Happy 30th birthday to me.

God, don't we have perfect timing?

Our military decided that it was time to upgrade our nuclear weapons. Then, they discovered that we have a tiny problem. Insignificant, really, in the scheme of things.

The government labs have forgotten how to make critical parts.

That's right. Our government cannot remember how--cannot seem to find any documentation on it, and claim to have simply not kept records on the process--to make components critical to the upgrades.

And what wonderful timing they had, too. Not only is Iran fighting to acquire nuclear weapons, but The People's Democratic Republic of Korea (make note of all the Orwellian Newspeak in that--it's Communist North Korea) is threatening that they'll attack anyone who shoots down their "satellite" that no one is sure will actually be a satellite.

Our timing in discovering that we lack critical information and skills absolutely could not come at a better time.

Newspeak for "We're going to take over the world."

China's expanding its navy. They're calling it a "peaceful development." "Peaceful rise" had been considered and discarded because it sounded too "aggressive." They say that they have no interest in being aggressive, and are not a danger to the rest of the world.

Bullshit.

The Chinese navy harassed an unarmed U.S. Naval vessel. They've also emphatically declared that they have absolutely no interest in reform toward Western-style democracy. Much of their navy is focused on troop-landing vessels.

In 1941, Japan decided they wanted to be the only power in the Pacific. It looks like it's China's turn, but I doubt very seriously that they'd be interested in dominating only the Pacific.

I am pro-gun.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Everyone is familiar with the wording of the Second Amendment. The wording is clear, at least to someone who's reading it for the first time; however, in our current society, with all of the rulings on this amendment, and each having a different interpretation, the meaning is anything but clear. So what, precisely, does this amendment mean? What part of it carries the meaning?

Many have argued, successfully, that the word "militia" is key to understanding the second amendment. Maybe it is, but not in the way it's been read. When the amendment was added to the constitution, the word "militia" had a different meaning than what current lawmakers think it has. Current thought is that the National Guard, or maybe the Reserves, are a militia: an organized body of volunteers that is sponsored by the government. The Founding Fathers did not think so. When they wrote and ratified the amendment, "militia" meant armed civilians protecting themselves, their land, and their government (if it deserved protection) without organization from or sponsorship by said government.

Others argue that "well-regulated" is what carries the meaning. They've argued, sometimes successfully, that "well-regulated" means "government sponsored and organized." Not so, according to the Founding Fathers: "well-regulated" meant practiced to the point that they hit what they aimed at a majority of the time.

No, the part of the amendment that carries the meaning that the Founding Fathers intended is the last part: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"...shall not be infringed." Such a final, inarguable phrase. The Founding Fathers wanted no federal laws to be passed that would curtail the rights of the people to own, practice with, and keep any firearm whatsoever. Because of their experience with the oppressive policies of King George III, they feared any government with too much power. They wanted the people to have the right--and more importantly, the ability--to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

And rightly so. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Tyrants instinctively know this. The first act of tyrants in all places and all times is to disarm the average citizen. Modern examples include Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Mugabe's Congo . All of these tyrants' first act was to disarm their citizenry. After all, can't have the people armed and able to object to the murder of their neighbors, friends, and relatives.

Some of our first gun control laws were written and imposed in the Jim Crowe era in the South. They were intended to disarm blacks. After all, the Klansmen who ran the political system can't have their victims armed and able to shoot back.

If you read that as "I think gun control laws are racist," you'd be right. I do think they're racist. But that's not the only reason I don't believe government has the right to enact legislation intended to take away our rights to defend ourselves.

I believe that gun control laws are racist. I believe that the racist part comes in when the government takes away a group of people's rights to defend themselves, tells them that they're helpless against the criminal element in the population that will have the guns the law-abiding citizens are forbidden to own, and tell them that the only defense they have is to elect the scum that disarmed them in the first place.

