Saturday, February 16, 2013

Firearm Refresher Course    
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

15 Things That Are Not Okay For Liberals To Do

15 Things That Are Not Okay For Liberals To Do
Many liberals have come to believe the rules of morality, decency, and good behavior don't apply to them. You see, since they're liberal they think that no matter how racist, sexist, violent, dehumanizing, evil or disgusting their behavior may be, they're still good people just by virtue of the fact that they're liberals. Of course, not every progressive feels that way, but almost no one on the Left who disagrees has the courage to speak out against the horrific behavior of his fellow liberals. That's understandable if you think about it. Just as a member of the KKK would fear being cast out of the group for speaking out against doing evil to black Americans or a Crip would have similar fears about defending a Blood, liberals are not allowed to call for human decency in dealing with those who stand in their way.

This is part of a primitive, tribal mentality that says the member of the group is right by virtue of being part of the group while others who stand in the way of the group are not just wrong, but are evil and worthy of hatred for their opposition. All the talk about compassion, tolerance and niceness on the Left is actually a mask to hide the vitriolic and hateful disposition that undergirds modern liberalism. So, while everything you're about to read applies just as much to libertarians, conservatives and moderates as it does to the Left, it's the liberals who need to hear it because they're the only mainstream ideology that habitually engages in such uncivilized behavior.

It's not okay to...

1) ....hold a protest at someone's personal residence. The only reason anyone does that is to send the fascistic message that, "We know where you live and something bad may happen to you and your family if you continue to oppose us."

2) ....put the names of gun owners in the paper to make some kind of moral point. It's even worse to do that and then, when someone returns the favor, hire armed guards to protect your house.

3) ....suspend a 7 year old from school for tossing, "an imaginary grenade into a box with what he called pretend evil forces inside."

4) ...suspend kids from school for wearing American flag bandannas and chanting USA, USA, USA.

5) ...accuse people of being racist for political reasons.

6) ....advocate lying about people who disagree with you to further your political goals.

7) ...abort a child without the permission of the father. If the father is required to support a child after it's born because it "takes two" -- and he should be -- then the mother shouldn't be able to end the life of his child without his agreement.

8) ...publicly celebrate the death or injury of people you disagree with politically.

9) for violence against people you disagree with politically or the destruction of their property.

10) ...try to shout people down at a speech to keep them from being heard or throw glitter, salad dressing, pies, or even pull fire alarms to try to prevent them from being able to exercise their First Amendment rights.

11) ...hack into people's home computers or email. It's even worse to do it and distribute what you find to the press.

12) ...take welfare, food stamps, school lunches or anything else that requires you to live off what somebody else has earned without at least feeling some shame for not being able to take care of yourself. It's even worse when you take people's charity and then complain about the way you're being given handouts.

13) ...threaten, bully, personally insult or request that gay Americans commit suicide because they didn't vote for the candidate you support.

14) ...aim race-based slurs at people you disagree with politically.

15) ...hurl gross sexual insults at conservative women, photoshop them onto pornography, do porno movies featuring actresses pretending to be them, or to talk about how you'd like to "hate f***" them.

Asteroids, Polar Bear Cannibalism Lead to Global Warming, or, uh, Something Bad

The most pathetic part of the whole episode was that I knew that I would find it is soon as I saw the headlines and read the stories.

“A meteor streaked across the sky and exploded over central Russia on Friday,” reported Reuters, “sending fireballs crashing to earth which shattered windows and damaged buildings, injuring more than 500 people. People heading to work in Chelyabinsk heard what sounded like an explosion, saw a bright light and then felt a shockwave, according to a Reuters correspondent in the industrial city 950 miles east of Moscow.”

While reading headlines about the meteor shower in central Russia I wondered how quickly it would be before somebody tied the shower to global warming.

So I did the natural thing: I turned to Google.

And while no one had yet tied the Russian shower to global warming, I found that CNN anchor Deborah Feyerick had recently tried to tie an asteroid shower to global warming.

This from Fox News:

The threat of global warming may stretch so far beyond Earth that it affects meteorites millions of miles away in space -- at least according to one CNN anchor.

“Talk about something else that’s falling from the sky and that is an asteroid. What’s coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming, or is this just some meteoric occasion?” CNN’s Deborah Feyerick asked Bill “The Science Guy” Nye, head of the Planetary Society, in a Saturday segment.

