Tuesday, March 31, 2009

I think Hell just froze over.

I actually agree with the Russians on something that will be (currently) detrimental to the United States' economy: a return to the gold standard.

I do agree that we need to have something backing our currency, and I prefer it not to be oil, as I do not want to be further dependent upon our enemies.

I believe that, though the return to the gold standard will hurt us quite badly in the short run, it will prevent our Dear Leader from printing money to pay off debt (which the early American states discovered simply didn't work) and debasing our currency further.

Same old song and dance?

Israel's new Prime Minister has promised that there will be lasting peace between Arabs and Israelis. He said nothing about an autonomous Palestinian nation, which puts him at odds with suicidal Israeli Liberals; however, he also didn't say he wouldn't deport all of them beyond Israel's borders and wash his hands of them.

And really, there will be no lasting peace between the Islamofacists that currently control all Muslim nations and peoples and Israel, the United States, and the rest of the West this side of the grave.

You see, people consistently forget that, like The Gulf War (where we were asked in by the Kuwaitis after Hussein's Iraq invaded them), like the current, ongoing operations in Afghanistan (where we've shut down al-Quaeda training bases, and driven out the Taliban--for now), and like Operation Iraqi Freedom (where Hussein was paying bounties to the families of homicide bombers), the Crusades were primarily a defensive war. The European nations, yes, took the fight into the Middle East. Yes, they killed Muslims--men, and later women and children, as well--and eventually Jews, as well. However, it started when the Muslims began attacking and killing Christians making pilgrimages (hajj to the Muslims), and encroaching into European lands.
Granted, the Christians did end up taking things a bit too far in the atrocities--at least, they have according to current thought, which neglects to point out (or even remember) that the first atrocities were on their side, not ours, and with which I disagree. I do have to admit, though that the Crusades failed in most respects: the Muslims kept the Middle East, kept killing peaceful Christian pilgrims, and eventually invaded and conquered a good chunk of Europe. However, the Crusades failed mostly because the bloody Europeans could not work together, and because they couldn't keep fighting a (then) superior foe.

That doesn't mean that the Christians in the Middle Ages didn't have the right idea in taking the fight to the Muslims. Nor does it mean that it's not the right idea now.

We, the West, has left the Middle Ages. We've moved on in pretty much all respects, from respecting the rights that each human being is born with, to improvements in life expectancy and quality through scientific and medical advancement. If Islam were not centered in the biggest available oil reserves (thank you, Democrats), they would be completely irrelevant because they never left the Middle Ages in any respect.

The current regime--er, administration--fully understands that, by controlling language, they can control thought. That's why they've decided to stop calling the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay "enemy combatants" and Middle Eastern operations "the War on Terror." They haven't fully decided what they do want to call them, haven't figured out how they can pc it out of our minds that these Islamofacist killers are dangerous.

I do agree that the terminology needs to be changed. "Enemy combatant" implies, after all, that they are lawful combatants, which they aren't. And the "War on Terror" implies that it's their actions that we're battling, when it's really their entire ideology.

However, I think we need to call a terrorist a terrorist, a spade a spade...and a Crusade a Crusade. After all, better to engage them in their own territory than allow them to import their own Dark Ages views to more civilized lands...and it's not too late to throw the terrorists out.

We tried it your way, dumbshits. Now can we please go back to what works?

The answer to that is apparently no.

Michael Steele said it: "[Rush Limbaugh is] not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party." He apologized for it a day later, but he initially said it. And meant it.

He was wrong. The head of the conservatives, who make up the backbone and musculature of the Republican party, is Rush Limbaugh. Telling Sarah Palin, who happens to be one of the darlings of the talk radio movement is nothing more than another attempt by the Beltway Bandits* to prove that they run the Republican party.

It's because of these twats that we have The Quicker Fucker-Upper** in office. After all, they're the ones who preferred another of the self-chosen elite for the Republican nominee, rather than someone the people identified with.

*Beltway Bandits--the Washington D.C. insiders (i.e., self-chosen elite) who are disgusted by the common man. The real divide between the two Americas lies between those of us who believe in the original vision, and these ignoble nobility that think they know best for us all.

**Again, credit goes to Vilmar of Kickin' and Screamin'.

Monday, March 30, 2009

This is where we actually need "more power."

The United States Constitution clearly states that one of the main responsibilities of the United States federal government is maintaining the physical safety of the people. While it's a stretch to read that as the responsibility to impose a sin tax on things that aren't good for us (like cigarettes), it is not a stretch to read that as meaning that the United States federal government has a responsibility to meet and respond to military threats.

However, the federal government is falling down on that job. Seriously falling down on that job.

North Korea is preparing to launch a "satellite." In reality, the world is aware that that launch is a mask for a test of ICBM technology. That "satellite" could reach Hawaii. And our government is doing nothing about it.

Japan is threatening to shoot down the missile--er, satellite. I hope they do it, even though I hate--hate--that we're being forced to depend upon another government to keep us safe.

What's good for power tools isn't good for government.

I keep seeing these news stories about increasing cigarette tax and CAFE standards, and about mandatory depression screening for all teens, and about nationalizing banks, insurance companies, and auto makers, and I keep flashing on Tim Allen's tag line from Home Improvement.

And I keep thinking about the consequences the quest for "more power!" had for poor Tim and his family and friends.

As bad as those consequences were, they'll be nothing compared to the consequences of the government's quest, consequences that we the people will face. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the possibility of a second civil war to take back our country is not the worst we face. I'd far prefer that to living in The People's Socialist Republic of the United States of America.

May God have mercy on us all for the stupidity of the majority who elected that communist son of a bitch.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

About time. Times two.

First, despite all the whinging about "meltdowns" and about "radioactive waste," the Libtards have decided that they're going to allow nuclear energy, and new nuclear plants, for clean, inexpensive electricity.

And, quite honestly, the "meltdowns" danger is a bit of a thing of the past, with continuing advances in safer reactor technology.

About time, I say. France has been using nuclear power for years.

Second, the report labeling pretty much every conservative group out there "potential terrorists" has been rescinded. Jay Nixon claims to have had no knowledge of what was in the report before it came out.

Umm...HIS NAME WAS ACROSS THE TOP OF IT!!! If your NAME is on it, you'd damned well better know what's going to be in it. Seriously, though, if Nixon had no idea what was in the report, then he's incompetent as well as stupid. Wait...that's a tautology isn't it? He is a liberal, after all.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

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.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

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?

Monday, March 23, 2009

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.

Friday, March 20, 2009

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.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

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.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

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.


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.

Friday, March 13, 2009

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.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

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.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

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.

Monday, March 9, 2009

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.


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.

Friday, March 6, 2009

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:

Sunday, March 1, 2009

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.