Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Happy 100th Birthday

To the M1911, still the finest sidearm design ever.

I have many fond memories of the M1911, or in my case the M1911A1 with the curved mainspring housing and milled frame at the trigger. I prefer the straight mainspring housing because it fits my hand better than the curved, but I digress. Enlisted personnel are not typically issued sidearms, unless they are machine gunners (which I was, with the awesome M60) or assistant gunners, or in other situations where a rifle would be impractical. I was also on my battalion's pistol team, which I volunteered for to get range time.

The M1911 is probably the world's safest handgun. In order for it to fire, the chamber must be loaded, the frame safety must be in the downward position, the hammer must be cocked, the grip safety must be depressed, and the trigger must be pulled.

What is remarkable about the M1911 is that Browning designed it for cavalry troops ("Horses! What the f____ were you thinking?") Yes, horses. The design is so superior to any other handgun design that the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team currently uses it, as do many of the elite military units of the U.S. and the rest of the world. It has gone from the trenches of WWI, the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, the frozen Chosin, to the VC tunnels in Viet Nam. By 1985, it was being replaced by the inferior M9, also known as the Beretta 92. Ask yourself: In a rock-throwing contest, would you rather have a whole bunch of little rocks to throw all over the place, or would you rather have a few big rocks that you can throw reliably and accurately? The Army made a bad choice.

There are many manufacturers of M1911s, and some are made better than others. Kimber would be at the top of my list, but I would take my sloppy and poorly matched M1911 the Army issued me any day. I put many a round downrange with that pistol, and it never failed once.

In other words, I love the 1911.

Random Thoughts on Mr. Thompson's Speech

What about Sudan? What about Ivory Coast? What about Cuba, for that matter? China? What about every other third-world excrement pit where the women (and more than a few men and children) are raped, or hacked to death with machetes? Are we now to be wholly subservient to the U.N., NATO, or some extra-Constitutional body or foreign government? What exactly is our foreign policy? Why did we not act even sooner if our policy at the time was that Qaddafi "must go"? Why did we not use targeted strikes to eliminate Qaddafi and his lieutenants? Why did Congress end the Viet Nam war by de-funding military operations instead of using the freshly minted War Powers Act, which they passed over Nixon's veto? (N.B.- the U.N. resolution number regarding the Lybia situation is 1973.) Why are the House Republicans not doing the same thing now? Why did the President's speech last so long? Why was he not speaking from the Oval Office?

I have my own answers for these questions. You, dear reader, may have your own as well. Some questions are easier to answer than others. But the only answers which follow a consistent, honest, and rational line of thought are those that reveal the President's desire to abandon the Constitution, fundamentally transform the United States, and reduce our prominence and importance in the world. This is his vision of our foreign policy for the bright shining future.

President Obama is a Marxist. His administration is Marxist. The politicians and media who support him are Marxist. Do you not believe this is true? The Communist Manifesto, wholly uninteresting to a sound mind, contains a section known as the "ten pillars of communism" See if you can't find the President, his administration, and his followers in these statements:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Extra Credit:

1. Which ObamAdiministration official offered Chairman Mao as a favorite political philosopher?

2. Which ObamAdministration official self-identified as a "communist revolutionary?"

3. Which ObamAdministration official praised Britain's failed National Health?

4. What was the Kelo decision?

5. How many tax brackets do we have in the IRS code, and how are they structured?

6. What is the percentage of tax on estates in the U.S.?

7. How do we stop jobs from being "shipped overseas"?

8. What is the Federal Reserve? FHA? HUD? Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac?

9. What function is served by the FCC? What is Amtrak?

10. How many farmers work at the Department of Agriculture? Which automobile manufacturer is owned by the federal government? What is General Electric?

11. Who is the president of the AFL/CIO?

12. What are BioFuels?

13. True or False: Education would cease if the federal Department of Education was eliminated.

Extra Extra Credit:
Explain, in 500 words or less, why "spreading the wealth around" is better for everyone. Use evidence to support your arguments.
Good luck. This should be easy if you are intellectually honest.

Friday, March 25, 2011

The GOP, 2012, and Homeschooling

I look forward to education becoming an issue with clear lines of division and distinction in the 2012 races.