I believe that gun control laws are sexist. I believe that the sexist part comes in when the government takes away women's rights to the only instrument ever created that makes a 120 pound woman physical equals with a 220 pound man. I believe that it's sexist when the government tells them that they're helpless against rapists, muggers, and males in general, and that their only defense is to elect the scum that disarmed them in the first place.

I believe that gun control laws discriminate against the old. Against the crippled. Against homosexuals. Against heterosexuals. Against the law-abiding majority. I believe that the only reason politicians enact such legislation is to leave us helpless, and leave us with the impression that our only option is to depend upon the government that so disarmed us and left us to be victimized by those who refuse to obey the laws, those who the government that enacted the legislation claimed to have been targeting.

An armed individual may make decisions about their lives that an unarmed individual can't. Decisions like "Who do I want to be? What do I believe? Where do I stand on this or that issue?" An armed individual can depend on themselves when faced with violent criminals or with a government that wants to imprison and/or kill them for who they are, as Nazi Germany did with homosexuals, Jews, and other "undesirables," or for what they believe as Russia, China, Cuba, or Cambodia did with anyone who did not like where their communist dictator was taking their country's government, or on a whim like many dead in the Congo.

Life. Liberty. The pursuit of happiness. These inalienable rights are nothing but words without the rights guaranteed by the second amendment to back them up.

Pictures are worth thousands of words. Let me leave you with a picture, courtesy of the blogger and photographer of A Human Right:

Must have made her "uncomfortable."

A student at a Connecticut university presented a speech advocating legalized concealed carry on college campuses, citing all of the deaths by firearm in gun-free zones. His instructor called a complaint into campus security.

Now this is the part that makes me extremely resistant to the idea of laws requiring the registration of firearms: "Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them."

This strikes me as an immediate precursor to seizure of legally owned and kept weapons. This strikes me as tyranny.

I'm very pro-gun. I'm very much pro-free speech. In fact, it makes me uncomfortable when others around me express the opposite view.

Do you think I can get the ACLU to take my case? After all, it is the leftists that argue that everyone has a right to not be uncomfortable, not to be offended, and not to have their views challenged.

Oh, wait. "Everyone" is "everyone who thinks like me."

Watch for a post on my full second amendment views within the week. I'd do it tomorrow, but I've got grading to do.

Damn. Reload went fast.

Gaza's already picking at Israel again. Israel's threatening "uncompromising retaliation."

It. Doesn't. Work. The only thing that will work is if you start by arresting all of the ones who keep the people in ignorance so that they can preach violence and spread hate, placing them somewhere where they're all completely out of communication...and then killing them to make sure they can never cause the same problems again.

Then, you've got to start trying to de-program the general population. Usually, entertainment type propaganda does the trick here--no telling what will work there.

Basically, destroy the culture.

Barring that, the only recourse is destroying the people. And I don't think any country with Western values would do that.

Nor would the U.N. permit Israel to do that. Darfur is, of course, a whole different bag of pork rinds.

Can somebody explain the logic behind this?

And it has to be logic, because I don't understand why in the world anyone would want to help their enemies.

Hillary Clinton has scolded Israel for not making sure that humanitarian aid gets to Gaza quick enough.

Gaza's main ambition is to wipe Israel from the map. Even in times of declared truce, they still try. Women and children dance in the streets when the rockets hit anywhere near their targets--or even if the rockets don't hit near their targets, and just kill a bunch of people.

Why expect Israel to help those people? Why do we try to help those who danced in the streets in celebration of the towers falling on September 11?

The Canadian lawyer/human rights activist that commented in my post on the UNCRC on Wednesday called me racist. Probably for the post directly below the one he commented in. He missed the post that explained why my attitude isn't racist--so I'll summarize again, here.

I'm not racist. I don't hate race. I hate actions. I hate ideology.

Gaza's acts, and Gaza's ideology, rather than Gaza's race, is what prompts me to cheer when Israel issues a smackdown, and to wonder why Israel would even consider helping them back up while they're reloading.

