One Question

I know I'm a little late on this, but as I haven't seen it TOO much in the blogosphere, I figured I'd finally jump on the bandwagon and repeat the question.

Can you demonstrate just one time, one place, throughout all of human history, where restricting the access of handheld weapons to the average person made them safer?

Before Stalin rounded up people and sent them to the gulags, the population had to be disarmed.

Before Hitler rounded up whatever group he wanted, the population had to be disarmed.

In fact, before any act of genocide on this earth, the people in control all did the same thing:

They refused the people of their country the right to bear arms.

I'd say that this question needs to be asked a bit more often.

OK, so I haven't stopped smoking....

I mean, I enjoy cigars, and I still like smoking my pipe on occasion.

But by god, I've bought the last pack of cigarettes of my life if I can help it.

Tornado Footage

KFVS12 Home. Check out the high school surveillance camera footage especially.

Sissy Nation...

...and other lovely linkies.

The University of Colorado men's golf team went to a strip club. SUSPEND THEM!!!!

Bizarre. Yesterday at the local YMCA there was a sign inviting kids to come back on Saturday to get their picture taken with "The Bunny". And then there's the fact that we are the first nation on Earth to ever have its flag banned as being "divisive". What the hey?

This is the problem: Iran Threatens to Close Strait of Hormuz. The problem is not an Iranian nukes launched at Tel Aviv or Brussels or Miami -- it's Iraninan nukes emboldening them to cut off oil out of the Persian Gulf.

Toleja.

Related: What if?

---

Democrats aim to destroy Michael Steele: Poll Finds Steele May Be Magnet for Black Voters, just like they said they needed to do with Latino nominees for the Federal Bench -- they lose their stranglehold on blacks and Democrats are dead. DEAD!

Michelle Malkin says "fly our flag high" to protest illegal immigration. I decline. Too many good men have died in defense of our flag to use it as a mere hammer to bludgeon immigrants. Enforce the law, fix INS, secure the borders, but don't wave our flag as an insult to somebody. And no - that's not at odds with decrying bans on the flag. Were I school principal, I'd not ban the flag but instead educate young people about how using the flag as a means to infuriate people insults the flag and all those who have fought to defend it.

Random news

Tom DeLay is stepping down. Yay. Now, if only we could get the Dimocrats who sucked up money from Jack Abramoff to step down......... 'cause there would be a whole lot of Dimocrats out of office if they held themselves to the same standards they demand of Republicans.

But I forgot, the Dimocrats only hold OTHER people to standard, never themselves. That way, when they get caught being hypocritical shits, they can whine and say "Well I never said I was going to be like that!"

Trent Lott opens his mouth and shoves his foot in it again.

I'll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina.

Uh huh. Hey there, Mr. FORMER Majority Leader, there's a reason you got booted out of your seat. I'm glad to see you reaffirm that Republicans did the right thing back then.

Oh, and from that same link: Dimocrats are fillibustering a bill that would prevent felons who are in this country illegaly to become citizens.

That's right - Dimocrats are trying to give illegal aliens who are already felons the right to become citizens. Wouldn't you just love to have a person like that move in next door to you? But then, the Dimocrats are increasingly desperate to get new voters on their rolls by any means necissary, I guess.

And last, but I'm loving it:

DEAR NEW YORK TIMES: When the largest single fatality-causing event for your (well, our) soldiers in recent months is a single vehicle wreck, isn't it officially time to retire the theme that we're losing the war?

The Dimocrats and their whores in the media will continue calling the war a failure and a quagmire, even if we find OBL, dismantle Iran and Syria, and bring all of our troops home in the next year. We could single-handedly bring peace to the Middle East, and the Dimocrat controlled MSM would be shrieking about "Failure" and "Rush to war", and "Quagmire", and "Incompetance".

So I wouldn't expect that failure theme to be retired any time soon. It's too valuable for the drones and robots of the Left.

Perfect As The Enemy Of The Good

Republicans "Spending like drunken sailors". The horrors of Pork in the Federal Budget. "Record budget deficits." Failed Social Security Reform. Conservatives pissed off by an "ineffective Republican majority". All hyperbole, emotionalism, and misunderstanding. This is not to say that Social Security reform is not important. It is the number one issue concerning the growth of federal spending. Nor is it to say that congress could not reduce spending. They can. It is to say that the way in which these issues are being discussed is counter productive and invevitably self defeating.


What is "pork"? It's the term for items in the federal budget that were put there by elected representatives in an effort to bring home the bacon (hence the name) in the form of tax revenue collected by the federal government. The voters of the locality that elected that representative will decid whether they are happy or unhappy with the bacon brought home. If one wishes to nationalize the issue, one should push for responsible reform of the process by which such spending items find their way into the budget. The federal government has a legitimate interest in maintaining an efficient and functional infrastructure in the states for purposes of transportation, military presence, economic prosperity, and other matters relating to standardization, efficiency, prosperity, and security. It is up to the representatives of each state to address the concerns of their constituents and square them with the objective interests of the federal government. So while the process itself is legitimate, abuse can occur in it's practical application. It should be our goal to specifically and comprehensively define what constitutes abuse and advocate those reforms. Instead we invest ourselves in scare politics. According to Citizens Against Government Waste's "Congressional Pig Book":

The 2005 Pig Book identified a record 13,997 projects in the 13 appropriations bills that constitute the discretionary portion of the federal budget for fiscal 2005, costing taxpayers $27.3 billion.

And conservative pundits of all stripes shout - "TWENTY SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS!!!" That number is often included in rants about how "Republicans spend like drunken sailors". What is never mentioned is what a miniscule portion of our $2.4 TRILLION federal budget or our $12.7 TRILLION GDP that amount actually constitutes. As a percentage, the CAGW-CPB's $27.3 BILLION is 1.3% of the federal Budget for 2005, and .2% of our GDP for the same time period. A literal mountain made out of mole hill.

The same tactic is used to describe recent budget deficits as "records". If that were the measure, the budget deficit for almost every year of the past several decades has been a "record". What matters is what percentage of our GDP the national debt and budget deficits comprise. Look at our recent budget deficits and national debt in it's proper historic context:

Well, let’s take a look at the Reagan legacy on federal spending and deficits. In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP. (The economy was also a basket case, which is when you would expect budget deficits to be at their worse.) In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983.

Bush entered office with an economy that was booming: in 2000 government outlays ran at 18.4% of GDP with a budget surplus of 2.4%. But the stock market implosion, 9/11 and the war quickly changed the budget dynamics and the surplus switched to a deficit of 3.5% in 2003 and 3.6% in 2004. In 2005, the budget deficit came in at 2.6%, with government outlays running at 20.1% of GDP.

Luckily, Bush was successful in implementing the Jobs and Growth package of 2003 which accomplished it's goals, exceededing the expectations of it's architects and defying it's ignorant critics. Unemployment - low. Stock Market value - Up. Housing value - Up. Business Investment - Up. Dividend payments - Doubled. Most importantly - GDP - UP! And to those imbiciles who asked "how will Bush pay for his tax cuts" - They pay for themvelves! - Tax Revenue UP! Which means - Deficits - DOWN!

What about spending? From the article above at Real Clear Politics:

Conservatives may harp on President Bush for increasing government outlays from 18½% to 20%, but the increase is almost exclusively spending on defense, homeland security and the war - all of which is a response to 9/11. The growth in non-security discretionary spending has been cut every year of the Bush presidency.

These are but of a few of the accomplishments that the GOP congress and the President have willed into existence that go uncelebrated. It's like I tell people who harp on federal spending - You must look at the entire picture in order to fully understand what you have to lose. Our elected Republicans have enacted legislation that protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits by people who blame THEM for crimes involving guns. If you think that isn't currently an unspoken target of the power-mad DNC, you're out of your gord. And this medium I'm using to communicate with you now - they HATE it. This is us bypassing the DNC infested MSM. They'll set to work crafting legislation to protect you from reading this type of stuff as soon as they get that power they've been lusting after. Humorously, you hear Democrats harp on the budget deficits and federal spending. They aren't going to spend less. In fact, they propose MORE spending with their next breath. They aren't going to worry about the deficit, they have votes to purchase with "the government's money" and dependency to enshrine. Social Security reform did not fail for lack of trying. It failed because of an obstructionist minority:

March 10, 2005 The Washington Post newspaper has surveyed the Senate's 44 Dems and Jim Jeffords, and they've determined that 42 to 44 rabidly oppose private accounts.

They need 41 to filibuster.

The answer to your frustration with the status of the conservative agenda is 2 fold - 1) Advocate advocate advocate. You have the facts on your side. Push them! Talk loud and talk often. We don't have the DMSM on our side. In fact they work against us. We choose the hard way because it's also the right way, so our positions require more than appeals to the lowest parts of human nature. Everyone wants something for nothing. Understanding why nothing is free tasks the intellect. Fight! 2) If you live in Lincoln Chaffee's district and you are frustrated with what you percieve as a stalled conservative agenda, BOOT THAT MOTHER OUT! Get a real Republican in there. You have nothing to lose. If you live in Rick Santorum's district, consider the opposition. Your agenda sure won't get anywhere by allowing them to win.

Vote Smart and Fight Hard. And watch out for rhetorical pit falls like the ones highlighted here in. Your goals are good and there are a lot of good people working to advance them on your behalf. They aren't perfect. Not one of them. But Democrats don't hold their representatives to such high standards, or any at all it seems. At least none they're willing to talk about publicly.

Welcome to Crazyworld

Oy!

Students at Shaw Heights Middle School are no longer allowed to wear anything that's patriotic, including camouflage pants, because they have become a political symbol for a version of patriotism.

Tensions Change Dress Code At Local Middle School

A "version of patriotism". I LOVE IT!

And:

A state judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that sought to force the city to allow private, social dancing in restaurants, clubs and bars. State Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman found that the city's license requirements for cabarets -- places that have food and drink and allow personal recreational dancing -- are constitutional.

