Why Does BO Need ANY Campaign Money

Rove, critics try to pin 'arrogant' label on Obama - CNN.com

Tell me again why it is that BO needs any campaign money at all? This is a CNN headline for goodness sake ... "Rove, critics try ...". Uh, is what the MSM calls "news reporting"? What would the difference between that and what BO's vaunted "response team" might do? Is Rove associated with the McCain campaign? The MSM basically never reported the fact that BO came up with his own presidential seal--if they HAD reported it, how might THEY have thought about it? We all know that GWs "smirk" was a sign of HIS arrogance-the MSM was honor bound to let us know the "facts" on that. I'm sure they got maybe 5-10K facial look scientific experts to sign a statement that "yes, that is a very arrogant "smirk"" ... so they were completely justified in reporting the arrogance of that as "proven fact".

We know that it MUST NOT be arrogant for BO to make his own seal, since Karl Rove thinks it is, and we know that Karl Rove is evil and wrong. So what is it? Does his worshipfulness BO make "mistakes"? Seems unlikely. Is it a "brilliant political move"? Is it "serving mankind"? I mean, I KNOW that it has to be good, because we are all in love with BO, but I'm one of those folks that is bitterly clinging to my gun with little in the way of brainpower. How am I supposed to know what to think unless the MSM tells me?

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.

The S&W .22S

By popular demand, a picture.

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?

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."
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."

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!

We are truly blessed to be alive in this time to experience the theological insights of the the great odor ... BO.

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?

What Is BO Like at a Country Club?

Political Punch

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.

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!

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

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.

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?