On the escalator

Russia is stepping up harassment. They sent bombers to test Canada's airspace less than 24 hours before a visit from Obama. Though the bombers didn't penetrate Canadian airspace, Canada did have to dispatch F-18s to tell the Ruskies to back off. Canadian intelligence thinks the timing was suspicious.

I think that people have deliberately buried their heads in the sand. No one but Russia wants another Cold War.

Further comments upon yesterday's post.

Yesterday, I commented on a treaty that Barbra Boxer is pushing for us to sign. One that would not only erode national sovereignty, but parents' ability to raise their children into functional adults.

I was attacked in the comments section for my opinions. I responded there, and will not repeat myself here. I did, however, decide to clarify my position.

It is my right, and my duty, as a mother to protect my children from harm. I will do that by any means necessary. If that means I have to pull the trigger on an attacker, so be it. If that means I have to intervene in his education to make sure he's learning how to read, how to write, and how to think, rather than being spoon-fed what to think, so be it. I am a teacher, and am capable of making sure he learns what he needs to be a functioning adult.

If that means I must run for, and attain, political office to maintain his freedom to choose how to think, and how to defend himself as an adult, I will do it. I won't like it, and won't want to do it, but I will.

Despite the rampant sexism in the poem (or maybe because he came from an era that understood that there were inherent differences between the sexes) Kipling explains it well:

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity -- must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions -- not in these her honour dwells.
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions -- in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! --
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

In other words, you can interfere with my family--my husband and my children--over your dead body.

Intolerable.

Barbra Boxer can go to hell. I refuse to abide by any law that tells me how I can and cannot raise my child. I think, should this go to a vote of the people, with a full explanation of what would happen were the treaty ratified, almost every parent in the United States would be against it.

"Critics say the treaty, which creates 'the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion' and outlaws the 'arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,' intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference."

"The right of the child to freedom of thought" I have no disagreements with. Ditto, religion. However. Most children haven't developed a conscience, and will not without infringement of the parents upon the so-called rights of the child--i.e., punishment for wrong actions.

And as for privacy? What right to privacy does a child have, when there are those out there that would hurt and exploit children? One could argue that the child has, under this treaty, the right to full privacy on the internet: that parents are not allowed to supervise what sites they visit, or who they talk to, exposing children to inappropriate images, and pedophiles.

"The U.S. is already party to two optional pieces of the treaty regarding child soldiers and child prostitution and pornography, but has refused to sign on to the full agreement..." In other words, we already enforce the reasonable parts of the treaty, the ones that actually protect children. So, why not the whole thing?

"... legal experts say the convention does nothing to protect human rights abroad -- and that acceding to the convention would erode U.S. sovereignty.Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered 'the supreme law of the land,' superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States."

In other words, anything we sign onto with this treaty overrides our own laws. What does that mean?

"'... an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined -- that is an erosion of American sovereignty,' said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank."

In other words,

"Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government's decision. It will affect every parent who's told their children to do the dishes."

Boxer and her cronies say that our not signing it leads to further abuses abroad. Not only is that terribly egocentric on her part--thanks to generations of moral relativism weakening our culture of responsibility, duty, and courage, no one looks up to the United States as an example--but flat out wrong. Any country can sign a document opting out of whatever offends their particular sensibilities. For example, Islamofacist countries have opted out of anything that might contradict their Sharia law, which permits the abuse and murder of girls that step outside of their accepted roles (like allowing those who want to learn to read to be attacked with acid).

So, why are they pushing so hard to get this ratified? Transnational progressivism.

So, who are these transnational progressivists, or tranzies? I'm going to quote from an essay added to the end of one of my favorite books by two of my favorite authors: John Ringo and Tom Kratman's Yellow Eyes.

"...suffice to say that Tranzism is the successor ideology to failed and discredited Marxist-Leninism. Many of the most prominent Tranzis are, in fact, "former" members of various communist parties, especially European communist parties. These have taken the failure of the Soviet Union personally and hard, and, brother, are they bitter about it.