Please email if you know what that means.

wnbc.com - News - Judge Says Dancing Not Constitutional Right

Simply Classic!

Instapundit

Deja vu....

...could you be the dream that I once knew?



Conference call, redux.

Lovely Linkies

Oliver Stone feels he has been slandered.

Sure, let's be more like Germany.

"I paid a LOT of money to make this darned movie and no one is showing up to see it! I need someone to blame! Waaaaaah!"

Staging the news again.

Boom

"Never met a banned author I didn't like"

Banning the Flag

And the banning of flags continues...

It leads me to wonder: What happens if you burn a banned flag?

Army and National Guard meet recruiting goals

Commentary from the very dangerous Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette.

Why Bush is polling low.

And it's got little to do with how he's really doing. Instapundit has a couple of emails from people with the thought that Bush is loosing this part or that part of his base, or maybe it's the base that's the problem. But there are two emails that are closer to the truth.

My problem is with the Republicans who don't back Bush. They didn't back him on Social Security, they don't seem to be backing him on immigration, & I don't think they are stepping up to the plate & backing him on the war.

The Lame-Stream Media translates "Republicans" in "Bush". Sorry, that won't fly, especially since Bush really isn't all that conservative. Hell, at this point the Republicans aren't all that conservative. They're the majority because the Dimocrats are just that much worse.

But the Republicans, the congresscritters, have finally managed to piss off their base.

Here's something most news outlets won't tell you. Yeah, Bush's poll numbers may be down compared to last year, but compared to the average congresscritters poll numbers Bush looks like a great shining beacon. Bush may be polling in the low 30% range, but the congresscritters? Try 12%. 8%. Congress has, for the last four or five years, managed to take the Republican majority and do what with it, exactly?

Nada. Zip. Zero.

We wanted the tax cuts made permanent. Has that happened yet? No. Why not?

We wanted the Social Security problem addressed. Hell, we'd be happy if it were just talked about in a rational fashion! Has that happened yet? No. Why not?

We want the borders secured. Not amnesty for illegal aliens. Not a "guest worker program" that's just amnesty dressed up all pretty. We want a fence put up along our Southern border so that people can't just stroll across. We want to make sure Kalid-Achmed-Death-to-America-Muhammad isn't coming into this country with a fucking suitcase nuke. But until recently, the Republicans haven't even touched that issue. Why not? Why the hell did it take five years of a Republican majority to even get this issue on the table?

We want the government to spend LESS of our money, not more of it! I'm quite happy to see my tax dollars going towards another bomber or tank, thankyouverymuch, but let's start cutting the social entitlement spending that's bankrupting our country. Do you realize that defense spending accounts for less than 20% of our budget right now? Just keep that in mind when someone screams about how the military is going to bankrupt America. And Congress just keeps on spending more and more and more and more and more. What's the point of electing Republicans when they just go and act like Democrats?

So that's one reason Bush's poll numbers are down. Because support for congressional Republicans is in the toilet. And I'm talking waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down in the toilet. And the media translates that into low numbers for Bush.

Now also keep in mind that poll questions can be manipulated into saying anything you want them to say. Most polls from CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, yada yada yada are going to be so biased as to be completely worthless. Here's a real crude example for ya (crude in the sense that it's blunt and simplistic, but gets the point across). Let's say that someone came up with the following poll, and asked you this question:

Do you think Bush is handling Iraq in the right way?

And there were three possible answers:

1) No, we need to be tougher on the insurgents.
2) Yes, we're doing fine
3) No, we need to leave now!

Now, let's say that our hypothetical crowd was evenly split, giving us 33% of responders checking each answer. The New York Times takes those answers and puts out the front page with a headline screaming

NEW POLL! 66% of America Disagrees with Iraq War!

Now, the poll is technically correct. There are 66% of Americans who don't like what they see, but only 33% disagree with the actual war. The other 33% thinks that we need to be busting a few caps in some terrorist ass, and doing it rightfuckingnowthanks.

But the NYT ain't gonna tell you that part. They're just gonna scream "BUSH FAILING IN IRAQ" or "MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH WAR" or the old standby "AMERICANS TIRED OF QUAGMIRE IN IRAQ" when in truth, given the fact that the majority of pollers either liked what they saw or thought we needed to be tougher, those statements are flat out lies.

This is why the NYT put out poll after poll saying Kerry was going to win, Bush was going to lose. And then in Nov 2004, Bush won, Kerry lost, and all those liberals who read the NYT were stunned and wondered "Just how could this happen?"

Because biased polls put out by biased media organs don't tell the whole story! Gosh, who woulda thunk it?

So anyways, I don't know about you folks but when my primary ballot comes in (I gotta vote absentee) I'm going to find out who the incumbents are for each seat. And then I'm going to check the opponent's box. There's no way in hell I'm voting for a Dimocrat this year, but I'm going to do all that I can to ensure that the Republicans in congress get moved around and switched out.

I'd love to see Arlen Specter or McCain or a few of the other RINO's get tossed out on their ass. And if the congresscritters can't remember why we elected them, they deserve to get shitcanned.