Thursday, June 26, 2008
Author of Cathedral and Bazaar on Guns
Eric Raymond, Author or title book which is one of the seminal works of the Open Source software movement has some interesting opinions on gun ownership.
No Right Found?
High court strikes down gun ban - CNN.com
I fine the MSMs choice of words to be interesting. Usually if there is ruling on abortion, we see headlines like "Court Upholds a Woman's Right to Choose", but in this case, from the POV of the MSM, they are active ... they "struck down" a law. Of course the 4 justices that voted to uphold this law either felt that the constitution needs to tell us it is OK to have an army that carries guns, or more likely, that the "constituion is a living document" and whatever 9 folks in robes think is a good right to make up or strike down ought to be fine with everyone else.
The 2nd amendment is really the ONLY right that counts when it comes right down to it. An unarmed populace is guaranteed to be sheep--Nazi Germain, USSR, China, Cuba, you name it--when they come for your guns it is the very last chance for any rights to remain. Under Saddam, the Iraqis had the right to vote, for some strange reason the vote always came out like 97% for Saddam. The claim may be made that one has "free speech"-- the USSR main paper was "Pravda", or "Truth". The difference between Pravda and the MSM in the US isn't nearly as great as we might think. Today, all the folks at CBS, NBC, NYT, etc with any kind of ability to get a story out would tell you that they are "very free". Of course today, we have Fox News and talk radio, where some of the folks whose views were not tolerated in the MSM outlets actually DO have the right to state their opinion. Passage of the Fairness Doctrine could put an end to that any day.
Abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Amendments, yet the high court found a specific right for abortion that states were not allowed to rule on there. The right to bear arms is as explicitly called out as any right in the constitution, yet it took 32 years for a challenge to make it to the Supreme Court, and it passed by a SINGLE VOTE! The MSM would have you believe that what happened here is a fairly arbitrary action and that there is no "right"--at least no right that is like the "right to abortion".
The most clearly delineated personal right in the constitution, and fundamentally the only one that makes the document more than a piece of toilet paper was upheld by a SINGLE VOTE. The old "doomsday clock" that supposedly set a time until we would annihilate ourselves with nukes used to tick perilously close to disaster. Why don't we have a "totalitarian clock"? Alarms ought to be ringing for everyone.
I fine the MSMs choice of words to be interesting. Usually if there is ruling on abortion, we see headlines like "Court Upholds a Woman's Right to Choose", but in this case, from the POV of the MSM, they are active ... they "struck down" a law. Of course the 4 justices that voted to uphold this law either felt that the constitution needs to tell us it is OK to have an army that carries guns, or more likely, that the "constituion is a living document" and whatever 9 folks in robes think is a good right to make up or strike down ought to be fine with everyone else.
The 2nd amendment is really the ONLY right that counts when it comes right down to it. An unarmed populace is guaranteed to be sheep--Nazi Germain, USSR, China, Cuba, you name it--when they come for your guns it is the very last chance for any rights to remain. Under Saddam, the Iraqis had the right to vote, for some strange reason the vote always came out like 97% for Saddam. The claim may be made that one has "free speech"-- the USSR main paper was "Pravda", or "Truth". The difference between Pravda and the MSM in the US isn't nearly as great as we might think. Today, all the folks at CBS, NBC, NYT, etc with any kind of ability to get a story out would tell you that they are "very free". Of course today, we have Fox News and talk radio, where some of the folks whose views were not tolerated in the MSM outlets actually DO have the right to state their opinion. Passage of the Fairness Doctrine could put an end to that any day.
Abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Amendments, yet the high court found a specific right for abortion that states were not allowed to rule on there. The right to bear arms is as explicitly called out as any right in the constitution, yet it took 32 years for a challenge to make it to the Supreme Court, and it passed by a SINGLE VOTE! The MSM would have you believe that what happened here is a fairly arbitrary action and that there is no "right"--at least no right that is like the "right to abortion".
The most clearly delineated personal right in the constitution, and fundamentally the only one that makes the document more than a piece of toilet paper was upheld by a SINGLE VOTE. The old "doomsday clock" that supposedly set a time until we would annihilate ourselves with nukes used to tick perilously close to disaster. Why don't we have a "totalitarian clock"? Alarms ought to be ringing for everyone.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
How Can God Himself "Distort the Bible"?