...One of the difficult things about analyzing Tranzis and their works is that they are not a conspiracy. What they are is a consensus. Don't be contemptuous; civilization is nothing more than a consensus. So is barbarism. Moreover, the Tranzis are a fairly cohesive consensus, especially on certain ultimate core issues. Nonetheless, if you are looking for absolute logical consistency on the part of Tranzis you will search in vain.

On the other hand, at the highest level, the ultimate Tranzi goal, there is complete agreement. They want an end to national sovereignty and they want global governance by an unelected, self-chosen 'elite.'"

Sound familiar? International Criminal Court, anyone? "Citizen of the world"?

This is intolerable. And by permitting them an inch, we've made them our rulers. Literally.

A little late to the party, but...

Pakistan has declared that they will cooperate with us to help fight terrorism within their borders.

Lot of good that will do--most of their citizens are kept ignorant and intolerant by the radical Islamofacists that the Pakistani government already gave in to.

Again, I really don't care how many of their own people they kill. All I care about is that they're not given a chance to kill more of mine. And as long as the Pakistani government is willing to try to keep them occupied, more power to them.

And, given that the average Pakistani citizen is an intolerant radical in some way, shape, or form, I hope there's a lot of collateral damage. In fact, the more "innocent" blood spilled, the better.

A little less wiggle room.

Iran is testing its first nuclear power plant. Today. And it states, firmly, that it expects to have 50,000 centrifuges set up to enrich uranium within the next five years.

Iran categorically denies that it's aiming at weaponized nuclear technology. However. They're a hard-line, radical, Islamofacist government that eagerly anticipates the Apocalypse. And the Koran states that it is more than permissible to lie to unbelievers.

Unless either we (unlikely) or Israel (impossible to know how much more likely) do something, Iran will probably have the capability to wipe Israel off the map within the year. They won't stop there, either--we'll be next.

I hate to have to point out the obvious.

But, apparently, somebody needs to in this case.

Granted, death penalty cases are far more expensive to prosecute. However, they're far less expensive in the long run: dead men and women don't eat, take up beds, require medical care, or take up any other government services.

A good friend of mine suggested that I was a bit of a hypocrite for being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. I disagree. I'm anti-abortion because it wasn't the baby's choice to be conceived without the mother's actions, if not permission. A baby is innocent. A murderer is not.

And caring for a murderer for the rest of their natural lives costs more than I want my taxes to pay for. Releasing them early costs too much, too--in the risk that they'll re-offend. Therefore, the most economical and moral choice is to make sure that a) they cannot kill again, and b) that they don't take resources needed by the less guilty.

The window of opportunity is closing.

Iran is planning a "pre-commission" for its sparkling new nuclear power plant that Russia built for them.

They'll have nuclear weapons in no time, if Israel doesn't act, and soon.

Here's hoping.

Maybe if the Taliban beheads the Pakistani governmental official they detained, Pakistan will change its beady little mind about allowing them to have an uncontested supremacy over part of its territory.

After all, it wouldn't do to treat the guy like a woman, now, would it?

Update: A picture (with a caption) always makes the point better than I can in a few words:

The Senate is not a heriditary position.

We are supposed to elect individuals, not set up dynasties. Contrary to popular belief, this isn't England (or any other part of Europe), and we do not have a House of Lords/House of Commons split.

And, despite the moral and physical resemblance, Teddy Kennedy is not Henry Tudor.

Precious.

My husband and I went to have our son's first portraits made last Saturday. They turned out really well, so I thought I'd post a couple here.

This is his special smile for Mommy.


This one's his "There's my daddy!" smile


Pure precious. Let this chunk of cuteness brighten your weekend just a little bit.

No sympathy.

That's what they deserve for caving to terrorists.

And before anyone says anything to me about "But they're innocent, and had no voice in what the Pakistani government decided," let me just say one thing:

Bullshit.

Muslims, all Muslims, are equally culpable for the actions of the hardliners. Until they get radically intolerant of the radically intolerant, they deserve every death that they're dealt by their own people.

And no, I no longer care if some of those victims are children. That's just that many fewer future terrorists.

Does that make me a nasty, intolerant racist? No. It doesn't. Not all of Middle Eastern descent are Muslim, and not all Muslims are Middle Eastern. Do I hate all Muslims? No, I don't. I don't hate them. What I feel is far too cold and analytical to be termed hatred. Do I care if every Muslim were to die tomorrow? Only in that I would sleep better at night, knowing that we won't see another September 11 from those cockroaches.

Intolerant I may be, but it's intolerant of an ideology that is nasty, vicious, and blood soaked. I do not now, nor have I ever, given a damn about the color of someone's skin. I have only ever cared about the content of individuals' character.

This is not an informercial.

But I am going to use a standard infomercial line: Act now, before it's too late.

Iran has enough nuclear material to make a bomb. And it has allies.

A chilling wind of change

Barack Obama--or at least his spokesperson--claims that he opposes the renewed call for a fairness doctrine.

Is that like he opposes attempts to infringe upon our second amendment rights? Or maybe, with the pretty-much veto proof majority his party has in congress, he feels safe with that claim.

In any case, while I normally hate agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, because of the vitriol he spews on the airwaves, and the arrogance he displays when proved right (which is more often than not), I have to admit that I like the letter he wrote to President Obama.

Any attempt at a fairness doctrine would be aimed at taking Rush off the air. However, since he's the number one rated talk radio show host, he wouldn't be the one taken off. Rather, all of the other less successful (but still listened to and loved) hosts would be booted in favor of more car talk, more health talk, more money talk, more anything but political talk--because liberal politics don't have the ratings to sell advertiser space.

In other words, any attempt to force "balance" on talk radio, in the name of "first amendment speech" would, in essence, be a violation of the first amendment by squelching political speech.

Mr. President, you were elected on a platform of bringing Hope and Change to Washington. Well. I only hope you remember that not all change is good.

Absolutely unsurprising.

Iran's attempting to purchase an air-defense missile system from Russia. Unstated (but implied) is the fact that Russia is seriously considering it.

Why?

Because it's a weapon they can hold over our head to prevent us from setting up the ballistic missile defense umbrella over Europe. Never mind that it's meant to prevent regimes like Iran from nuking European nations, and has nothing to do with Russia.

At least, it doesn't from our end.

FINALLY!

Even though there's a month to go on their sentences, Compean and Ramos have been released from solitary confinement in prison to serve that final month at home.

They really should have killed the drug dealer and hidden the body. They'd've had less trouble if they had.

Hey, Mr. Government Official,

What's the difference between you and the person who defaults on a payday loan? Two things, really.

1. You don't have to pay back any interest.

2. THE INTEREST FREE LOAN YOUR TAXPAYERS MADE YOU WAS COMPLETELY INVOLUNTARY ON THEIR PART!

THIS MEANS YOU, Kansas.

Don't expect your state to not become a deadbeat.

The irresponsible press strikes again!!!

Gun fearing Nazis. They've forced a New York senator to move her home defense pieces by publishing where they were kept.

In other words, they've provided those who would break and enter to rob the residence with a treasure map where X marks the spot.

What am I doing to combat "global warming"?

To quote Ron White, I'm eating a cow. They are, according to this report, responsible for 18% of greenhouse gasses.

Just because the environmentalist religious nuts scream that raising and eating cattle is wrong, wrong, wrong, does not mean that most people will instantly turn vegan.

It's an especially stupid attempt with more and more doubting that global climate shift is a destructive shift toward warming, that we're warming at all anymore, and that it wouldn't be human-caused even if we were still warming.

There is absolutely no way this is going to work.

