Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The resolution simply states: "WHEREAS, the Bank Bailout Bill effectively nationalized the Nation's banking system, giving the United States non-voting warrants from participating financial institutions, and moving our free market based economy another dangerous step closer toward socialism; and WHEREAS, what was needed, and is still needed, to fix the banking industry is not a bailout, but rather a commitment to fiscal responsibility."
That seems pretty tame to most of us out here in fly-over country. We would have preferred that they include the phrase "communist weasel pussies" when describing Bush and his gang of DC RINOs. I also don't think the bailouts are a "step [...] toward socialism." We're already there. The bailouts are just a step further into it.
However, the resolution is a step in the right direction at least. Let's hope that they actually mean it and it's not just a publicity stunt to salve hurt feelings with conservatives. Maybe, just maybe, someday we can go back to having at least two parties in this country.
Friday, December 26, 2008
From the article at Natural News:
S.1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is justified as a “national contingency plan” in that it represents preparation for any sort of public health emergency. The bill states that the federal government should “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly”. Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.
Our pal, Ron Paul, was of course against this travesty. You remember, that guy who was an alarmist and a kook to be shunned when he warned us about the perlious state of this country's finances. From Ron on the House floor:
“I cannot support legislation…that exceeds the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. I must oppose it.”
“S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker, the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …”
“Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children, in fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a ‘public health’ disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of ‘emergency.”
Here's the full text of the odious bill for those with strong stomachs. Never mind...linkee now downee, go figure. Natural News has more information and what little "we the peons" can do to about Big Brother's DNA snatch.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Not sure what to get for the usurping tyrant on your holiday gift list? Don’t worry! The Bush Administration has it covered with the new EZ-Bake Dictatorship.
When he issued “The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive” (NSPD 51/HSPD-20) in May 4, 2007, President Bush made creating your own dictatorship as easy as 1-2-3!
Step 1. Mix
Remember all that silly stuff they taught you in civics class about the legislative, executive and legislative branches of government creating “checks and balances” against each other to keep any one branch from getting out of control? NSPD-51/HSPD-20 states that in the event of a "catastrophic emergency" a president can get rid of all that confusing stuff and create his own "Enduring Constitutional Government" coordinated by himself. Pretty cool, huh? It doesn’t state who has the power to declare the emergency over, and without those pesky legislative and judicial branches around, why would any president want to end the party?
And that’s just the un-classified part of the directive! Who knows what other goodies await in the parts you aren’t allowed to see. They’ll be there for a long time, just waiting for some audacious future president with the nerve to open this neatly wrapped gift.
Step 2. Apply Heat
NSPD-51/HSPD-20 defines a “catastrophic emergency” as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." Since any designing president who has the chutzpah to open his EZ-Bake Dictatorship will already be sitting on the world’s second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, creating such carnage would be a snap!
If one of those warheads should “accidentally” fall into the wrong hands (preferably a political or religious group that has opposed the president) and be detonated in a major U.S. city, that should do the trick.
If inflicting megadeath upon your own people isn't really your style (Pussy!), try global warming. It's already being billed as a "catastrophic emergency" by world leaders and the media. The case has already been made that it is an "incident [...] severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions[,]" just as NSPD-51/HSPD-20 stipulates. Close enough for government work, he-he-he!
Step 3. Enjoy!
Enjoy your dictatorship! Since not everyone might agree with your glorious new vision for the country, however, the Bush administration offers some cool accessories for your EZ-Bake Dictatorship.
The Pentagon already has work afoot to have 20,000 specially trained troops inside the U.S. by 2011 who will be tasked with helping out during a “catastrophic emergency.” They could be handy for disarming and controlling political enemies. While a 1994 survey of military personnel found that 26% “would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government,” that number would surely go up during the “rally around the flagpole” period after a major terrorist attack, especially if dissenting citizens could be implicated in the attack.
With the Bush Administration’s EZ-Bake Dictatorship, tyranny has never been so easy!
From the people who brought you: The Socialist Takeover of the Free Market, The Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina Relief, The Capture of Bin Laden, The Bridge to Nowhere and many more fine products.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
First, a couple of years ago, the powers-that-be of our beloved nanny state decided you can’t drink milk out of the cow. The government is diligently keeping us safe from the deadly threat of the Amish, non-violent farming folk who shun modern conveniences such as electricity and cars as part of their Biblical beliefs. One would think that the government might possibly have something a bit more important on their plate than busting Eli the milk-trafficker, but one would be wrong.
Being an old pig boy, I must confess I’m no expert on dairy cows, but the Terror of Holsteins ranks pretty low on my DEFCON status. Apparently, natural grass-fed cows have almost no risk of producing contaminated milk. But that’s no reason not to bust a few Amish heads. You let those peaceful extremists get their camel’s nose under then tent of the Big Ag Corporate Monopoly and the next thing you know their lobbyists will have to shell out more money to their favorite senators.
I’m too lazy to do further research, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the “laws” being violated are not laws passed by Congress, as mandated in the Constitution, but just regulations made up by bureaucrats but which nonetheless carry the weight of the Rule of Law.
Now, apparently, since the menace of runaway Amish milkmen has been contained, the Ag Cops have moved on to the subversive natural food co-ops.
Gets kind of scary when you think about Henry Kissinger’s little gibe, “Control food and you control the people.”
Rather than a grand conspiracy, at least at this point, I suspect a few other reasons. First, the Big Ag Corporate Monopoly has spared no expense to purchase politicians and by God they’re gonna get their money’s worth. You can’t have these little independent guys nibbling away at that last three-tenths of a percent of the market that’s not (yet) monopolized. Another reason is that since the USDA now has eleven employees for every farmer and rancher left in the U.S., a bunch of chairborne mid-level bureaucrats have to come up with some kind of justification for their useless existence, let alone their fat budgets.
Toss into the mix the National Animal Identification System, patented genetically mutated hybrid terminator seeds, and livestock and poultry crammed full of hormones and antibiotics and altered genes and meat waste products for feed (always good for a herbivore, that last one). All that is fine ‘n’ dandy, as long as it’s done by the country's biggest recipients of corporate welfare.
But don’t worry. It’s for your own good. Nanny knows best. Get rid of that grass-fed ribeye and just shut up and eat your glow-in-the-dark porcuswine drumstick.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Just after the turn of the last century, southern boys gave us the term Yellow Dog Democrats. These were folks who, like many of the blind faithful minority and “working class” Democrats of today, would just as soon vote for an “ol’ yaller dawg” than vote for a Republican. Especially if Jesse Jackson or the Union tells them to.
More recently we had the Blue Dog Democrats. This is a much more useful group, going back to what were once known as Reagan Democrats. A Texas Democrat, Pete Geren, coined the phrase when he said the Democratic Party had been “choked blue” by the left-wing extremist wacko kook-fringe, such as bunny-huggers, gay rights activists, the Democratic Underground, George Soros, and Katie Couric.
Which brings us to Sam-the-Dog Republicans.
Sam-the-Dog was a rather sad little creature who came to stay with us on the farm for awhile when we were kids. Sam was a bonified Heintz 57 American Mutt, but primarily some kind of heeler. A cow dog on a pig farm. Regardless of his lineage, or lack thereof, Sam was not the most loveable or huggable of dogs. At best you just kind of felt sorry for him. When you tried to pet him, Sam, who was soooo eager to please and wanted to be loved soooo badly, would start whimpering and roll over on his back and spump thick, smelly urine all over himself and you. You quickly decided you did not want to pet him after all and backed off in disgust.
At the other end of the spectrum, we had a dog named Duke, a black lab/Great Dane mix. Duke was universally loved and the few that didn’t love him by God respected him. He could pick Sam up in his mouth and carry him around. If you were pheasant hunting with Duke and missed a shot, he would turn, never say a word, but give you that look, which made you promise to do better next time. Sometimes, if you weren’t quick enough on the draw, he would leap 4-5 feet in the air and get the pheasant himself. If any ol’ yaller dawg came into the farmyard, Duke simply kicked its ass. His mere presence kept the farm secure; the Jehovah’s Witnesses wouldn’t even get out of the car when he looked down at them through the window and went, “WOOF!”
From 1981-1989 America had a Duke on the job. Today, all that those geniuses at the Republican National Committee can offer us is Sam-the-Dog. Sam-the-Dog Republicans want sooo badly to be loved by the Left, the Press, and “moderates” that they too will roll over and whine and grovel and pee all over themselves in a pathetic and very unsuccessful attempt to curry favor with those who are cat-lovers in the first place.
Now that I think about it, not even the Sam-the-Dog analogy quite covers the current Republican Party completely. After all, Sam-the-Dog never even thought about biting the hand that fed him.
At any rate, we now have the ultimate yaller dawg on top of the heap. Or, as I like to call him, Jimmy Carter’s Evil Twin. Pass the Zicam, I can feel this country coming down with a “malaise” already. This young puppy has been chasing the car for a long time, but now that he’s actually caught it, he hasn’t a clue on what the hell to actually do with it. He could, in the next four years, “screw the pooch” (ha-ha, get it?) so badly that the GOP could make a sweeping come-back in 2012.
They won’t, not with the current dog handlers. Even in the doubtful event that they could come up with another Duke, the RNC trainers would never let him off the leash. Neo-Cons, New Conservatives, as Edward Abbey once said, “Are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell.” They seem to actually hate real Conservatives and real Conservatism and prefer Sam-the-Dogs.
Many of these same weenies, or similar creatures of their ilk, tried to keep Duke in the kennel way back in 1976…he was “too conservative” to be electable. Instead, the clever puppet-masters picked Gerald Ford because he was “moderate”, more like a poodle. Thus the RNC helped usher in the beloved Carter Administration which strove so hard to make America the world’s fire hydrant.