Evangelist accuses Obama of 'distorting' Bible - CNN.com
Wow, James Dobson is REALLY important, his view of Obama's comments on the Bible is enough to warrant a full headline on CNN online. Is Dobson running for anything? Is he "in bed with the Republicans"? ... Well, if one reads the article, right IN the article it admits that Dobson has indicated that he will NOT vote for McCain. Talk about your "Republican shill".
So why DO you run this as a picture headline on CNN? I guess my question would be: "Why would Obama think that he needs a special staff to deal with "false attacks and rumors", when he obviously has CNN"? (and NPR, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, ....) The reason "why" is pretty obvious, CNN wants to do their best to "defend their guy and demonize ANYONE ... candidate or otherwise that makes any punches that might even have an outside chance of landing.
So what did the MSM deity BO say?
What could be wrong with that? I mean, his holiness BO is certainly a noted theologian, right? I mean we ALL know that MANY in the Republican party have been calling for a theocracy where we would govern "solely on the word of the Bible"--nothing alarmist or off the wall there, right? We all know that there hasn't been any Christian theologists in 2K years that have come to any conclusions of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments for Christians, right?
I hesitate to question the great theologion, BO, but I know he will enlighten us in the future on the lack of meaning of Acts 10:
We are truly blessed to be alive in this time to experience the theological insights of the the great odor ... BO.
Wow, James Dobson is REALLY important, his view of Obama's comments on the Bible is enough to warrant a full headline on CNN online. Is Dobson running for anything? Is he "in bed with the Republicans"? ... Well, if one reads the article, right IN the article it admits that Dobson has indicated that he will NOT vote for McCain. Talk about your "Republican shill".
So why DO you run this as a picture headline on CNN? I guess my question would be: "Why would Obama think that he needs a special staff to deal with "false attacks and rumors", when he obviously has CNN"? (and NPR, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, ....) The reason "why" is pretty obvious, CNN wants to do their best to "defend their guy and demonize ANYONE ... candidate or otherwise that makes any punches that might even have an outside chance of landing.
So what did the MSM deity BO say?
In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to
govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages
suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama
asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests
slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could
go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays
from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
"So before we get carried away, let's read our Bible now," Obama said, to cheers. "Folks haven't been reading their Bible."
He also called Jesus' Sermon on the Mount "a passage that is so radical
that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its
application."
What could be wrong with that? I mean, his holiness BO is certainly a noted theologian, right? I mean we ALL know that MANY in the Republican party have been calling for a theocracy where we would govern "solely on the word of the Bible"--nothing alarmist or off the wall there, right? We all know that there hasn't been any Christian theologists in 2K years that have come to any conclusions of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments for Christians, right?
I hesitate to question the great theologion, BO, but I know he will enlighten us in the future on the lack of meaning of Acts 10:
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."No doubt Dobson is wrong and BO is right, it is "impossible to decide" between the OT and NT on what one ought to do! I wonder who is more believable on theological topics between BO and the Pope? Guess it would have to be BO, since he obviously trumps St Peter, who was the first Pope!
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
We are truly blessed to be alive in this time to experience the theological insights of the the great odor ... BO.
Monday, June 23, 2008
A Gun Vault to "Shoot For"
Supposedly the late Charlton Heston's gun vault. Not everyone really "needs" a flamethrower, but if you can't trust Moses with one, who could you trust?
Too Hot for the US Press
Postcard from America: affirmative action gone mad | Janet Albrechtsen Blog | The Australian
I'm sure that 99% of the very few folks that read my Blog are quite certain that I'm completely crackers on any concerns about this "fairness doctrine", which they likely don't even believe ever existed. They really can't be blamed if they read only the MSM, it isn't like the MSM likes to talk about it AT ALL! Why would they? The advent of Talk Radio and Fox news is horrible competition for them. If the Democrats can get rid of any conservative voices, then the MSM market share goes up!
Apparently the Australian Press likes to see a little more "flavor", so are willing to go out on a limb and cover it a bit.
What good is "freedom of the press" if things are arranged so that most folks never even realize even a tiny bit of the diversity of opinion that is out there?