Based on my college experience in education school (yes, I have a B.A.), I have long been of the opinion that public schools are little more than government indoctrination centers, where education takes a back seat to loose social morality and multicultural awareness. During my student teaching, I encountered social promotion of a 10th grader who had not yet learned how to read. The child clearly was not mentally retarded, and was like the other students in every way. It was believed his presence in the school was better for everyone than if he chose to drop out. Then there was the condom giveaways in "health" class, "Fall Harvest" instead of Thanksgiving, and "Kwaanza," a holiday invented by malcontents in the 1960's, instead of Christmas, or even "Holidays." Ritalin was widely prescribed to many children. All of this on top of tenure for shitty teachers. I was disgusted by the whole experience, and I vowed never to become a public school teacher. I also vowed to homeschool my children.

I am encouraged by the following article, presented in it entirety below. NB- While I understand religious reasons for homeschooling, religion is not a consideration in our choice to homeschool. That said, it is a mistake to assume homeschoolers are religious kooks. Or political kooks. We care about our children as individuals, and we place a high value on their individual minds.

From Yahoo:
By Kay Henderson Kay Henderson – Thu Mar 24, 3:35 pm ET
DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) – Three potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates expressed hostility toward the public school system at a home schooling rally on Wednesday in the early presidential caucus state of Iowa.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul told the crowd government wants "absolute control" of the "indoctrination" of children. Paul spoke along with Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Georgia businessman Herman Cain.

"The public school system now is a propaganda machine," Paul said, prompting applause from the crowd of hundreds of home schooling families. "They start with our kids even in kindergarten, teaching them about family values, sexual education, gun rights, environmentalism - and they condition them to believe in so much which is totally un-American."

Bachmann said home schooling is the "essence" of freedom and liberty. "It's about knowing our children better than the state knows our children," she said.

Bachmann, who home-schooled her five biological children, lamented that she and her husband had been unable to teach the 23 foster children who have lived in their home because Minnesota authorities said foster children could not be home-schooled.

"It is not up to a bureaucrat to decide what is best for your children," Bachmann said, drawing cheers from the crowd. "I am so tired of the establishment telling us that they know best. We know best."

Cain, former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza and another prospective Republican candidate, denounced government involvement in education at all levels.

"That's all we want is for government to get out of the way so we can educate ourselves and our children the old-fashioned way," Cain said.

Justin LaVan of the Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators said it was encouraging to see potential presidential candidates talking about the home-schooling movement.

"More importantly, talking about our Creator - our rights that came from our Creator, acknowledging that and giving him the glory, folks," said LaVan, who served as master of ceremonies at the rally.

(Editing by Mary Wisniewski and Greg McCune)

Note: I wonder if in the above quote, Ron Paul actually said "gay rights" intead of "gun rights." Hmmm.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011


A woman in Florida used her pink pistol to shoot and kill an intruder.

It is now possible that she will be facing charges for using excessive force because she fired more than one round. Florida has castle doctrine, so we shall see.

What is the minimum number of rounds needed to (probably) guarantee elimination of threat? 3: Two in the chest, one in the head. That said, the number of rounds fired is irrelevant as long as there is a perceived threat. Is not your life, and the lives of your loved ones, more important than any criminal intruder intending to harm you? I say it is. Give him the only destruction he has a right to seek: his own.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Hell No, We Won't Go...er...yeah...oops...Kill Them Until They are Dead!

Here's President Obama, who was against the war from before the start of the beginning of the beginning of the start of the war:

And here's Vice President Biden:

And here is Biden voting for the $87 billion before he voted against it:

The recent attacks on Lybia show the hypocrisy enmeshed in the Statist left like cancer.

This is too rich. Nader is screaming "IMPEACH! WAR CRIMES! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!" Kucinich, formerly my congressman, is citing the U.S. Constitution on the issue, and he is correct! And Obama himself has said the President does not have the authority to do what he himself is doing!

I am of the opinion that there are more men that need killin' than there are horses that need stealin'. In other words, I am not a pansy about destroying the enemy. I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bungled as they were and continue to be today. Both wars were initiated on the belief that the United States was under an imminent threat based on what was thought to be credible intelligence about the threat. Perhaps President Bush lacked a formal "Declaration of War." At least he had the approval of Congress and UN resolution 1441.

