Tuesday, November 02, 2004
More on Philly
Looking at the wards in question
Drudge: One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500...
Ward 37 went 97% for Ed Rendell in 2002.
97% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute, Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of day.
29th Ward, 95% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa.;
Kensington, 86% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa...
Germantown, 92% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30, division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and surrounded the location...
That's Center City. GOP territory.
Drudge: One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500...
Ward 37 went 97% for Ed Rendell in 2002.
97% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute, Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of day.
29th Ward, 95% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa.;
Kensington, 86% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa...
Germantown, 92% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30, division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and surrounded the location...
That's Center City. GOP territory.
Poll Tampering
It begins, as the Nation did some 230 years ago, in Philadelphia.
Wards in Question
Drudge: One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500...
Ward 37 went 97% for Ed Rendell in 2002.
97% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa.;
Kensington, 86% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa...
Germantown, 92% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Wards in Question
Drudge: One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500...
Ward 37 went 97% for Ed Rendell in 2002.
97% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa.;
Kensington, 86% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Drudge: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa...
Germantown, 92% for John Street (D) in 2003.
--
Get off yer duff and vote!
Vote vote vote vote vote vote vote!
If you're in a swing state, you definately need to vote! If you're in a state that's leaning one way or another, get out and vote to help drive up the popular vote for Bush. Even if California goes to Kerry, the votes for Bush get added into the nationwide popular vote. Remember, if it's not close, the Democrats can't cheat their way into the White House.
It's gonna be a bumpy ride no matter who wins. Buckle up and get ready.
If you're in a swing state, you definately need to vote! If you're in a state that's leaning one way or another, get out and vote to help drive up the popular vote for Bush. Even if California goes to Kerry, the votes for Bush get added into the nationwide popular vote. Remember, if it's not close, the Democrats can't cheat their way into the White House.
It's gonna be a bumpy ride no matter who wins. Buckle up and get ready.
Daschle v. Thune: Live Report From Courtroom
This is good stuff. It ends with Daschle losing his bid to prevent Republicans from rolling their eyes in polling places.
No, really.
The ruling from Ohio apparently played a role.
Saints be Praised!
People who show up to vote are actually going to have to identify themselves. I can see how Mary Poppins could get intimidated by that.
No, really.
The ruling from Ohio apparently played a role.
Saints be Praised!
People who show up to vote are actually going to have to identify themselves. I can see how Mary Poppins could get intimidated by that.
Polls from the Battlegrounds
It's a dogfight just about everywhere.
Meanwhile, I wish I could blog all day, like Blog The Day. This morning on CNN (sigh) was James Carville, saying that GOP monitors in Ohio's black precincts are voter "suppression". He said "if you know someone is breaking the law, throw them in jail". Soledad O'Brien asked him: "How can you do that if you don't catch them? Isn't that what the Republicans are trying to do?"
That's when Carville ran out the race baiting, including saying that for blacks, voting "is a newly-found right".
Oy!
Meanwhile, I wish I could blog all day, like Blog The Day. This morning on CNN (sigh) was James Carville, saying that GOP monitors in Ohio's black precincts are voter "suppression". He said "if you know someone is breaking the law, throw them in jail". Soledad O'Brien asked him: "How can you do that if you don't catch them? Isn't that what the Republicans are trying to do?"
That's when Carville ran out the race baiting, including saying that for blacks, voting "is a newly-found right".
Oy!
Rallying Yous All
What's this?! A bunch of weathered conservative political addicts listening to a handful of weekend polls that show things breaking for *GASP* THE DEMOCRAT! You all know better than this. Let's take a peek into hostile territory just to make sure we've got our heads on straight (a necessary course of action in response to this deluge of leftist spin):
Internals? Sure. "The latest NYT/CBS poll showing the President up 3 is more encouraging than most. Why? Because if you look at the internals, the respondents are 35% Democrats, 30% GOP. There were 2 other polls by CBS/NYT in October, both of which had the same 5% party ID difference. In both polls the candidates were tied."
Good news. It's out there.