I'm sure that 99% of the very few folks that read my Blog are quite certain that I'm completely crackers on any concerns about this "fairness doctrine", which they likely don't even believe ever existed. They really can't be blamed if they read only the MSM, it isn't like the MSM likes to talk about it AT ALL! Why would they? The advent of Talk Radio and Fox news is horrible competition for them. If the Democrats can get rid of any conservative voices, then the MSM market share goes up!
Apparently the Australian Press likes to see a little more "flavor", so are willing to go out on a limb and cover it a bit.
What good is "freedom of the press" if things are arranged so that most folks never even realize even a tiny bit of the diversity of opinion that is out there?
What Is BO Like at a Country Club?
Political Punch
The article is short, the "meat" is:
What is interesting is the venom in the ABC reporter writing this and then the SCADS of responses to it (of which I read very few, but "sampled" by scrolling down). What do THEY care what "Karl Rove says?" I don't believe he is working for McCain or the Republicans in any capacity whatsoever this election cycle. In 2006, he lost big and his guys numbers are completely in the toilet. It makes one wonder about folks that are still seething when the game is effectively over for at least this guy.
I suspect that most of these folks are like the help at the country club that is jealous and wants to figure out how to contaminate the food to make the customers sick. NOTE ... I wouldn't even imagine such a thing if not for Barbara Ehrenreich writing in her famous liberal tome "Nickel and Dimed" where she discusses such a sentiment from just WORKING as a housekeeper when she discovers that some folks with a big house have "conservative books". Barbara is of course at lest WAY upper middle class, and I would assume "basic rich" based on her book sales alone.
It takes a special kind of person to have the kind of outrage these people have over what is "less than nothing". This is an idle Rove comment at an event that was supposed to be WAY more "closed" than the BO "Bitterly clinging" event. Are we so low on injustice in the world that idle comments from Karl are worth this much concern from MSM folks and acolyte sheep? Guess so.
The article is short, the "meat" is:
"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per
Christianne Klein. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful
date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall
and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."
What is interesting is the venom in the ABC reporter writing this and then the SCADS of responses to it (of which I read very few, but "sampled" by scrolling down). What do THEY care what "Karl Rove says?" I don't believe he is working for McCain or the Republicans in any capacity whatsoever this election cycle. In 2006, he lost big and his guys numbers are completely in the toilet. It makes one wonder about folks that are still seething when the game is effectively over for at least this guy.
I suspect that most of these folks are like the help at the country club that is jealous and wants to figure out how to contaminate the food to make the customers sick. NOTE ... I wouldn't even imagine such a thing if not for Barbara Ehrenreich writing in her famous liberal tome "Nickel and Dimed" where she discusses such a sentiment from just WORKING as a housekeeper when she discovers that some folks with a big house have "conservative books". Barbara is of course at lest WAY upper middle class, and I would assume "basic rich" based on her book sales alone.
It takes a special kind of person to have the kind of outrage these people have over what is "less than nothing". This is an idle Rove comment at an event that was supposed to be WAY more "closed" than the BO "Bitterly clinging" event. Are we so low on injustice in the world that idle comments from Karl are worth this much concern from MSM folks and acolyte sheep? Guess so.
Who Needs Democrats?
I'd REALLY like to figure out some way to hold my nose and vote for this guy, but how stupid can one be? There **IS** a "prize" ... it is called PROFITS, and if a company can come out with a battery like that, no doubt if would be worth billions in profits, not some paltry $300 million. To have a suppsed REPUBLICAN that doesn't understand that makes one wonder just how far toward socialism we have really slipped.
McCain plan: $300 million prize for better car battery - CNN.com
Sombody Else Had Better Do it
Op-Ed Columnist - Someone Else’s Alex - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com
It is always hard to tell if lefties believe in some perfect world that doesn't exist, or just believe that "somebody else ought to take care of it"--in the end it is pretty much a distinction without a difference. The bottom line is that they can't be counted on to do what needs to be done, only to complain about whatever the current conditions are, and about the people that are producing energy, food, transportation, wealth, health care, and anything else of merit. What the lefties produce best is usually a lot of chattering that when possible to parse can often be made out to be some complaint on one thing or another-and a usually not so thinly veiled threat that SOMEBODY really ought to fix it NOW.
It is always hard to tell if lefties believe in some perfect world that doesn't exist, or just believe that "somebody else ought to take care of it"--in the end it is pretty much a distinction without a difference. The bottom line is that they can't be counted on to do what needs to be done, only to complain about whatever the current conditions are, and about the people that are producing energy, food, transportation, wealth, health care, and anything else of merit. What the lefties produce best is usually a lot of chattering that when possible to parse can often be made out to be some complaint on one thing or another-and a usually not so thinly veiled threat that SOMEBODY really ought to fix it NOW.
Did I Mention He Is A God?
John J. Pitney Jr. on Barack Obama & Race Card on National Review Online
This is a cute little article, if it wasn't so sad. A few weeks ago BO politely stated "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun", and a few weeks before that, some guy gave him a big stick, and he said that would be what we would "beat the congress with" if they didn't do his bidding. Of course, all of this is completely in "good fun", as it may well be for all I know. The fact that BO has been getting mostly "Are there any questions you would like us to ask Mr Obama?" kind of kid-gloves treatment from BOTH the media and certainly McCain, but he never the less has a "rapid response team" set up to deal with "untruthful attacks", and is constantly on the guard for any "racial subtext". "Subtext" can usually be found pretty well without looking very hard for it ... "bringing a gun" and "beating congress up with a stick", are of course very subtle and no overt messages need to be taken from THOSE!
This is a cute little article, if it wasn't so sad. A few weeks ago BO politely stated "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun", and a few weeks before that, some guy gave him a big stick, and he said that would be what we would "beat the congress with" if they didn't do his bidding. Of course, all of this is completely in "good fun", as it may well be for all I know. The fact that BO has been getting mostly "Are there any questions you would like us to ask Mr Obama?" kind of kid-gloves treatment from BOTH the media and certainly McCain, but he never the less has a "rapid response team" set up to deal with "untruthful attacks", and is constantly on the guard for any "racial subtext". "Subtext" can usually be found pretty well without looking very hard for it ... "bringing a gun" and "beating congress up with a stick", are of course very subtle and no overt messages need to be taken from THOSE!
You Can Take Salem Out of the Country
... but you can't take the country out of Salem! This article reminds me of that old cigarette ad. As some of us who moved to cities of say "50K" 30 years ago and watched the growth of "cultural diversity" and the effects, this isn't exactly "newsworthy", but it IS pretty darned amazing to see someone print the obvious statistics in black and white, and last I checked, The Atalantic wasn't even some wacko far right journal.
Locally, the paper often gets letters to the editor when they print the pictures of the perpetrators of some local stabbing, shooting, murder or drug bust, but I'm thinking that all except the most brilliant on the left can pretty much figure out the name "Mohammad Mustaffa Mohammad" or "James Jefferson Washington" without the photo. Is that racist? My thinking would be that reporting the people that did the crime is just factual. What is racist is someone thinking it can or should be hidden.
So, news at 11, as the improvement in the economy since '80 plus at least some Government programs has allowed inner city folks to move out to smaller cities, a lot of crime has migrated with them. Drum roll -- doing crime has more to do with who you are and what your values are rather than the circumstances of where you are living, income, etc. There may or may not be ways to improve humans, but "U-Haul" doesn't cover it. Seems like one might need a PHD from some pretty dense lefties to think that it would.
My guess is that we are just seeing the VERY early beginnings of this phenomenon. Welcome to the '70s.
American Murder Mystery
Locally, the paper often gets letters to the editor when they print the pictures of the perpetrators of some local stabbing, shooting, murder or drug bust, but I'm thinking that all except the most brilliant on the left can pretty much figure out the name "Mohammad Mustaffa Mohammad" or "James Jefferson Washington" without the photo. Is that racist? My thinking would be that reporting the people that did the crime is just factual. What is racist is someone thinking it can or should be hidden.
So, news at 11, as the improvement in the economy since '80 plus at least some Government programs has allowed inner city folks to move out to smaller cities, a lot of crime has migrated with them. Drum roll -- doing crime has more to do with who you are and what your values are rather than the circumstances of where you are living, income, etc. There may or may not be ways to improve humans, but "U-Haul" doesn't cover it. Seems like one might need a PHD from some pretty dense lefties to think that it would.
My guess is that we are just seeing the VERY early beginnings of this phenomenon. Welcome to the '70s.
American Murder Mystery
Sunday, June 22, 2008
S&W .22S
I picked up my first used gun over the weekend, a S&W 5" barrel stainless (matte finish) .22 with a NcSTAR tactical "red dot" that allows me to have 4 projected sight options. Very large composite target wood grip that I REALLY liked the feel of was a major selling point, along with the full length weaver sight mounts.
Took it out to the range today and shot some of the nicest groups I've ever shot at 10 and 20 yards. The above was from 10 yards on sandbags ... just trying to see how well the GUN could do. I just forgot to put 3 in the middle and upper right I put 2 through essentially the same hole.
I'm enjoying a lot of this whole handgun experience, but I can only stand so many loud bangs with recoil. The old .22 is hard to beat for fun. I would have definitely went with the Ruger MK III hunter in SS with the fluted bull barrel if I didn't have two buddies that have that exact gun. Ruger makes one of those with a bigger grip I think that I might like just as well or better, but part of the fun of shooting is to have some different things to shoot, and it doesn't seem likely that I can really have ALL of the potentials in my own stable. Therefore, I felt a bit of a "group responsibility", coupled with the desire to add a Smith and Wesson to my stable. I already have the SP 100 Ruger .357.
I suspect there will be a lot of fun rounds put through this little gem.
Great Seal of BO
For the latin challenged "Vero Possumus" means "Verified Possum".
Well, not actually, it means "Truely we are able" or basically, "Yes We Can". This is of course a really good idea because all the brilliant democrats are up on their latin and instantly see the meaning in all this, while the idiot red-state Republicans are just going to be mystified by the power of this symbol and think "gee, what does this remind me of"?
Oh, wait, the Presidential seal. Upon further review though, you realize that the BO seal has 57 stars (+2). The nice thing about BO is his HUMILITY! Did you know that Bush has a "smirk"? BO is just a humble guy, that is hugely in his favor.
Friday, June 20, 2008
I Can't Exonerate Hillary in Foster Case
Here is a remarkable CNN headline. Current book salesman, ex-fired White House spokesman Scott McClellen "can't exonerate Cheney". Uh, Duh? What is the difference between "I don't have any information" and "I can't exonerate" rather than the implication of guilt? This is a HEADLINE? Absence of proof of INNOCENCE is now news? I would ASSUME it is true that not even THE OBAMA could "exonerate Saddam from having had WMDs" -- even though the media would have us believe that "fact' is a metaphysical certainty. What kind of evidence would it take to "exonerate" someone from something like a leak? It isn't one of those things like a murder that HAS to happen at a single point in time, so therefore if you have proof that a suspect was someplace else, you may be able to "exonerate them".
What level of bias does one need to print that as a headline? It is hard to even fathom, given that it is both ridiculous and biased beyond belief.
BTW, for those that exist in some alternate universe, the "Plame Affair" is WAY over ... the grand jury packed up, the "perpetrator" that let us know that a lady that drove from her suburban Washington home to CIA headquarters during the work week actually ... drum role! ... WORKED AT THE CIA!!! His name is Richard Armitage and there is a lot of coverage of his admissions on this point, including in this blog .
At the end of the Clinton years, we were treated to constant articles of "Move On!" relative to the scandals, and MoveOn.org was even founded on the horror of Republicans and "the conservative echo chamber" keeping useless stories about the Clintons alive. Here we see a headline on CNN with the Democrats locked in hearings on an affair that has been over for YEARS, and was concluded with no prosecuti0ns at all other than a trumped up perjury charge that we KNOW has nothing to do with the actual subject of the investigation, since we KNOW who the "leaker" was.
So what was all that stuff about "focus on important issues rather than scandal"? Is something different now?
Branding BO
Power Line: A messiah flush with cash
The utterly ignored fact is that BO is now the first presidential candidate since '76 to not take federal campaign financing, and he is thus completely unregulated. While I've personally always thought that campaign finance laws were unconstitutional and a restriction of the very speech that our constitution was most designed to protect and encourage, the MSM has always had the opposite view-at least as long as they saw Republicans generally raising more money than Democrats.
I often note the "looking glass" effect where the MSM and Democrats see what THEY either have been doing or dearly want to do, and get HORRIBLY concerned if Republicans are able to impletement even a tiny bit of a Democrat approach. The outcry of the "Republican media / fundraising / strategy machine" ... both during the '80s with Reagan, and then with horrible howling from 2K through the Bush years has been an example.