Where is the threat today? To be sure, Quadaffi is a thug (Pan Am, Berlin disco, not to mention his internal activities), but is there actionable intel? Is the Colonel planning something the rest of us do not know about? No. All we know is that a so-called democracy movement has taken hold, and it has turned into an armed rebellion. We should stay out of civil wars, or so I seem to remember someone saying recently.

Is Chairman Maobama going to give back his Nobel Peace Prize? NB- President Obama was given the Peace Prize based on what the Nobel committee felt what he could do, not what they thought he would do.

President Obama has become everything the left hated about President Bush. And they have no option but to vote for his reelection in 2012.


Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Robert Hurt, D-VA(5), a.k.a. Douchey McBag, Votes to Fund ObamaCare

Mr. McBag voted with the feckless Republican majority to fund ObamaCare as part of the CR, the official name being H J Res 48. This included funding for ObamaCare, the unconstitutional health care law that the new Republican majority voted overwhelmingly to repeal.

Funding for ObamaCare is hidden in the ObamaCare law, and bypasses normal appropriations procedures. The house had the opportunity to begin killing the law. The "rules" argument against de-funding through the CR was excrement, to wit: From Ernest Istook's recent testimony, as quoted in the Washington times:

To de-fund Obamacare, it is insufficient simply to deny future funding. Until the full law can be repealed, at least the existing and advance appropriations need to be rescinded, just as the House last month voted to repeal billions of dollars from previous appropriations to 123 federal programs. An effort to restrict use of the funds appropriated within Obamacare was thwarted because the House did not waive the same point of order (House Rule XXI) as it waived to allow de-funding those 123 other programs. This was most unfortunate.

Mr. McBag would have done well to go against the House leadership, but he is now showing his RINO stripes. He voted for Boehner, a 20+ year veteran of big government republican party politics, to be Speaker. Real leadership was shown by Reps. Bachmann and King, not Boehner and Cantor. The Republican leadership in the House and their lackeys, are, for a lack of a better term, a bunch of gutless turds. They are not part of the Tea Party movement, but they reaped the benefits of the Tea Party voters that swept them into power.

Why would someone vote to repeal a law, and then vote to continue funding for that law? Why would someone run a campaign on a platform of fiscal responsibility, and then act in a fiscally irresponsible manner?

Bye-bye, Mr. Douchey McBag. May you follow in the footsteps of your predecessor, and become the second one-term congressman from Virginia since the 1800s. May you be primaried, and defeated. I will do my best to see that it is so.

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Mike Stark is Either a Bourgeois Socialist, or a Useful Idiot.

I have written about this fool before. He is obsesssed with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, and likes to think he helped get Jim Melonhead Webb elected to the Senate over George Allen. I do not listen to Rush and Sean, but I know millions do every day. I have only heard him once on the program I listen to, the Wilkow Majority (sidebar). His argument was smashed into little pieces by the host, and he hung up crying like a little girl.

How many people read Mikey's blog, or care about what he has to say, or even know he exists? He and his blog probably have about five or six more readers than me. Which isn't saying much.

So Mikey, if you are reading this, did you study con law at UVA? I'm sure you did. Were your lectures devoted to case precedent, or the actual Constitution? Have you actually sat down and read the Constitution, Mikey? Have you read it for what it does say, or what you want it to say, or what your bearded Marxist professor told you it says?

Do you moderate the comments on your blog to exclude those that challenge, and defeat soundly, your assertions? Do you only allow those comments which stroke your ego and lick your boots?

When did you stop beating your wife? When did you stop doing drugs? Oops. Those are your questions.

Tell me truly, Mike Stark. Are you a Bourgeois Socialist, or a Useful Idiot?

Intruder Alert

CNN reports that an intruder called 911 because he was afraid the homeowner may have a gun.


Friday, March 04, 2011

Bertram Scudder

Why is it so easy to pick apart a Nobel Economics Prize winning "journalist" like Paul Krugman? In his latest piece, "How to Kill a Recovery," Mr. Krugman's first mistake is to assume that there is an economic recovery in the first place. The timing of the article is suspicious as well, following hard upon the news of a "reduced" unemployment rate. Here's the meat, if you will, of Krugman's stupid article:
So we’ve gone through years of high unemployment and inadequate growth. Despite the pain, however, American families have gradually improved their financial position. And in the past few months there have been signs of an emerging virtuous circle. As families have repaired their finances, they have increased their spending; as consumer demand has started to revive, businesses have become more willing to invest; and all this has led to an expanding economy, which further improves families’ financial situation.

But it’s still a fragile process, especially given the effects of rising oil and food prices. These price rises have little to do with U.S. policy; they’re mainly because of growing demand from China and other emerging markets, on one side, and disruption of supply from political turmoil and terrible weather on the other. But they’re a hit to purchasing power at an especially awkward time. And things will be much worse if the Federal Reserve and other central banks mistakenly respond to higher headline inflation by raising interest rates.

The clear and present danger to recovery, however, comes from politics — specifically, the demand from House Republicans that the government immediately slash spending on infant nutrition, disease control, clean water and more. Quite aside from their negative long-run consequences, these cuts would lead, directly and indirectly, to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs — and this could short-circuit the virtuous circle of rising incomes and improving finances. [emphasis mine]

Spending is up because things are more expensive. Things are more expensive as a result of our destructive policies, such as an increase in the minimum wage, higher energy prices, biofuels, more regulation of industry, more regulation on small businesses, an uncertain tax future, corporate and individual welfare, not to mention the effects of ObamaCare implementation.

This administration is thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the rule of law, to wit: Non-enforcement of DOMA, and the rejection of Judge Vinson's ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Lawlessness begets lawlessness.

Speaking of unconstitutional, spending, as the President famously said, "one dime" on things such as "infant nutrition, disease control, clean water and more" is wholly unconstitutional. I refer the reader to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. There is a reason why Congress's powers are limited, as we are now witnessing.

Yes, Mr. Krugman, those cuts would lead to the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Government jobs, that is. And that would be a good thing. Think about what you do during the day, and see if there is anything into which federal government does not exert its influence. You cannot even flush your toilet without them saying how much water you can use.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Random Economic Thoughts

Our national debt continues to skyrocket. If you are feeling at all suicidal, don't click on the link. I will not be responsible for your death.

Banks are using bailout money to buy T-bills.

The commercial real estate market is near collapse.

The fake phony fraud Deceptecons voted yesterday to make cuts of a few billion dollars, then they had the balls to publicly pat themselves on the back about it. All but a handful of Republicans voted for this fraud. If the spending is not cut by about $750,000,000,000 in the next few weeks, we will have to raise the debt limit yet again.

In an unrelated story, gold closed at an all-time record high of over $1430 an ounce; silver closed at almost $35 an ounce.

I remember well overhearing some friends discussing gold and silver. My friends were amused by their parents' gold and silver buying, which at the time was at $800 and $10 an ounce, respectively. As is often said, who is laughing now?

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Useful Idiots, the Statist Agenda, and the Defense of Liberty

For those who found my most recent post offensive, I apologize for not making my point clearly enough.

Most Americans have had enough of the ever-increasing domination of their lives by tyrannical authoritarian government. The Statist's answer to problems created by government is: more government. The answer to failed systems is: more systems. The answer to failed bureaucracies is: more bureaucracies. The answer to failed regulations is: more regulations. The answer to failed pubic education is: more spending on public education. This is the root and stalk of the Tea Party protests.

Who gets a free pension in this world? Public sector union employees. The government cannot staple two pieces of paper together without taking the fruit of someone's labor to pay for it - the labor of a person working in the private sector who has a freeloader riding on their back. Labor unions represent less than 10% of the private sector, but more than 50% of the public, or government, sector. Untaxed money is confiscated from the union membership as "dues" and given to candidates who are friendly to the unions, 90% of which are Democrats. This is illegal according to the IRS rules, and yet it is done every day by these criminal front groups. In the case of the Wisconsin teacher's union, an NEA affiliate, the health insurance given to the teachers comes from a subsidiary corporation of the Wisconsin teacher's union. The Democrat party, labor unions, and the federal government have a simbiotic relationship as locusts which devour private property, liberty and the civil society.

Taken to its logical end, the Statist's agenda will result in a police state similar to the Soviet Union. I would recommend that anyone who believes labor unions, "free" pensions, "free" health care, "free" whatever, read We the Living by Ayn Rand.

In case you think that the "get a little bloody" comments were an isolated incident, I submit for your consideration this, this, this:


and this:

This last one is funny, in a way. Leave it to one of these fools to threaten sodomy on someone, then call them a "faggot."