The sad part is that it’s not just ditzy news anchors who propagate bad science, it’s bad scientists who propagate ditzy news.

It was over a year ago that I first reported to you that at least one climate scientist was propagating the news that global warming was increasing polar bear cannibalism.

In Watch Out! Polar Bear Cannibalism Rises on Global Warming! I wrote:

So it was unsurprising that after dodging that whole hurricane bullet yesterday scientists revealed- or at least writers who have a website with the word “science” in the name revealed- that there could be an epidemic of polar bear cannibals on account of global warming, which by now, we all know was caused by the global meltdown of the real estate market caused by greedy Republican bankers who are both greedy and Republican.

And I continued:

And there is only one thing worse than polar bear cannibals.

That is…drum-roll… all together now: greedyrepublicanbankers.

So, anywho… as I was saying, this website with the word “science” in it called asked the question that we all, at least subconsciously, have been afraid to ask ourselves for years: Is Global Warming Driving Polar Bears to Cannibalism?

The answer is: yes, according to people who write about stuff that scientists say on the spur of the moment., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tech Media Network, by its own account, is made up of “science reporters, editors and video producers” who have unimpeachable resumes with academic degrees in studies like Olde English, Arts and Journalism. The journalism degree alone ought to disqualify anyone from writing about anything

Well some of these reporters rounded up the scientists who previously miscounted the polar bear population- really, the exact same guys- sparking the theory that polar bear populations had reached the lowest levels ever- and these reporters did a hard-hitting story about a new theory these scientists have.

Presumably they are looking for a new theory that can be debunked in ten years after millions in grant money is spent studying the theory in order to fill the hole in the global warming theory now that hurricanes aren’t as scary anymore.

So, anywho… “A new article in the journal Arctic,” writes, “suggests that polar bear cannibalism — typically the predation of small bears or cubs by much larger adult males — is either much more commonplace than previously thought, or has lately become more common. In the paper, leading polar bear biologist Ian Stirling and nature photographer Jenny Ross detail three recent instances of the behavior among polar bears in Norway's Svalbard Archipelago, each of which was photographed from the decks of ecotourism and research boats anchored a few hundred yards away.”

And the cause of this eco-outrage? That’s right: global warming. The greedy Republican bankers are implied.

Ok, so Sterling made a mistake by undercounting polar bears by an order of magnitude of five times.
Ok, so he’s postulating a theory on the basis of only three pictures.

So what’s the big deal? It’s not like science needs to be an exact art form. Guessing is an important part of mainstream global warming science that has an honorable tradition going back to traveling carnivals in America.

And the great thing is that you can even train a media monkey like CNN anchor Deborah Feyerick to play a part.

Norquist Warns of Obama’s 'Smack Down' Use of Executive Orders
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
  / Newsmax

Low-tax crusader and Republican strategist Grover Norquist tells Newsmax that the spending cuts required by sequestration will in fact be implemented — and that’s a “good thing” because it will save billions of dollars over the next decade.

He also warns that President Barack Obama is willing to use executive orders to “smack down” any business that stands in the way of his left-wing ideology.

And he declares that a bill to raise the minimum wage is “very bad legislation” that will cost jobs.

Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform, whose Taxpayer Protection Pledge asks candidates to commit themselves in writing to oppose all tax increases.

In his State of the Union address, Obama proposed new spending and more tax revenues, claiming he can spend without adding a dime to the deficit.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, Norquist comments: “I don’t think he’ll be allowed to add to the deficit because the Republican House of Representatives will not vote for the massive spending proposals he’s put forward.

“I also doubt that the Democrat-controlled Senate will actually pass all of his wish lists because 20 of those Democrats have to run for re-election in 2014, and I don’t think their voters will appreciate it if they continue the tax-and-spend policies of the last four years.”

Senate Democrats have unveiled a $110 billion plan to delay sequestration that includes tax increases. Asked if Republicans are right not to accept that plan, Norquist responds: “Yes.”

“Sequestration will take effect,” Norquist says. “Interestingly, it was Obama’s idea. He put it forward, thinking it would pressure the Republicans to raise taxes. It failed to do that and now Obama has to live with a law that he supported, he wrote, he signed.