I just read an article that brought home to me exactly how fast our hand basket was accelerating. Before the monster "stimulus bill" was passed, our federal debts and financial obligations were $5.1 TRILLION. Now, at an estimated $65.5 TRILLION in TOTAL obligations (federal debt, "stimulus spending," and social program financial promises), our debt exceeds the GDP of the whole feckin' WORLD.

That bright light at the end of the tunnel is getting brighter as it's getting hotter in here. And somebody greased the tunnel floor.

A good start.

An Italian cabinet member has recommended that rapists be chemically castrated.

As he told the media, "Talk of rehabilitation is not enough. Society must defend itself."

Indeed.

Good idea: slap down bad guys. Bad idea: show weakness to world.

North Korea is no longer listening to us.

Iran's next. And Russia.

News flash, idiot: Bush kept us safe for eight years by not making concessions and by not showing weakness.

So. What do you think will happen next? World peace? Yeah, that's likely.

We're screwed. All because Obama wants to be the anti-Bush.

It's not like I didn't see this one coming.

Pakistan has caved to the Taliban, the Islamofacist terrorist group that ruled Afghanistan at the time al Qaeda launched the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center/Pentagon/Flight 93 attacks.

Maybe we shouldn't be bombing these people, though. Maybe we should just inundate them with all of the neat technological gadgets that Americans are addicted to. After all, it works.

Most of the time. After all, if it worked all of the time, the Muslim media mogul wouldn't have beheaded his wife as she tried to divorce him.

That is, after all, permissible under Sharia law.

Does anyone else notice something wrong with that particular religion's followers? Like, maybe, they're not peaceful?

Well, the least they could have done was issue all of us some cheap, harsh vodka.

It might have dulled the pain of the sandpaper condoms with no lube. Even Wall Street, the movers and shakers on which were pleading for the government to hurry, has figured out that this "stimulus" deal is a bad idea. The Dow tanked by 382 points today, to end up at7888.88, down from a high of over 14,000 last year.

You might as well start drinking now, Comrades. Should you get drunk enough and stay that way, the lines to access the line for rationed, "single payer" medical care might not hurt as bad.

Evil son of a bitch.

Go. Read. Follow the links and read more, if you're not convinced.

Then tell me the Antichrist hasn't been elected POTUS.

And here's the answer to why so much pork in the stimulus package.

Somebody had the financial munchies...

And they're considering prosecuting someone who actually did something good for America's morale for the same thing.

Mistake, my ass!

This was done on purpose by a leftist media that hates the police.

Racial profiling is not wrong. It's practical. It is not racist to search certain races for perpetrators of certain categories of crime when said certain races commit most of certain categories of crime.

If a black man is brutally murdered, a black woman beaten and raped, or a drive-by slaughters children in a neighborhood park, it's likely that the suspect is also black. If someone straps on a vest or belt of explosives and heads to a crowded place with lots of children, it's likely a Middle Eastern male between the ages of 17 and 40. If a Latino is beheaded, the suspect is likely a Latino drug runner. If a white woman is beaten and raped, it's likely she lives in a run-down trailer park--er, likely that the perpetrator is white.

Releasing a list of names of LAPD officers who've been investigated for racial profiling to a public that's drunk the liberal grape drink that racial profiling is EVIL and WRONG was not a mistake.

There's the guy I want in the White House.

Bobby Jindal. Pro-gun. Pro-life. Pro-conservative.

"The country fired us from our congressional majority in 2006. Why? The country didn't stop being conservative. The Republican Party did. We became what we came to Washington to change -- the party of earmarks and government spending. The party needs to stop worrying about what to do to fix itself. Let's worry more about fixing our country."

Amen.

Should he not run on his own in 2012, draft 'im.

Damn. Makes you wonder.

Two stories made me go "hmm...I wonder..."

The first? "Hmm...I wonder what they're trying to hide." Two Afghanis translated the Koran from Arabic into the local language. Because they wanted their fellow citizens to be able to read the Koran in a language they can understand, rather than depend on clerics that may not be trustworthy to translate it during services, they're facing the death penalty.

The second? "Hmm...I wonder just what they were doing that scared the pilot so badly." Six Iraqi men (presumably between the ages of 17 and 40) are suing American Airlines because the pilot canceled a flight rather than take off with them aboard the plane. They're claiming racism, descrimination, and all that happy horseshit. The pilot, whom I'm more inclined to believe, said that his decision was "based on a potential threat to security--not nationality."

Hmm...I wonder what both stories have in common...

Proof.

Here's proof that showing weakness is not a good idea.

After all, the Islamofacist nations in the Middle East, and their sponsored terrorist groups are not our only enemies.

And Russia and Middle Eastern nations have teamed up against us before. And many of the Whateveristans (except for Afghanistan) used to be Russian, or Russian allies. Now that Russia is expanding its political power again, it's only natural for Kyrgyzstan to kick us out. Especially with "more than $2 billion in financial aid and credit from Russia" as a bribe.

Way to go, Israel!

Looks like the people are finally getting tired of being slaughtered like cattle. They're electing hard-line conservatives to their parliament.

Hamas, its not-so-secret backers, and other enemies of Israel had better watch their asses.

And so should we: we could lose our only real ally in that part of the world to our current administration's stupid pandering to the radical Islamofacists.

Fairness, my @$$!

I said it before, and I'll say it again: until you give conservative views equal airtime on network television (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS) it's only fair that conservative views dominate talk radio.

After all, we only have (by your judgement) Fox News. And that's on cable. You've got NPR all to yourselves on the radio. That's about equal.

Oh, wait: you don't want equal, do you?

Then why don't you go here, and read my other suggestion? It's about thirteen comments down.

Oh, good God!

Those poor children! What kind of sick freak puts her daughter in an oven and turns it on?

I mean, at least my dad turned off the pilot light, first.

Gah.

There are just so many things I want to say about President Obama's policies that I don't know where to start.

Let's just say that some I mildly disagree with, and some I think are misguided, and some are so stupid that they scare the shit out of me.

The ones I mildly disagree with are few enough that it's hard to say which ones they are. Clearly, keeping going with politics as usual in his cabinet picks is one of them. However, since it appears that he's trying to use his cabinet picks to offset his lack of experience, I won't bitch too much. Well, other than complaining about what appears to be a Democrat tendency to not pay their taxes while rasing them on everyone else.

I obviously think some of his policies are misguided. For instance, I don't like that he's permitting destructive embryonic stem cell research to go forward. I don't like his idea that fair practices mean exactly equal results in the workplace. I don't like the actions he wants to take to "fix" the economy--not only will they not work in the short run, but they'll make the results of FDR's policies, and the stagflation caused by Carter's policies, look mild in comparison.

I believe strongly that abortion on demand (i.e., using it as birth control) is wrong. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should either use contraceptives, which prevent pregnancy from taking place at all, or abstain from sex altogether.

Many nations around the world agree with my view. And our Dear Leader has decided to re-fund overseas abortions. I'm sure that will go over well in Muslim nations.

Which leads me to the things that I think are so flat stupid they scare me. HE'S NOT TAKING HIS RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY SERIOUSLY. The way he's dealing with the terrorist regimes in the Middle East demonstrates that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those regimes see his attempts at diplomacy as weak. And they will think that we will topple with the right shove.

And with the current administration, I can't say I think they're wrong.

I gave him a chance. I really did. He's blown it in two weeks.

Not only a far left, gun-hating, anti-military baby murdering sociopath...

...but probably a coward, too.

Or, at least I suspect so, given these two stories.

I doubt McCain would have suggested drawing down troops in Afghanistan, any more than he would have suggested cutting the military's budget in the midst of a fight for our lives.

Oh, wait: most of the Left thinks of terrorism as a law enforcement issue.