Duke broke out of his pen and got the nomination the next go-round, and proved to be a tad bit more than “electable” than the RNC rocket scientists predicted. Just ask the Democrats’ very own Sam-the-Dog, Peanut Boy Carter, who won 6 states in 1980. Or yapping Chihuahua Walter (Hey, I won Minnesota and Washington D.C.!) Mondale.
As el Rushbo always says, Conservatism wins whenever it is tried. Despite the Reagan Revolution and the Class of ’94, the GOP big shots won’t even try actual Conservatism. They keep insisting that only wishy-washy moderate or left-leaning Sam-the-Dogs can fetch the big ball. We’ve all seen how well that’s been working for them. Apparently, they themselves can’t see it no matter how many times they step barefoot on the poop in the yard. Right now they’re posting fliers on telephone poles seeking to find another beloved Sam-the-Dog to run in 2012. They’ve already pushed Duchess out into the street to get hit by the bus.
If you’re one of the few actual Conservative who still try to pet the GOP Sam-the-Dog, bring some hand sanitizer; you’ll no doubt get peed on again. I think maybe the GOP has rabies and needs to be taken out behind the woodshed and shot. Only no one will cry at the end.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Obama's website www.change.gov explains his future agenda. In the "Urban Policy" Section is the heading "Address Gun Violence in Cities." Here are Obama's ideas in that section and my responses to them.
"Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade."
The Tiahrt Amendment prohibits the BATFE from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation. In other words, local law enforcement already have access to this "important gun trace information." Anti-gun fanatics like NYC Mayor Bloomberg want this information released to them so that it can be used in predatory lawsuits against legal gun dealers, as well as to anti-gun sociologists to use in academic studies to impune civilian gun ownership. Not all guns in the data are crime guns. Both the BATFE and the Fraternal Order of Police oppose releasing this information, as it jeopardises ongoing investigations.
"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals."
If the Second Amendment didn't exist at all, the federal government would still have no authority over any of this. "Keeping guns away from children" could mean mandatory safe-storage laws, perhaps even away-from-home storage. How do you verify that? Random home searches? And there are already scads of laws on the books to keep guns away from criminals. What hasn't been tried, other than nation-wide licensing and registration or outright bans?
"They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof."
Ugh! First, there is NO gun show loophole. All federal, state, and local laws are in full force at a gun show. All gun dealers have to do background checks on buyers at gun shows just as they do back at their stores. Private gun sales (like you selling me your old shotgun) do not require background checks whether they occur at a gun show or down at the shooting range. Why? Because you don't have the knowledge or ability to conduct a background check on someone when you sell them a gun. Even with this "gaping loophole," only about 2% of all crime guns come from gun shows. Big deal!
And making guns "childproof!" What the hell? I've heard a few proposals on how to do this. One is to make guns that "recognise" their owners (by fingerprint or some other biometric identifier) and will only fire for them. Unfortunately this is untested, unreliable technology. That is why the proposed legislation for this have always exempted cops from this requirement. They don't want to risk law enforcement lives on shit technology, just yours.
Another brilliant proposal is to make trigger pulls so stiff that children can't pull the trigger. I'm no Carlos Hathcock, but I do know that trigger control is important to actually hitting anything. If pulling the trigger is harder than setting a bear trap, you won't hit what you're shooting at. That also makes armed self-defense harder for women or old folks with weak hands.
"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."
This could be a whole post in and of itself. For starters, so-called "assault weapons" are not fully automatic machine-guns as the are often portrayed in the popular media. Those have been illegal since the 1930's. What is an "assault weapon" then? Whatever Carolyn McCarthy, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer say it is. They can be rifles, shotguns or pistols. They can fire big bullets or little bullets. They can be old guns or new ones. That's what makes this ban so dangerous: If you give these jokers the ability to ban ANY weapons based on completely subjective and arbitrary criteria, you've essentially allowed them to ban ALL weapons.
Proposed legislation not only reenacts the expired 1994 ban, but widens it to include all sorts of guns that weren't affected by the original ban, such as the Ruger Mini-14 and the M1 Carbine and God knows what else.
The ban was pointless to begin with. In 1993 the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported violent criminals only carry or use a "military-type gun" (if that's how you want to define "assault weapon") in about 1% of the crimes nationwide. Cops were statistically three times as likely to be killed by their own gun than an "assault weapon." After the ban expired in 2004, crime rates continued to drop as the formerly banned weapons suddenly flooded the streets.
Besides Obama's stated agenda on his website, another troubling sign is Obama's choice of Eric Holder as his Attorney General. Holder worked under Janet "Torch" Reno in the Clinton administration and has an anti-Second Amendment track record a mile long.
All signs point toward a bumpy few years ahead for America's gun owners. Keep your powder dry boys and girls.