“It is a good thing. It saves about $100 billion a year for 10 years into the future. Are there ways to alter it by keeping the same dollars in savings but give different departments more flexibility? That’s an option. Republicans are open to that.

“But the dollar amount of savings cannot change and we certainly are not going to replace savings to taxpayers with tax increases ripping off taxpayers,” Norquist says.

“Republicans wanted something that hit defense a little less hard and shifted the reduction elsewhere. Democrats don’t want to do that. So there’s no place for a compromise. Raising taxes instead of cutting spending is not a compromise — that’s called losing,” he told Newsmax.

“The president wants to impose a national cap-and-trade energy tax and says he’s not afraid to use executive orders to push his agenda.”

Norquist observes: “He will try to do things through executive order because he’s not going to be able to raise taxes or spend additional money or change laws in a dramatically stupid way as long as the Republicans have the House of Representatives and as long as the Democrats are scared about getting re-elected in the Senate. There are some things he can do by executive order, but raising taxes is not part of that.

“Republicans will keep fighting for sequestration, for reducing spending, for investigating some of what appear to be corrupt deals that the Democrats have had with grants and with executive orders and regulations.

“Regulations have come from the Department of Labor even though the people making the [National Labor Relations Board] decisions were illegally — unconstitutionally, the courts have ruled — appointed during a nonperiod of recess.

“So Republicans have a lot of tools — taxpayers have a lot of tools —to fight the president’s efforts to do things by executive order. But he could do damage to fracking, he could slow down the pipeline to bring oil into the country through Nebraska, he could do a lot of things to slow and hurt job creation, and of course he has demonstrated for four years if it gets in the way of left-wing ideology, he’ll smack down any job, any business that he wants to.”

As for tax reform, “no pro-growth tax reform could pass the Senate; no pro-growth tax reform would be signed by the president,” Norquist says.

“But it’s a good idea for the Republicans in the House to design tax reform and come up with some alternatives, because it says here’s what we would do if there was a Republican Senate and a Republican president.”

Norquist has called Obamacare a half-trillion-dollar tax increase on the American people.
“There are over 20 taxes in Obamacare, and at least eight of them directly hit middle-class Americans,” he says. “They all hit middle-class Americans indirectly by hitting doctors and insurance companies and hospitals.

“So this is a very bad bill with a lot of damaging taxes and regulations. But we may have to wait until people see the damage before you can fix it.

“The three networks, even though the 3,000-page Obamacare legislation passed two years ago, haven’t covered what’s in there. Have you learned on network television about the 21 tax increases? The establishment press, which has been cheerleading for Obama, has not done its job informing the American people.”

The president wants to raise the minimum wage by 24 percent, saying it will help 15 million low-wage workers. But the Republican House seems reluctant to pass a minimum wage bill. Norquist believes they are acting wisely.

“We know from history that when the minimum wage was first put in, hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs. It was particularly devastating to African-Americans.

“The minimum wage has a very sad history in terms of stopping people from getting their first jobs, stopping people who are untrained from getting trained at work. So the minimum wage is a very bad piece of legislation. It’s hurt people in the past and until we come to grips with the damaging history of it, why would anybody think of doing again something that’s already failed?”

Norquist also tells Newsmax that the immigration plan put forth by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has “some very good ideas. The outline he’s got is a fine starting place. We need to have border security. We need to have a path to legal status for people so that people in this country for years and their children don’t hide when the police come by, that they are secure in the jobs and their positions.

“But we need to defeat the labor unions, which are the guys who sculpted the present nonworking immigration laws we have. The center-right needs to get together and come up with a good immigration law recognizing that the labor unions are going to fight anything reasonable and we need a united conservative movement to beat the unions.”

Karl Rove’s American Crossroads has launched an effort to weed out GOP primary candidates it deems unacceptable, a move criticized by members of the tea party.

Norquist offers his take on the Republican in-fighting: “We need to look back at some of those races where people think the tea party nominated the wrong guy and realize that Harry Reid spent millions of dollars to interfere in the Republican primary to choose the candidate who couldn’t beat him and to stop the candidates who would have beat him. That wasn’t a tea party problem. That was the Democrats playing the Republican primary.

“[Todd] Akin in Missouri was not supported by the tea party groups. He was supported by the Democrat candidate, the incumbent, who ran ads pretending to attack him but really praising him for a solid conservative voting record.