Well, post Katrina, the "empire has struck back". By demonization of Bush/Cheney as well as the Republican congress with "lies, incompetence, arrogance, unpopular, out of touch, ..." becoming synonymous with "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove" and finally "Republicans" has broken the brand. Unwittingly, even the right wing of the Republican party helped out as from their POV, Bush was WAY too far to the middle of the road. The Republican Brand has been damaged WAY more than the term "liberal" EVER has been (and remember the crocodile tears from the left when ANYONE was "forced to run away from the term liberal".
So why does BO think he needs 100s of millions of cash for the election? He can already blanket the airwaves between now and the conventions at something like a 3x+ advantage over poor McCain with his 527s like MoveOn helping him every step of the way, the standard and even accelerated MSM Democrat assistance, and of course NO PROBLEMS with any charges from the MSM of him "buying an election" or "the corrupting power of money in elections". He was already in the cat birds seat, and at least one level this seems like a little more risk than he really had to take. (all be it low as we can see -- campaign finance reform is really only about "limiting what the Republicans can spend").
In BOs first election, he managed to get both of the other Democrats that would have run against him in the primary out on technicalities so he could run unopposed in the only election that mattered in his completely out to lunch Democrat district. Like most liberals, BO is no fan of Democracy--only power for himself. I mean when you are the Messiah, why should you submit to a vote? You are already convinced that you have all the answers and that were you to be defeated it would just be worse for "the deserving".
I think the election of Reagan, and then to an even greater extent GW Bush has convinced the Democrats / MSM that it is time for "drastic measures". In their view they can NEVER go back to that short period when the Republicans held the WH, House, and a slim lead in the Senate, even though they were able to pretty much stop what they wanted with a Filibuster. The 100's of millions is to get the Democrats a Fillibuster proof Senate, and make a whole set of changes so that they never lose their power again. My best guess at things on their agenda:
- Bring back "fairness legislation" so that the political content of all media outlets is under control of the federal government as it was prior to '87.
- Control Christian religious expression through "hate speech laws", controls on public display of Christian symbols (even on private property if "visible" to those that they may "offend"), removal of tax exemptions for Christian organizations, etc.
- Taxation of "wealth" as opposed to income for "certain types of people". Financial discrimination is of course at the core of left wing fascist control over the population. They may SAY "equality" every other word, but when it comes to the bottom line, it suddenly gets transmuted to "fairness", and they decide what "fair" means. There is a lot of 401K money out there that could both help fund a lot of vote buying that they want to do and penalize a lot of folks that saved money for decades. Thrift and personal responsibility are high on the list of things that Democrats can't stomach, and the 401K, created under Reagan is the kind of thing that if allowed to stand reduces dependency on the Government. Need to have only dependent sheep ... NO SHEEPDOGS!
- Naturally, an armed populace is just not nearly as docile as a fascist like BO needs. They have a lot of "turn in your neighbor" kinds of proposals. Massive taxation and removal from sale of ammunition -- the list goes on. At least in the short term, there is some potential that the Supreme Court could hold the line on this one, but don't expect it to last for long.
BO has a tremendous shot at moving this country completely into a government controlled media message only, 100% government dependent (healthcare, retirement, what job you can get unless you follow the proscribed speech), effectively state controlled religious message, unarmed populace.
Is this alarmist? Oh, certainly, but WAY less alarmist than 40 front page stories on Abu Girab in the NYT, thousands of articles on "loss of rights" because someone MIGHT be listening to your cell call if you happen to have any known foreign terrorists on speed dial and I won't even go into all the braying about "the Christian right peering into your bedroom". We have an MSM tradition of alarmism in this country, but it only goes one way. If our politics gets close to the centerline, as it did in Bush and Reagan, the MSM believes that we have fallen into some imaginary Nazi right ditch. From their POV, this is a highway with no such thing as a left ditch. We are about to hang a hard left at 80 with no intersection in sight, and from the MSM POV, it is unimaginable that there could even be the hint of a concern with that.
The utterly ignored fact is that BO is now the first presidential candidate since '76 to not take federal campaign financing, and he is thus completely unregulated. While I've personally always thought that campaign finance laws were unconstitutional and a restriction of the very speech that our constitution was most designed to protect and encourage, the MSM has always had the opposite view-at least as long as they saw Republicans generally raising more money than Democrats.
I often note the "looking glass" effect where the MSM and Democrats see what THEY either have been doing or dearly want to do, and get HORRIBLY concerned if Republicans are able to impletement even a tiny bit of a Democrat approach. The outcry of the "Republican media / fundraising / strategy machine" ... both during the '80s with Reagan, and then with horrible howling from 2K through the Bush years has been an example.
Well, post Katrina, the "empire has struck back". By demonization of Bush/Cheney as well as the Republican congress with "lies, incompetence, arrogance, unpopular, out of touch, ..." becoming synonymous with "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove" and finally "Republicans" has broken the brand. Unwittingly, even the right wing of the Republican party helped out as from their POV, Bush was WAY too far to the middle of the road. The Republican Brand has been damaged WAY more than the term "liberal" EVER has been (and remember the crocodile tears from the left when ANYONE was "forced to run away from the term liberal".
So why does BO think he needs 100s of millions of cash for the election? He can already blanket the airwaves between now and the conventions at something like a 3x+ advantage over poor McCain with his 527s like MoveOn helping him every step of the way, the standard and even accelerated MSM Democrat assistance, and of course NO PROBLEMS with any charges from the MSM of him "buying an election" or "the corrupting power of money in elections". He was already in the cat birds seat, and at least one level this seems like a little more risk than he really had to take. (all be it low as we can see -- campaign finance reform is really only about "limiting what the Republicans can spend").
In BOs first election, he managed to get both of the other Democrats that would have run against him in the primary out on technicalities so he could run unopposed in the only election that mattered in his completely out to lunch Democrat district. Like most liberals, BO is no fan of Democracy--only power for himself. I mean when you are the Messiah, why should you submit to a vote? You are already convinced that you have all the answers and that were you to be defeated it would just be worse for "the deserving".
I think the election of Reagan, and then to an even greater extent GW Bush has convinced the Democrats / MSM that it is time for "drastic measures". In their view they can NEVER go back to that short period when the Republicans held the WH, House, and a slim lead in the Senate, even though they were able to pretty much stop what they wanted with a Filibuster. The 100's of millions is to get the Democrats a Fillibuster proof Senate, and make a whole set of changes so that they never lose their power again. My best guess at things on their agenda:
- Bring back "fairness legislation" so that the political content of all media outlets is under control of the federal government as it was prior to '87.
- Control Christian religious expression through "hate speech laws", controls on public display of Christian symbols (even on private property if "visible" to those that they may "offend"), removal of tax exemptions for Christian organizations, etc.
- Taxation of "wealth" as opposed to income for "certain types of people". Financial discrimination is of course at the core of left wing fascist control over the population. They may SAY "equality" every other word, but when it comes to the bottom line, it suddenly gets transmuted to "fairness", and they decide what "fair" means. There is a lot of 401K money out there that could both help fund a lot of vote buying that they want to do and penalize a lot of folks that saved money for decades. Thrift and personal responsibility are high on the list of things that Democrats can't stomach, and the 401K, created under Reagan is the kind of thing that if allowed to stand reduces dependency on the Government. Need to have only dependent sheep ... NO SHEEPDOGS!
- Naturally, an armed populace is just not nearly as docile as a fascist like BO needs. They have a lot of "turn in your neighbor" kinds of proposals. Massive taxation and removal from sale of ammunition -- the list goes on. At least in the short term, there is some potential that the Supreme Court could hold the line on this one, but don't expect it to last for long.
BO has a tremendous shot at moving this country completely into a government controlled media message only, 100% government dependent (healthcare, retirement, what job you can get unless you follow the proscribed speech), effectively state controlled religious message, unarmed populace.
Is this alarmist? Oh, certainly, but WAY less alarmist than 40 front page stories on Abu Girab in the NYT, thousands of articles on "loss of rights" because someone MIGHT be listening to your cell call if you happen to have any known foreign terrorists on speed dial and I won't even go into all the braying about "the Christian right peering into your bedroom". We have an MSM tradition of alarmism in this country, but it only goes one way. If our politics gets close to the centerline, as it did in Bush and Reagan, the MSM believes that we have fallen into some imaginary Nazi right ditch. From their POV, this is a highway with no such thing as a left ditch. We are about to hang a hard left at 80 with no intersection in sight, and from the MSM POV, it is unimaginable that there could even be the hint of a concern with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)