Does this mean "sit at home and cross your fingers"? Hell No! Call those you know. Work in a question about voting. If they say Kerry, change the subject. If they say Bush....make sure they get to the polls. Why chance it right? Need more perspective? Ok:
Hawaii Yeah, HAWAII!! Cheney draws a crowd of 10000 and Gore draws 1200.
Oh, TVE, but Ohio - Let's try Fox as they currently show Kerry ahead and that men and women are evenly split between the candidates which his historically bogus.
October 19, 2004 Bush 49 Kerry 44
Or
A few days later the polling on Ohio starts to split with two very different polls (note the sample size comment) - October 22, 2004 Rasmussen has Bush up 50 to 46 in Ohio
Ok. Not recent enough?
How about November 1st 2004 - Good news for the President in Ohio. The Ohio Poll out of the University of Cincinnati has Bush over 50% and leading Kerry by a hair. The final Ohio Poll has the race basically tied at Bush 50.1 and Kerry 49.2. Also of interest, it looks like George Voinovich will coast to victory as he is leading State Senator Eric Fingerhut 65 - 34.8. It also look as if the ballot initiative to prohibit same sex marriages and civil unions will pass, it is leading 59.2 - 40.8.
They say it's close. Bush is up though. Have a little faith. Remember the freakin' "Ragin' Cajun" with the trash can on his head in 2002? :) There ya go.
Let us not forget good people that our buddy Osama just popped up on a tape reading a DNC talking point memo and threatening Americans in red states who screw with his precious "security"? How sweet is it for a voter in a voting booth to know that they are pissing in the face of the boogie man by voting for George W Bush? Bonus! "Bush is giving tax cuts to the rich and reading goat books while I'm killing you...saw that on some movie....and we just want to be 'secure' so vote Kerry or we'll kill you." Yeah. That's workin' it's magic right now.
Look back over the history of our foaming mad leftist counterparts. At our WORST we are friggin' nobility in comparison to these bloody savages. Who's got the more appealing message? The eternally vague defeatist or the extraordinary optimistic visionary? Maybe those people in Hawaii know the answer. :)
Get your asses to the polls and vote for your President, and when you do, you drag every willing soul with you. Speak from your heart. We don't have to cheat like the left does. We don't have to sick the lawyers on the polls in hopes of getting a few more Indiana Jones, Mickey Mouse, Superman, or dead grandmas votes qualified in order to win. We just have to do what is right. We have to be alert and fair and stand up for ourselves. Let me hear your battle cry!!!!!
The New York Times-CBS poll.
John Kerry has a 41% favorable, 47% unfavorable rating. This is his worst rating ever.
President Bush has a 48% favorable, 41% unfavorable rating. That is his best rating since last December.
Undecided voters lean to President Bush 50%-47%, validating the Pew finding and calling the Gallup number into question.
66% of Bush voters strongly favor their candidate.
50% of Kerry voters strongly favor their candidate.
By a 49%-34% margin, voters expect President Bush to win.
President Bush has a 49%-44% job approval rating.
The right track today is 43%. In 1996, it was only 39%.
48% of voters will vote on national security issues; only 33% on domestic issues.
By a 54%-29%, voters believe the Bush Administration has made them safer.
53% of voters do not think that Kerry agrees with their priorities, his worst number ever. 42% believe he has the same.
48% of voters do not think that Bush agrees with their priorities. 49% believe he does share their priorities.
52% of voters think Kerry has leadership qualities, his lowest number ever.
62% of voters think President Bush has leadership qualities.
57% of voters are uneasy with Kerry’s ability to handle a crisis.
60% believe Kerry says what people want to hear. Only 36% say that about President Bush.
53% of Americans say we did the right think in Iraq. Only 42% disagree.
31% say their families are better off than they were four years ago. 40% say about the same.
Most importantly, the percentage of voters call themselves a liberal has declined to 17%, the lowest number since 1997. 35% call themselves conservative.
Internals? Sure. "The latest NYT/CBS poll showing the President up 3 is more encouraging than most. Why? Because if you look at the internals, the respondents are 35% Democrats, 30% GOP. There were 2 other polls by CBS/NYT in October, both of which had the same 5% party ID difference. In both polls the candidates were tied."
Good news. It's out there.
Does this mean "sit at home and cross your fingers"? Hell No! Call those you know. Work in a question about voting. If they say Kerry, change the subject. If they say Bush....make sure they get to the polls. Why chance it right? Need more perspective? Ok:
Hawaii Yeah, HAWAII!! Cheney draws a crowd of 10000 and Gore draws 1200.
Oh, TVE, but Ohio - Let's try Fox as they currently show Kerry ahead and that men and women are evenly split between the candidates which his historically bogus.
October 19, 2004 Bush 49 Kerry 44
Or
A few days later the polling on Ohio starts to split with two very different polls (note the sample size comment) - October 22, 2004 Rasmussen has Bush up 50 to 46 in Ohio
Ok. Not recent enough?
How about November 1st 2004 - Good news for the President in Ohio. The Ohio Poll out of the University of Cincinnati has Bush over 50% and leading Kerry by a hair. The final Ohio Poll has the race basically tied at Bush 50.1 and Kerry 49.2. Also of interest, it looks like George Voinovich will coast to victory as he is leading State Senator Eric Fingerhut 65 - 34.8. It also look as if the ballot initiative to prohibit same sex marriages and civil unions will pass, it is leading 59.2 - 40.8.
They say it's close. Bush is up though. Have a little faith. Remember the freakin' "Ragin' Cajun" with the trash can on his head in 2002? :) There ya go.
Let us not forget good people that our buddy Osama just popped up on a tape reading a DNC talking point memo and threatening Americans in red states who screw with his precious "security"? How sweet is it for a voter in a voting booth to know that they are pissing in the face of the boogie man by voting for George W Bush? Bonus! "Bush is giving tax cuts to the rich and reading goat books while I'm killing you...saw that on some movie....and we just want to be 'secure' so vote Kerry or we'll kill you." Yeah. That's workin' it's magic right now.
Look back over the history of our foaming mad leftist counterparts. At our WORST we are friggin' nobility in comparison to these bloody savages. Who's got the more appealing message? The eternally vague defeatist or the extraordinary optimistic visionary? Maybe those people in Hawaii know the answer. :)
Get your asses to the polls and vote for your President, and when you do, you drag every willing soul with you. Speak from your heart. We don't have to cheat like the left does. We don't have to sick the lawyers on the polls in hopes of getting a few more Indiana Jones, Mickey Mouse, Superman, or dead grandmas votes qualified in order to win. We just have to do what is right. We have to be alert and fair and stand up for ourselves. Let me hear your battle cry!!!!!
Monday, November 01, 2004
What happens if Bush loses? A potential pre-loss post mortem
As any impartial observer can see, this election is a toss-up, and that means it will depend upon turnout. And since Democrats hold all sorts of advantages when it comes to turnout, I think that Bush may, indeed, lose. For a moment, I am going to assume that this happens, and take a look back at what went wrong.
But first, I will say this. If John Kerry does win, it is going to be a Pyrrhic victory, indeed. The Liberal block in this country has played every imaginable trump card in their hand, and it's still 50/50. The American Left has sold their soul to win this election, and they have based their entire campaign around trying to paint John Kerry as something that he isn't. They segregated all the loony protestors into cages at their national convention so that they couldn't detract attention from their attempts to make Howard Dean look reasonable and sane. They have sided with the scum of the Earth on all four corners of the globe, from Michael Moore to Saddam Hussein, to Jacques Chirac. In the long run, it's going to cost them. The Democrats have proven in the past year and a half that they have nothing to offer, nothing positive, no platform, no ideas. Nothing, except for the fact that John Kerry is not George W. Bush (oh yeah, and he served in Vietnam). The party was hijacked by Lithium-challenged extremists two years ago when it incorrectly diagnosed its problems as being not Liberal enough instead of too far Left. Since then, the Democrats have progressively melted down to the point of embarrassment. It has become so bad that they have brought Jimmy "malaise" Carter back onto the scene.
Case in point -- I have been visiting www.electoral-vote.com on a daily basis lately, and when I scroll down the page I see something rather interesting. On this election eve, the site has the Senate race at 52 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 2 tossups, and 1 Independent. If I am reading it right, the 2 tossups are South Dakota and Alaska, whose polls show a 1:1 split right now. That would mean that the next session of Congress may have only 46 Democratic Senators. John Kerry has shown that he cannot energize his base, and if he wins, I expect that number to be under 45 by 2008. The House? I haven't seen any projections, but I am optomistic. Congress is elected via name recognition and ideology, and right now, the Democrats are getting their asses kicked on ideology. Why? Because they have trashed every last little bit of it to get Bush out of office.
The one advantage of a Kerry win will be that he can truly no longer hide from his record. If Kerry gets elected, the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American Left is going to be on a gigantic stage for the entire world to see. The country is going to see on a daily basis what a Left Wing arrogant, elitist prick this guy is.
The big loser, however, is going to be the Liberal media. The media has never campaigned so hard for one candidate in our lifetimes, and it's going to cost them too. To some degree, it already has. The credibilty of 60 Minutes has been destroyed, The New York Times has been exposed, and CNN has now officially become Fox News's bitch. The media has most definitely been a huge factor in this election, but I don't expect it to be again. Trust in the media is at an all time low, and from the survey numbers I am reading, the belief that the media is Liberal-biased is at an all-time high. If Kerry wins, there will be celebrations in news rooms across the country, but those celebrations will be short-lived if sponsors start pulling their ads because of crappy ratings. Sooner or later, Capitalism is going to intervene and force one or more of these networks to change sides. Until then, Fox News has 50% of the electoral to themselves.
Now, back to "why George W. Bush lost the election", or if he does manage to win, "Why George W. Bush almost lost the election". I don't think that it comes down to Iraq. I think that it comes down to something else. His economic policy sucks, plain and simple. George W. has set the Republicans back 30 years by destroying the party's credibility as the party of lesser government. Prescription drug welfare, tariffs on steel (later repealed at least), and a massive expansion in government post-911. Now tell me, how do you sell to a swing voter that the opponent is a big government Massachusetts Liberal, when your own candidate is a big government Conservative? It's easy. The answer is, you don't.
Bush's biggest blunder of all may have been signing that wretched McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, an act which has proven to be his undoing. Would anyone doubt that the act has overwhelmingly favored Kerry in this election? He signed the bill, despite opposing these reforms in the 2000 election, despite the wishes of his constituents, and despite the voices of his party's leadership. One thing about George W Bush is clear: like his father, he does not truly and deeply believe in the merits of economic conservatism and liberty. Perhaps we, as his constituents, share some of the blame for being so forgiving of his mistakes. We Republicans have been compromising Woodrow Wilson after World War I. "I'll give you anything you want, just give me a League of Nations!"
If W. loses, I do not expect, and I certainly hope we do not see an eruption of lunacy and hysteria from Conservatives in this country like what we have seen from Democrats in the past few years. Let us not embarrass ourselves by degenerating into a mob of foaming-at-the-mouth, twitching, salive-spewing, purple-faced, angry losers like the mouth-breathers at Democratunderground.org, moveon.org, a Howard Dean rally, and the rest of the Angry Left. The media certainly is an advantage for Kerry, but ultimately, they are not to blame. After all, Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections, without Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Let's analyze what went wrong, and do it differently next time. Let us recognize that Republicans who are economically Liberal tend to lose.
But first, I will say this. If John Kerry does win, it is going to be a Pyrrhic victory, indeed. The Liberal block in this country has played every imaginable trump card in their hand, and it's still 50/50. The American Left has sold their soul to win this election, and they have based their entire campaign around trying to paint John Kerry as something that he isn't. They segregated all the loony protestors into cages at their national convention so that they couldn't detract attention from their attempts to make Howard Dean look reasonable and sane. They have sided with the scum of the Earth on all four corners of the globe, from Michael Moore to Saddam Hussein, to Jacques Chirac. In the long run, it's going to cost them. The Democrats have proven in the past year and a half that they have nothing to offer, nothing positive, no platform, no ideas. Nothing, except for the fact that John Kerry is not George W. Bush (oh yeah, and he served in Vietnam). The party was hijacked by Lithium-challenged extremists two years ago when it incorrectly diagnosed its problems as being not Liberal enough instead of too far Left. Since then, the Democrats have progressively melted down to the point of embarrassment. It has become so bad that they have brought Jimmy "malaise" Carter back onto the scene.
Case in point -- I have been visiting www.electoral-vote.com on a daily basis lately, and when I scroll down the page I see something rather interesting. On this election eve, the site has the Senate race at 52 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 2 tossups, and 1 Independent. If I am reading it right, the 2 tossups are South Dakota and Alaska, whose polls show a 1:1 split right now. That would mean that the next session of Congress may have only 46 Democratic Senators. John Kerry has shown that he cannot energize his base, and if he wins, I expect that number to be under 45 by 2008. The House? I haven't seen any projections, but I am optomistic. Congress is elected via name recognition and ideology, and right now, the Democrats are getting their asses kicked on ideology. Why? Because they have trashed every last little bit of it to get Bush out of office.
The one advantage of a Kerry win will be that he can truly no longer hide from his record. If Kerry gets elected, the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American Left is going to be on a gigantic stage for the entire world to see. The country is going to see on a daily basis what a Left Wing arrogant, elitist prick this guy is.
The big loser, however, is going to be the Liberal media. The media has never campaigned so hard for one candidate in our lifetimes, and it's going to cost them too. To some degree, it already has. The credibilty of 60 Minutes has been destroyed, The New York Times has been exposed, and CNN has now officially become Fox News's bitch. The media has most definitely been a huge factor in this election, but I don't expect it to be again. Trust in the media is at an all time low, and from the survey numbers I am reading, the belief that the media is Liberal-biased is at an all-time high. If Kerry wins, there will be celebrations in news rooms across the country, but those celebrations will be short-lived if sponsors start pulling their ads because of crappy ratings. Sooner or later, Capitalism is going to intervene and force one or more of these networks to change sides. Until then, Fox News has 50% of the electoral to themselves.
Now, back to "why George W. Bush lost the election", or if he does manage to win, "Why George W. Bush almost lost the election". I don't think that it comes down to Iraq. I think that it comes down to something else. His economic policy sucks, plain and simple. George W. has set the Republicans back 30 years by destroying the party's credibility as the party of lesser government. Prescription drug welfare, tariffs on steel (later repealed at least), and a massive expansion in government post-911. Now tell me, how do you sell to a swing voter that the opponent is a big government Massachusetts Liberal, when your own candidate is a big government Conservative? It's easy. The answer is, you don't.
Bush's biggest blunder of all may have been signing that wretched McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, an act which has proven to be his undoing. Would anyone doubt that the act has overwhelmingly favored Kerry in this election? He signed the bill, despite opposing these reforms in the 2000 election, despite the wishes of his constituents, and despite the voices of his party's leadership. One thing about George W Bush is clear: like his father, he does not truly and deeply believe in the merits of economic conservatism and liberty. Perhaps we, as his constituents, share some of the blame for being so forgiving of his mistakes. We Republicans have been compromising Woodrow Wilson after World War I. "I'll give you anything you want, just give me a League of Nations!"
If W. loses, I do not expect, and I certainly hope we do not see an eruption of lunacy and hysteria from Conservatives in this country like what we have seen from Democrats in the past few years. Let us not embarrass ourselves by degenerating into a mob of foaming-at-the-mouth, twitching, salive-spewing, purple-faced, angry losers like the mouth-breathers at Democratunderground.org, moveon.org, a Howard Dean rally, and the rest of the Angry Left. The media certainly is an advantage for Kerry, but ultimately, they are not to blame. After all, Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections, without Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Let's analyze what went wrong, and do it differently next time. Let us recognize that Republicans who are economically Liberal tend to lose.
Winners and more winners
First of all, the Watcher of Weasels held their weekly vote, which I was prevented from participating in due to being more busy than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. I thought after you got married, things started to slow down. Alas, not with me. In any case, the winners for this week are Judging Character by Alpha Patriot, and Letter to an Undecided Voter by Little Miss Attila. Damn good pieces, both of them. The Watcher may flog me for my absence with a switch of his choosing.
There's also another winner out there, and I think I can safely say it's all of us right thinking people who believe in the 2nd Amendment.
When I first started dating my wife, she was upfront about the fact that she had a child from her first marriage. I was fine with that, as the kid lived with his dad. I'd see him during their visits together, and figured he was a good kid. No problems here.
Now, among the things that I gradually impressed on my then-girlfriend was how important firearms were to me. She was pretty surprised at that, since I didn't own any at that time, but that was due to finances, not will. My wife had also had some bad experiences with firearms owners (not the guns themselves) and was rather worried about buying a gun. It took some talking and explaining, plus many uses of Kim du Toit's writing as well as Mrs. du Toit's and Rachel Lucas, but I was able to convince her to purchase a .38 Special revolver together. (New motto: The family that shoots together, stays together!) We went to just about every gun store in the Seattle area, and finally found the gun in a shop in Woodinville. A Smith & Wesson Mod. 37 Airlite in .38 Special. We went to the range, bought 100 rounds of ammo, and let fly.
And as we walked out of the range, she turned to me and asked "So when are you getting your gun?"
She's still not as interested in shooting as I am, but she can handle just about any gun as Analog Kid and Mollbot can attest. She's the only woman I know of who's fired a double-barreled 10 gauge shotgun. She's fired a 50 BMG bolt-action rifle, and launched bullets with just about any gun I've managed to hand her. We applied for our concealed weapons permits on the same day, and received them on the same day. We both carry on road trips, when any help is far away. On our honeymoon when we were out in the boonies she had that .38 Special pistol, HER pistol, on her belt. We helped out a couple people with car problems, and I knew that if some jerk tried anything while I was helping them change a tire, my wife would put several holes in them pretty damn quick. Needless to say, I'm damn proud of her, and knowing that she can take care of herself in any situation makes me feel much more secure.
Now, as I was going to the range more often, it would stand to reason that I would have an opportunity to take my wife's son. His dad and his step-mom are both... shall we say... left leaning. Jake had almost no experience with firearms, short of watching people fire off a few rounds now and then. I put the proposal forward to my wife, who took it to her ex, who to my surprise accepted. I could take Jake to the range. Here's his first time out.
Well, he enjoyed shooting. So I took him to the range again. Soon, I was taking him to the range just about every time he came to visit with us. Both AK and Mollbot have met him. In fact, Jake was rather taken with Mollbot's .22 revolver. Given the chance, he'd set aside my .22 rifle, pick up that revolver and occupy himself for hours. We'd be in lanes next to each other, punching little holes in paper. He's a decent shot with the rifle, and getting better with a pistol. Once he demonstrates proficiency with the .22 revolver, he'll be working on his mother's .38 and my .45 ACP.
But therein lies the problem. How can he perfect his shooting with a .22 revolver when the gun he shoots belongs to Mollbot?
The answer:
Kim, I hope you're reading this. Thanks in part to your and your wife's writing, I convinced my wife to pick up firearms again. She can shoot every gun in the house and has her CWP. Her son is now the proud owner of his very own .22 revolver. Another rifleman has joined the ranks.
There's also another winner out there, and I think I can safely say it's all of us right thinking people who believe in the 2nd Amendment.
When I first started dating my wife, she was upfront about the fact that she had a child from her first marriage. I was fine with that, as the kid lived with his dad. I'd see him during their visits together, and figured he was a good kid. No problems here.
Now, among the things that I gradually impressed on my then-girlfriend was how important firearms were to me. She was pretty surprised at that, since I didn't own any at that time, but that was due to finances, not will. My wife had also had some bad experiences with firearms owners (not the guns themselves) and was rather worried about buying a gun. It took some talking and explaining, plus many uses of Kim du Toit's writing as well as Mrs. du Toit's and Rachel Lucas, but I was able to convince her to purchase a .38 Special revolver together. (New motto: The family that shoots together, stays together!) We went to just about every gun store in the Seattle area, and finally found the gun in a shop in Woodinville. A Smith & Wesson Mod. 37 Airlite in .38 Special. We went to the range, bought 100 rounds of ammo, and let fly.
And as we walked out of the range, she turned to me and asked "So when are you getting your gun?"
She's still not as interested in shooting as I am, but she can handle just about any gun as Analog Kid and Mollbot can attest. She's the only woman I know of who's fired a double-barreled 10 gauge shotgun. She's fired a 50 BMG bolt-action rifle, and launched bullets with just about any gun I've managed to hand her. We applied for our concealed weapons permits on the same day, and received them on the same day. We both carry on road trips, when any help is far away. On our honeymoon when we were out in the boonies she had that .38 Special pistol, HER pistol, on her belt. We helped out a couple people with car problems, and I knew that if some jerk tried anything while I was helping them change a tire, my wife would put several holes in them pretty damn quick. Needless to say, I'm damn proud of her, and knowing that she can take care of herself in any situation makes me feel much more secure.
Now, as I was going to the range more often, it would stand to reason that I would have an opportunity to take my wife's son. His dad and his step-mom are both... shall we say... left leaning. Jake had almost no experience with firearms, short of watching people fire off a few rounds now and then. I put the proposal forward to my wife, who took it to her ex, who to my surprise accepted. I could take Jake to the range. Here's his first time out.
Well, he enjoyed shooting. So I took him to the range again. Soon, I was taking him to the range just about every time he came to visit with us. Both AK and Mollbot have met him. In fact, Jake was rather taken with Mollbot's .22 revolver. Given the chance, he'd set aside my .22 rifle, pick up that revolver and occupy himself for hours. We'd be in lanes next to each other, punching little holes in paper. He's a decent shot with the rifle, and getting better with a pistol. Once he demonstrates proficiency with the .22 revolver, he'll be working on his mother's .38 and my .45 ACP.
But therein lies the problem. How can he perfect his shooting with a .22 revolver when the gun he shoots belongs to Mollbot?
The answer:
Kim, I hope you're reading this. Thanks in part to your and your wife's writing, I convinced my wife to pick up firearms again. She can shoot every gun in the house and has her CWP. Her son is now the proud owner of his very own .22 revolver. Another rifleman has joined the ranks.
Does anyone else....
...have the willies about tomorrow?
I am just sensing Kerry takes Ohio and Florida.
Game Set Match.
Scary.
I am just sensing Kerry takes Ohio and Florida.
Game Set Match.
Scary.
I may have to eat my words
Stress on the MAY part. MEMRI has a transcript of "bin Laden's" tape.
I put "bin Laden" in quotation marks because there's still no proof that he's alive. Yeah, there's a video. A scratchy, half-focused, crappy sound quality, annonymous black background, devoid-of-any-proof-of-date tape that sounds more like Micheal Moore's talking points than the old bin Laden. Mr. Lion calls bullshit. So does Baldilocks. I haven't seen enough of the video to call it one way or another.
Although you have to ask - when the supposed "bin Laden" tape and the DNC start to sound exactly the same, just who do you call the enemy?
Anyways, here's Steve's take on the whole issue.
Indeed.
I put "bin Laden" in quotation marks because there's still no proof that he's alive. Yeah, there's a video. A scratchy, half-focused, crappy sound quality, annonymous black background, devoid-of-any-proof-of-date tape that sounds more like Micheal Moore's talking points than the old bin Laden. Mr. Lion calls bullshit. So does Baldilocks. I haven't seen enough of the video to call it one way or another.
Although you have to ask - when the supposed "bin Laden" tape and the DNC start to sound exactly the same, just who do you call the enemy?
Anyways, here's Steve's take on the whole issue.
Liberals, doesn't it disturb you that so many terrorists and despots support John Kerry? Doesn't that give you a tiny twinge of doubt? Can you really hate George Bush so much that you don't mind rewarding terrorists, as long as it means ousting Bush from the White House? Can't you stand with us just ONCE in defense of your country? Is patriotism really that painful for you?
Here's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals will read bin Laden's threat and say, "Gosh, we better do as he says." Conservatives will read it and say, "Bring that mess ON, bitch. We killed most of your friends, and we're going to kill you, too."
Liberals just want to get along, and if that means putting bin Laden in charge of our foreign policy, that's fine. As long as we have peace. The conservative attitude is a bit more like Patrick Henry's
(.....)
This election is going to be a test of our character. Are we American, or are we French? Are we the Spanish, who let a single attack turn them into a nation of whipped dogs, or are we the nation that stood up to Hitler and prevented him from taking over an entire hemisphere?
I'm not all that optimistic. I know Red Staters will show their grit by spitting in bin Laden's face tomorrow. But Blue Staters will cower. Let's face it. New Yorkers and Californians and folks from Illinois simply do not have the backbone to stand up to this murderer. Faced with violence, they will hand over their lunch money every time.
We may be about to bend to bin Laden's will by electing John Kerry, and if he continues his history of hostility toward the military and our intelligence agencies, we are inviting an Al Qaeda ass-whipping that will make 9/11 look like a tea dance.
Indeed.
More UN Corruption
Just how much more of this are we going to take?
The UN needs to be destroyed as the worthless cesspool it is. The corrupt, ignorant, dictator coddling, anti-American, anti-semitic, murderous, thieving, gun-grabbing, pit of everything foul in humanity.
Burn that fucking building down, preferably with all the UN officials inside.
The UN needs to be destroyed as the worthless cesspool it is. The corrupt, ignorant, dictator coddling, anti-American, anti-semitic, murderous, thieving, gun-grabbing, pit of everything foul in humanity.
Burn that fucking building down, preferably with all the UN officials inside.
Weekend in Cape May, New Jersey
Does anyone out there not know where Cape May is?
Ah, well. Went there for the weekend. Got some good pics. Will post later. For now, there's just the above and this piece of political fodder from a traffic light control box on the side of a utility pole:
Nice!
Maybe I should have made this one post 'o lovely linkies
Ah well. Osama has warned the Red States.
"...any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president, it means that it chose to fight us and we will consider it an enemy to us, and any state that will vote against Bush, it means that it chose to make peace with us and we will not characterize it as an enemy..."
Oy!
"...any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president, it means that it chose to fight us and we will consider it an enemy to us, and any state that will vote against Bush, it means that it chose to make peace with us and we will not characterize it as an enemy..."
Oy!
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Happy Holloween
I hope everybody is safe tonight. Parents, remember: For nights when grown adults dress like loons and caper about in wild fashion, nothing less than hollowpoints will do! Just pretend that you're in Seattle or Berkeley (the grown adults dressed in silly clothing and acting like idiots will be exactly the same regardless) and ventilate any dipshit clueless enough to attempt harm to your children.
However, parents, when you go to the front door and your kids ask for candy, that is the WRONG time to open fire. I don't care how scary or weird the people answering the door look. You're on their porch. Be nice.
I also have a few questions regarding John Fonda Kerry.
1) After the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, John Fonda Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and yet almost never showed up for meetings. No one in the mainstream media has called him on this. Why?
2) John Fonda Kerry helped cut at least six billion dollars from the US Intelligence Budget, yet accuses President Bush of trashing the US Intelligence community. No mainstream media has called him on this or asked any questions about it. Why?
3) John Fonda Kerry met with North Vietnamese leaders in Paris at least once, possibly twice. No member of the mainstream media has called him on this or asked for clarification. Why?
John Fonda Kerry's barrage of lies hasn't even been touched by the mainstream media. He has been allowed to lie, lie again, and lie some more, aided and abetted by the mainstream media. Why?
If you don't already know the answer, please, contact me and I'll help you figure it out. At this point I'm so sick of the mainstream press in this country that I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them.
However, parents, when you go to the front door and your kids ask for candy, that is the WRONG time to open fire. I don't care how scary or weird the people answering the door look. You're on their porch. Be nice.
I also have a few questions regarding John Fonda Kerry.
1) After the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, John Fonda Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and yet almost never showed up for meetings. No one in the mainstream media has called him on this. Why?
2) John Fonda Kerry helped cut at least six billion dollars from the US Intelligence Budget, yet accuses President Bush of trashing the US Intelligence community. No mainstream media has called him on this or asked any questions about it. Why?
3) John Fonda Kerry met with North Vietnamese leaders in Paris at least once, possibly twice. No member of the mainstream media has called him on this or asked for clarification. Why?
John Fonda Kerry's barrage of lies hasn't even been touched by the mainstream media. He has been allowed to lie, lie again, and lie some more, aided and abetted by the mainstream media. Why?
If you don't already know the answer, please, contact me and I'll help you figure it out. At this point I'm so sick of the mainstream press in this country that I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)