“Karl Rove and others have correctly pointed out: How did we end up with idiot candidates? Well, you end up with idiot candidates when the Democrats choose your candidates for you.”

Chuck Hagel...a war hero fallen from grace
By Diane Sori

Decorated Viet Nam vet Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Secretary of Defense is in trouble...BIG finally the Republicans got it right and stalled his nomination, at least temporarily anyway.

And while Obama has the right to pick the members of his cabinet, our Constitution doesn't give him carte blanche to do so, and with that, on Thursday, much to 'Prince Harry's' chagrin, the Senate failed to get enough votes to stop a filibuster against Hagel, as 58 senators voted to move the nomination forward, while 40 voted to stall it.

Needing 60 votes to stop any filibuster, all but four Republicans united together in opposition to Hagel, and this delay now gives them more time to get answers, and rightfully so, from a man who still has to tell the truth about what he knows about Obama's part in the lack of response to the attack at Benghazi...a man who has many times made anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks in public...a man who has backed a two-state solution including the division of Jerusalem...a man who still needs to answer questions about speeches he's given to controversial Arab-American groups like the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and James Zogby’s Arab American Institute...a man who in 2009 was one of eight to sign a report to Obama recommending that the United States shift 'its objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior'... a man who the Iranian Foreign Ministry supports and endorses...a man who has gone from supporting to opposing the Iraq War and surge...a man who still needs to disclose the sources of the (large) income he's made since leaving the Senate.

And here's one right out of Agenda 21's playbook as Chuck Hagel wants the United States to create a 'new world order' by reforming and reshaping international organizations to take into account the rise and power of countries like China, India, and Brazil.

Now that is scary in and of itself as this man will sell America out to the U(seless) N(ations) in a heartbeat.

Also troublesome for many Republicans is the fact that in 2008 Hagel vehemently claimed, "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people” an accusation that he could NOT give even one example of during his embarrassing unfocused performance (and what a performance it was) at his confirmation hearing. And even more troublesome is that Hagel has called Iranian madman Ahmadinejad and his Iranian regime legitimate...legitimate even while they continue to publicly call for Israel to be wiped off the map. And NOT to be forgotten is that Hagel has outwardly opposed any and all sanctions against Iran, believing Israel is at fault for all the trouble in the Middle East, even going so far as to have accused the State Department of taking orders from the Israeli Foreign Ministry in a March 2, 2007 speech he gave at Rutgers University.

And Hagel NEVER changed or even toned down his anti-Jewish stance since proving himself to be an outright anti-Semite when he was the ONLY senator from either party that refused to sign a 1999 letter to former Russian President Boris Yeltsin asking that action be taken against rising Russian anti-Semitism, and who in 2006 described Israel’s war against Hezbollah as “the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon”
Says a lot about where his loyalties lie and it 'aint with our ally and friend Israel that's for sure.

Even knowing all this Barack HUSSEIN Obama still stands by Chuck Hagel's nomination and why not...Hagel hates Israel and the Jews as much as he does...Hagel is covering up information about the attack at Benghazi and the murders of our people just like he is...and Hagel will willingly side with the muslims at every opportunity, just like he does...birds of a feather in more ways than you can imagine.

And what did our fearless leader (gag) do when he found out Hagel's nomination was stalled, Obama whined like a little baby saying, "We've never had a Secretary of Defense filibustered before; there's nothing in the Constitution that says somebody should get 60 votes.” NO there isn't but remember, the Democrats held up every one of Bush's nominations for a 60 vote approval.

Oh boo-hoo...payback's a b*tch 'aint it Barry.

But even with all this, sadly muslim-loving, anti-Israel Chuck Hagel will probably become the next Secretary of Defense when the Senate reconvenes after the recess for the simple reason the Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the Senate, and the same four turncoat senators (Mike Johanns of Nebraska; Thad Cochran of Mississippi; Susan Collins of Maine; and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) who voted with the Democrats to stop the filibuster have already said they will vote for Hagel's confirmation...four traitors NOT only to the party but to America for now Barack HUSSEIN Obama will have a cabinet full of muslim sympathizers to help him move forward his agenda of destroying America, stabbing our ally Israel in the back, all the while strengthening the nations of his muslim brethren.

How our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves...