Light seeking a subject

Act of Valor

2012-02-28T07:20:00.002-05:00

As I posted over on Bob's site:

I caught it on Friday evening. My initial reaction was similar to yours. “Those guys are NOT good actors” was the thought through my head. And for anyone who might be confused by that statement, it’s a compliment to the cast. They acted like men in those situations would act, not in some surreal, overly dramatic, phony fashion.
The action was good, it did not let down. As you say, there were a few times where they’d call ‘frag out’ and then I’d have to ask myself if they happened to lob the frag beneath an oil tank, or something to that effect. HE grenades don’t pack the punch some of those bad boys did. Except of course ‘THE GRENADE’ toward the end. That one was highly realistic.
Overall I think it was well written, and well executed. If you’re looking for something with twists and turns in the plot to keep you guessing as to what’s going to happen, this (intentionally) doesn’t have it. It is far more realistic and simplistic in the delivery. And it delivers a quality story, with main characters that are human, have depth, have relationships with one another which impact their actions, and have a very clear, very strong moral compass. These are people who you can easily grow to admire and respect during the course of the movie.

I really can't express the sense with which I left that theater. There was an overwhelming sense of humility, to know that there are those who serve in such a way, and have such towering character. there was also a sense of pride, to live in a country where such great men serve. There was also a sense of loss for so many who have made that sacrifice, and there was a sense of hope, for how many there are who continue to step up to "go downrange."

Low Plank Obliques

2012-01-27T19:38:00.003-05:00

For the record, I hate Low Plank Obliques. On the other hand, picking a Friday after work, after a long week, and fighting a stomach bug all week, and still not being up to 100% to start the Insanity work out is probably not the best decision I've ever made. On the other hand, this is the good kind of hurt.
We shall see how this goes.

Supporting Starbucks

2012-01-24T07:52:00.001-05:00

Source:
http://gunvictimsaction.org/starbucks-boycott/

I won't allow this link to be clicked to send you on to the opposition. I don't want them getting 'hits' from me. However, if you copy and paste that into your web browser, you can see why I'm choosing to support Starbucks. They have the anti-rights crowd's panties in a twist.
Essentially they have decided to not ban firearms, and rather are simply following the state regulations on weapons. They are choosing to stay neutral, and not infringe on anyone's rights, on either side. They aren't forcing people to carry weapons into their establishments, nor are they preventing it.
Therefore, I will be visiting a Starbucks on 2/14/2012, somewhere in South-Western PA, spending my hard-earned money with them. I would encourage all of my friends to do the same as well.

On the frustratingly-humorous side, check out this quote about a Glock:

It shot 31 bullets in 15 seconds, killed 6, and injured 14.

So, of course, the gun shot itself that often. Not the person who pulled the trigger. The gun chose to go commit the crime, not the criminal. And the people were defenseless against an inanimate object. If you listen to their arguments, you'd believe that guns were NOT inanimate objects, but beings with minds of their own, able to kill of their own volition.

Idiots.

Reasonable Profits Board

2012-01-19T11:36:00.000-05:00

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/205085-dems-propose-reasonable-profits-board-to-regulate-oil-company-profits

My first question, why should any one person or group get to decide what a 'reasonable profit' for any other person or group is? The only times that applies would be...tax payers deciding what politicians should make, or church members deciding what their pastor(s) should make.
This is a very frightening scenario:

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what a reasonable profit is.

They want to be able to tax 100% of the profit above a certain amount. Arbitrarily determining what is appropriate for a company to make.

Imagine you're in a business yourself for a moment.
If you are going to be taxed 100% of your profit above a certain point, would you be likely to lower your prices, or change your reporting and how you determine what profit is?
Another stance to take with this: If profit is limited, won't that lead to less R & D, and therefore fewer advancements in the industry, leading to stagnation, and job loss, as well as higher prices over all?

As Quinn likes to say, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent."

I would not be surprised in the least to see the result of something like this leading to higher prices at the pump. This should be discouraged in the strongest language possible. Contact your reps today!

Facebook gives Politico Private Information?

2012-01-18T10:29:00.000-05:00

Source:
http://allthingsd.com/20120112/facebook-gives-politico-deep-access-to-users-political-sentiments/

The concept is essentially like Google's selling of statistical data. Except deeper and more personal. In theory, no one will be reading what you say in a 'This guy hates our ideas' kind of way. But it does open the door to abuse. It strikes me as a very slippery slope.

What are your thoughts on this latest Facebook controversy?

Nothing to Add

2012-01-16T13:39:00.002-05:00

Source:
http://www.the-minuteman.org/content/2012/January/15/Open-Response-Joan-Peterson-Barron-Barnett

Just read it.

Cranky Chick - Writes to Joan

2012-01-11T14:11:00.001-05:00

Source:
http://sarahandmom.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/dear-joan-peterson

I found her open letter from Weer'd and fell in love with it. She expresses very precisely what is on all of our minds.
She understands personal responsibility and true freedom far better than Joan could ever hope to grasp those elements of society.

Logic vs. Candlelight Vigils

2012-01-11T08:42:00.000-05:00

Source:
Undisclosed.

I won't link them, they don't need any traffic from me. But, I did make a mistake today. I strolled (clicked?) on over to the CSGV blog to read the post where they 'out' those who had negative things to say about their candle lighting vigil.
I call this a mistake, because the quotes they pull tend to be tremendously out of context. When I decided to post a comment to point out that obvious error, I realized that commenting is disabled. Really? You're going to out people, using their real names and cities of residence, but won't even extend the courtesy of having an open dialog with those people?
OK, I can wrap my brain around the fact that they are desperate enough to be that hypocritical, they are desperate. I can wrap my brain around their being on the wrong side of the issue, not everyone has taken the time to study various issues from a truly neutral standpoint. I can even wrap my brain around their attempting to take a holier-than-thou stance, it IS, after all, what people tend to do when they do not have the moral high ground.
Where I have issues is with them claiming to be honoring those who have lost their lives to 'gun violence.'
Not only is their premise a bad premise, but the very act of mocking those killed in one incident in this fashion is appalling. Yes, I say they are mocking those killed, because they are using the tragedy to further their own agenda.
Let's think about this logically:
Step 1 - Define Vigil:

A period of keeping awake during the time usually spent asleep, esp. to keep watch or pray.
A stationary, peaceful demonstration in support of a particular cause, typically without speeches.

Step 2 - Determine their usage of it.
Clearly, they are not using the first definition, as they are not keeping watch over anything, and I have yet to hear any of them invoke the name of our Creator. At least, not in a vain fashion. So, let's look more closely at the second definition. "...support of a particular cause..."
Step 3 - Determine the intent.
What cause? If the 'vigil' is to 'honor' deceased, that's not a cause which needs much intentional support. Step 4 - Apply logic to the method.
Those who loved the deceased honor them as they deserve. Outside onlookers 'honoring' them tend to be a distraction, and a detraction, from any honor being given unto them.
Which means that there's another motive. Is it an attention getting motive, as Miguel suspects? I think that's a reasonable direction to go with this. So, really the 'cause' they are supporting here is drawing attention to themselves.
Alternatively, other motives could include, but are not limited to, the following:

Attempting to thwart their entrance into the dustbin of history.
Attempting to redirect attention from the REAL issue (crime) and topple a straw man they have built.
Attempting to gain monies from people who are too lazy to do the research behind the 'cause.'
Attempting to force themselves into current issues in order to 'feel better' about themselves.
Attempting to use a genuine tragedy perpetrated by a pathetic individual to further their own agenda.

Please, comment below with your own ideas of what their motives or goals could have been. I'm curious to see what we can come up with!

Personal Experience: Carwash Ambush

2012-01-10T13:27:00.001-05:00

This isn't the first time I've had to use a firearm in self-defense. It's merely the first since I started blogging. But, several things come into play which I want to emphasize to anyone who happens to be reading this.On Sunday, I was hanging out with my daughter at my fiance's house. My future in-laws were there, the ladies doing wedding planning, my daughter and I watching a Narnia marathon, and a relaxing day being had by all. After the snow fall of the week prior, I decided it would be a good idea to wash the salt from the car before it had any more chance to corrode my paint and undercarriage, and make me another victim of the steel buckle of the rust belt.
As such, I asked my daughter if she would like to accompany me to the car wash. Her eyes lit up, and after the Narnia movie which was playing at the time ended, we were on our way.
Upon pulling into the parking lot, I noticed two young guys sitting on a curb along the back portion of the lot. They didn't strike me as significantly out of place, as there is a fair amount of pedestrian traffic there. This is not a bad part of town by any stretch of the imagination, and there are always people milling about.
As I rounded the back end of the car wash, I asked my daughter whether we should use the 'spray it yourself' or the automatic wash. She chose the automatic, as she enjoys watching the machine do the work. Since this particular car wash has no brushes or rollers or other 'things-which-hold-dirt-from-other-cars-and-use-it-to-scratch-mine' I conceded, and proceeded to the far end of the building, getting in line behind a dark purple Pontiac Grand Am.
At this point, I noticed that the Grand Am was a significant distance behind the next car up in line, but attributed that to the driver having the vehicle in park while waiting for others to move up, and being in no hurry, so I brushed it off. I looked into my mirror to chat with my daughter, and noticed out of the corner of my eye movement in my passenger side-view mirror. As I shifted focus to that mirror, I saw the aforementioned young men walking in the direction of my car, from behind. I then noticed that they both had their hands clutching things in such a way that I could not see what was in them. At this point, my senses went into overdrive, and I started taking in every detail of what they were doing.
They split up behind my car, one coming to the driver, the other remaining on the passenger side. At this point, I knew hesitation COULD prove to be a problem, and taking a simple precaution would cause no problems. So, without interrupting my daughter (who was talking about something which for the life of me I can't remember now), I drew my firearm from my holster, and held it against my chest, with the barrel directed at the driver's window. As the kids reached the front doors of my car, they turned to face it from both sides. I turned to look at the one on my left, made eye contact, raised my gun ever so slightly. His eyes widened, and he turned to run. I then looked to my right, and saw what was in the hand of the kid on the other side of the car. An ASP. At this point, I started to swing my firearm in his direction, expecting to have to fire it after he broke the glass. As soon as he saw what was in my hand, however, he also bolted. After he ran, the car in front of me (remember that dark purple Pontiac?) turned a tight turn, and booked it around the corner.
The kid who had been by my driver's side door ran through one of the DIY carwash stalls, shoving the guy who was washing his car. I watched him on the other side, as the other kid reached him, and then the car. They jumped in, and took off up the street.
My daughter, meanwhile, was blissfully unaware of the encounter. As a parent, I'm exceedingly grateful that I was not only able to protect her, but I was able to do it in such a fashion that she never had to feel any fear, and was able to continue her story with only a slight pause when she noticed the guys run from the car.
The entire incident took a very short amount of time. I couldn't begin to guess how long it did take, but even reviewing the slow-motion capture in my head, there was very little time involved.

Remember I said I wanted to point out a few things? Well, here are they key factors:
1 - It was broad daylight.
2 - It was in what is considered to be a safe area. A 'good part' of town.
3 - This area, on the whole, has a lower crime rate than most of the rest of the USA.
4 - I was not out looking for anything, instead trouble found me.
5 - If I did not pay attention to my surroundings, things could have gone very differently, especially if I was not already preparing as they were approaching.
6 - They did not have (that I was able to see) any firearms of their own. That would not have prevented them from perpetrating violence upon myself and my daughter.
7 - If I had been unarmed, or prevented from owning or carrying a weapon, it would not have ended so peacefully.
8 - One person against many doesn't stand a chance, without something to balance the odds. The threat of violence was sufficient to bring resolution to the situation without the need to follow through with the threat.
9 - I hope the thugs who sought to ambush me (or whoever happened to pull into the lot behind their getaway) will reconsider their plans, and realize that their victims may not be willing to be victimized.

This is just another reason why we have a 2nd amendment. Personal responsibility. Only I am able to protect myself and my family. I cannot rely on anyone else to do so.

UPDATE: I spoke with the police, and let them know about the event. I provided as detailed a description of all the actors as best as I was able, and they have filed it as something for which to be alert. No incident report, nothing else exciting.

Humbling Note

2012-01-10T07:43:00.001-05:00

I needed something to kick-start me out of my lull in blogging. I think I found it with this article. It's not written about blogging, but rather about the gun community.

It really is a humbling thing, to be part of something so big, yet so small in how we treat one another. I really do have a tremendous amount of joy for this group of people all across this country. And while I will never be able to say it so succinctly or effectively as she already has, I will say that it is an honor to be a part of it!

Pittsburgh Post Gazette Bias

2011-12-12T12:42:00.002-05:00

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11345/1195751-109-0.stm?cmpid=newspanel

So, his entire premise is sexist. Not to mention that he ignores simple, basic logic.
My first question to the author of this article would have to be: "What about people who are legitimately weak? If your premise is that men don't need guns to be men, what about those with infirmities, women, kids at school, and other people who are at a physical disadvantage?"
The usage of simple logic dictates that if we do away with firearms, the people with the most ability to use force will be those with the most force available. His goal is to return us to a day of inequality, where women were domineered by men, and other social injustices abounded.
He also makes an enormous blunder when he references the Cullen report in Scotland. Their logic is that if the number of gun owners is decreased, the level of gun violence will decrease. This just makes no sense when you actually apply the logic of the real world to it. When you look at Scotland, which is well known for it's anti-gun laws, you see an INCREASE in violence, including gun violence. You see a higher per-capita rate of being a victim, and other things which indicate that disarming the populace serves the exact opposite purpose of it's stated intent.
He also says:

The emphasis is on resolving disputes through force -- physical force initially, lethal force ultimately.

He misunderstands the intent completely. The emphasis is not on resolving disputes through force (if that was the case, there would be many more men in prison, businesses would contain boxing rings, and we'd see fist fights in stores over prices of goods.), rather it is on being prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones if someone else chooses to use force against us. It has nothing to do with disputes whatsoever. The reason I carry a gun is not to give me the upper hand in a dispute. It is to provide the even footing required to be safe if the unthinkable happens.
Additionally he states:

Then there's the concomitant vigilante mentality and the belief that the righteous gun owner may have to fight the government itself if his Second Amendments rights (as he sees them) are not respected.

Firstly, he couldn't be further from the truth. We won't fight the government ONLY for our Second Amendment rights. Our founding fathers often made reference to the need to balance the government, and the only way to do that is with an armed citizenry. Again, the goal is not to go out looking for this lack of respect, it's to respond when our rights are violated. It's a reaction to an offense, not the initiation of offense.

Lastly, and what I find most amusing, is that he is a professor of poetry. While I would try to avoid name-calling and such, I figure 'he started it' so I might as well make the comment demanding to be made. That isn't the sort of profession which is very 'manly' anyway. I think he has some pretty perverse ideas of what manhood is all about. He chooses to ignore logical reasoning and the consequences of living in the real world to defend his own fear of inanimate objects. Not the behavior of any real man I know.

I firmly believe that only people who have knowledge and understanding about a topic should be published addressing said topic in such a fashion, as his complete lack of understanding about the firearms community, and what it means to be a man, makes him look exceedingly foolish, and is a heavy mark against the Post Gazette's credibility.

Upcoming Posts

2011-11-23T11:13:00.001-05:00

Amidst the business of life, the being sick, the lighting a new set at church, the getting the car back after I was hit on the highway, and everything else that has been happening, I did manage to get my hands on a new holster.
I will have a full review with pictures and such shortly. I have one minor issue with it which I'm going to attempt to contact the maker to see what he can do about it for me. A friend of mine ordered one, had a 'customer ordered something then realized he should have ordered it differently' moment, and this guy had the customer service priority to get it resolved for him.
So, I'm hoping he can help out with my 'Huh, because I'm built like so, and want to wear my gun here, this is awkward, can you adjust it?'
Also, first deer-hunting event in many years for me coming up on Monday, so I'm gearing up for that. I'll write that up as well next week after it's all said and done.
In the mean time, I hope you all have a fantastic Thanksgiving, and get to spend some time relaxing with your loved ones.

Be safe, and as Weer'd says, Carry your guns!

Bullet Hit the White House

2011-11-16T07:53:00.001-05:00

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28fB_kWmumM

So according to the Secret Service the round which hit the glass is 'not associated with Friday's incident.' This tells me it's two different happenings. I've been nosing around on the web, and I'm unable to find any sort of ballistic information regarding the round which was found, or casings, or anything else. If any has any info, or knows of any useful sources, please share!

Highway Shakedowns in TN - 4th Amendment is History

2011-11-04T11:22:00.003-04:00

Sources:

News Channel 5

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14673883/policing-for-profit-summary-of-dice-activities-2010

I'm not the first to write about this, nor will I be the last. In fact, this isn't even my first post on the topic. Cemetery had his car searched for no reason, and is left with little recourse. The governments are finding more and more ways to get around the protections we have of our rights, and it is costing us dearly.

And clearly, if you watch the video, you can see that they do not care one iota about actually stopping the drugs. They are focused on the cash. If this really was about the drugs, there would be many more instances on the East bound side, and the officers would be facing that direction, looking for the contraband.

The war on drugs has done more to damage this country than most people realize. Daily it's costing us more and more, not just financially, but in far more important ways.

But some people have hired lawyers after their cash was taken and, sometimes after months and months of litigation, judges have ruled that the money that was taken from them really had nothing to do with drug dealing at all.

Moral of that story is that if you want your money, you need to hire a lawyer to get it back. They will keep it until you take legal action. That is outright THEFT from civilians, especially when those civilians are charged with no crime, and have done nothing to justify that seizure of their property.

When do we draw a line in the sand which shall not be crossed? To allow them to continue to trample our rights is to invite tyranny into our nation, not just turn a blind eye to it, and pour it a nightcap before we go to bed, ignorant of the schemes of tyrants.

Taxation without representation!

2011-11-03T14:47:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11307/1187126-68-0.stm

Pennsylvania is at it again. There has been talk about this, and I understand why. However, any tax added without it being passed through the legislative and executive branches is unenforceable. I'll be curious to see if they do start attempting to enforce this, how well it holds up in court when the population of PA objects, and files suit.

We're already in a bad economy, and some nitwit bureaucrat thinks it's a good idea to increase the tax burden on the citizenry. When will they grasp that this form of idiocy is NOT the answer?

Which wrong(s) make a man guilty?

2011-11-03T14:35:00.003-04:00

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/oregon-man-found-with-gun-sniper-book-after-football-game-held-without-bail/2011/10/31/gIQA0Q8LaM_story.html

In my perusing of news reports, I came across this gem. Clearly this individual was 'up to something' in this scenario, but what justified the move by police to intercept him in the first place? Also, notice on which events the Washington Post places more weight. It isn't the fact that he's already committing a crime by possessing a controlled substance. It's not even the fact that he had a firearm on school property. No, they mention and emphasize FIRST his activities as a 13 and 15 year old kid.

His age at time of arrest? 26. That's 11 years. 11 years of no (mentioned) charges. 11 years of being a productive member of society. (Or at least not being a drain on the system, from what we're able to tell.)

From the story:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke said the weapons and the books, each by themselves, did not make Amoroso a danger. But taken together — along with his arrest at age 15 for shooting a pellet gun at a passing boat filled with tourists on the Rogue River, and writing on a classroom desk at 13 that he wanted to kill teachers and students — there was enough evidence to show he posed a danger.

Is it really that difficult a concept to consider that someone participating in a sport is going to take it seriously, do research, purchase equipment, and the like? I know hunters who consume sniper-related material like water, simply because it's a passion for them. The challenge of learning how to make shots which seem impossible, the tricks and tools used to calculate the ballistics, and other factors readily turn this into an exciting hobby for many.

So the magistrate judge and the post both look to this person's past. What makes it so hard to believe that a 13 year old boy would feel anger toward other students and teachers? Perhaps he was bullied, or had bad grades and was frustrated. Perhaps he was just a normal kid, who made the mistake of writing what he was thinking. And that was half his life ago.

So let's move up a few years, find something more recent. He was a 15 year old with a toy pellet gun. 15 year old kids aren't known for making the best choices across the board. It might have been beneficial to him to have had somewhat 'closer adult supervision' than he had that day. But again, once incident, shooting pellets at a boat, and years later it's being brought up as a sign of how dangerous he is.

It's not until they go through all this that they bother to discuss the crimes he was ACTUALLY COMMITTING at the time of his arrest. These are plenty reason to lock him up for a while, and press charges. While I absolutely understand the logic behind eliminating the war on drugs, and legalizing them for various reasons, that isn't the reality in which we live. As such, his possession of drugs is a viable, legitimate charge. As is his possessing a weapon on school property. Again, I understand the reasons for wanting that foolish law repealed as well, and I whole-heartedly support that movement. But that's not reality. The law is still there, so it is still a crime. But they still can't, in their biased minds, differentiate between the actual crimes, and perceived crimes:

Police found a loaded pistol, hundreds of rounds of rifle ammunition, marijuana, a camouflage jacket, and a novel about a sniper attack on a football game in his car.

What about having rifle ammo in his car is so bad, especially when the only firearm found in the vehicle is a handgun? What about a jacket that happens to be a certain color scheme is so terrible? Why is possessing a book so evil? Should we burn all books that mention the word 'sniper' or 'gun' to protect people? Are we really at that point?

I get that adding all this up, the guy looks suspicious, and frankly he's a bit of an idiot for his behavior, but let's not start a witch hunt over perceived wrongs. Let's focus on what he ACTUALLY did, and let the justice system do it's job. There are enough straw men around, we don't need to be building more out of excessive paranoia.

Theif or Victim to blame?

2011-11-01T07:57:00.002-04:00

Sources:
http://snarkybytes.com/2011/10/31/just-stop-right-there/
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8367794

Alan is exactly right. The blame for guns being stolen lies with no one but the criminal performing the act of theft. That would be like saying someone who had their car stolen is to blame for not putting their car in a safe. Someone who had their jewelery stolen is to blame for not wearing all of their jewelery all the time. This makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Anytime you hear anyone suggest that there is any fault whatsoever with a gun owner for a theft of their weapon, remind them of the first rules of logic, and direct them to understanding that the victim is the victim, and the criminal is the criminal, not the other way around.

Bear in mind this is Australia, and their numbers are different than ours. Specifically they are more alarming, and look worse. And that's with the excess rules, laws, and regulations regarding firearms ownership.

Hangun Ban Support Graph - 50 Years of Positive Trending

2011-10-28T07:52:00.003-04:00

Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

This should be obvious by now, but we are clearly making significant headway in the public realm. Especially see the first graph.

For the past 50 years, we have been making positive headway with people understanding that they should not infringe on the right to own firearms. It is becoming common sense, and accepted logic that freedom is the way to go.
Let's keep the pressure on the antis, let's keep making their jobs more difficult, and let's keep working toward more freedom, and the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones!

Privatization Report!

2011-10-26T11:48:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11299/1184947-454.stm

Finally, a report on the privatization of the sales of alcohol in PA. This is one of the best things possible for the state to do at this point. The profits of the PLCB have been in decline recently, and their overhead and government-style control have been having nothing but negative effects on the process.
We've needed this for a long time, and it's finally being taken seriously.
One thing I have to laugh about are the unions, touting their usual ignorance and anti-freedom propaganda. For instance:

Mr. Young also argued that the report all but ignores the negative impact that privatization, which could eliminate up to 5,000 state jobs, would have on the state's economy.

Mr Young clearly either is biased and WANTS government control, or he is a clueless buffoon who doesn't grasp simple math.

The report suggests selling off 1,500 licenses, which in Philadelphia would quadruple the number of retail outlets from the current 55 stores to 219.

So, to quadruple (or in the case of the Pittsburgh area, only double) the number of licenses, means that many more stores. If we quadruple around the state, and the stores all higher a 1-1, that's 20,000, if we only double, that's 10,000 jobs. So, splitting the difference, we're looking at possibly 15,000 jobs. Now that's not a scientific calculation, it's just simple logic.

Mr. Young, if you are sincere in your concern about jobs for the people, why don't you support an idea which will provide jobs for 3 times as many jobs as there currently are? I challenge you to stand for jobs and economic growth, and do the right thing, rather than selfishly fighting to keep only a few jobs for just your closest friends!

Treating the 1st Amendment the Same as the 2nd Amendment

2011-10-26T07:53:00.005-04:00

Source:
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4601

I don't really have anything to add to Bob's writeup here. It's a great read, and a great comparison of our rights.

Thanks, Bob, keep the good stuff flowing!

Hermain Cain - Presidential Material?

2011-10-25T10:50:00.000-04:00

Source:
Undisclosed

I know my readers are intelligent enough to find this video if they are motivated to do so, I do not want a direct link from my blog to her.

I'm listening to a broadcast by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in which she is viciously attacking Herman Cain. Her problems with him include being associated with Americans for Prosperity, seeing a disproportionate number of times he encounters the number 45 in his day to day life, and some other random things.

In short, he notices a number appearing more often than others, so she calls him a numerologist, and compares him to Nancy Regan controlling President Regan's schedule based on astrological readings, saying that he is associated with the Koch brothers, and that he thinks David Koch is a patriot makes him crazy.

But the most delicious bit of irony is when she said:

"Herman Cain was one of the public faces of Prosperity 101. It is a workplace seminar program that business use to educate their employees about the dangers of things like health reform, and taxes on millionaires, and regulations on businesses. So your boss tells you to sit through this lecture, you sit through the lecture, message received, your boss essentially just told you how to vote. In other words this Prosperity 101 thing is another the Koch brothers are funding a means by which businesses can get their way politically. Intimidate your employees into voting for your bosses interests too."

Emphasis mine above. The irony is that this is exactly what the unions do. They force their employees to attend 'educational' events which attempt to brainwash them to voting for the left. They go so far as to make threats, and want to have a voter card for union members. The unions take this concept to extremes which are inhumane and anti-liberty. Yet an independent organization which attempts to educate people about reality is touted as intimidation?

Rachel, you really are living in your own fantasy world. You need to either wake up and join the rest of society, or get off your soap box: You make yourself sound more and more unintelligent and uneducated every time your trap opens.

Learn from History

2011-10-24T14:37:00.001-04:00

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/24/white-house-to-announce-major-home-lending-revamp/

Clearly, either our president doesn't learn from history, or he does and he hates America and wants us to fail. I'll let you decide that on your own. Take a look at the article. Here are some of the winning parts of it:

The revamped Home Affordable Refinance Program, which aims to avert foreclosures, is expected "to encourage new, lower-cost loans" to more homeowners who are paying more than the value of their properties, a senior administration official said ahead of Obama's Monday announcement.

So we learned from history that you can't force banks to give loans to people who can't pay them, it will backfire. Today, he wants to force banks to give out loans to people who are having trouble paying for them...

The three-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program was supposed to allow refinancing for up to 125 percent of a home's value on mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but has been stuck on tight eligibility rules, including excluding people with high credit scores or other attractive risk offers.

Here we go again. Same plan, different names, different wording, different packaging, but same failed ideas that sunk us already.

The changes to the loan programs are specifically intended to bypass Congress, which is stalled on agreeing to new plans to increase jobs and jump-start the economy. But it won early support from Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

So, dodging congress. That is the act of a dictator. He might as well say, "What I want is what matters, forget checks and balances." Also, Republicans, take note of the name of a traitor to the cause. Sen. Johnny Isakson, from Georgia, way to go failing the people who voted you into office.

If people aren't outraged by the ego, the arrogance, the Marxist ways of this man, then we have fallen very far indeed from the America which once was so great.

TSA Expanding to Highways!

2011-10-24T08:45:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15725035/officials-claim-tennessee-becomes-first-state-to-deploy-vipr-statewide

And here I always thought Tennessee was one of the free states. This is absolutely disgusting.
Take a look at the article and video. Then come back and tell me what you think about it. Is there a reason for this? Will it really benefit anyone? Do we want to see lines of traffic on the highways that resemble the security lines in airports? How many miles will we need to stop again and again and again? How many other questions come to mind regarding this institution of oppression?
I have no doubt that there are those who genuinely think this is 'for the best.' But, anytime you restrict, remove, deter, subdue, or otherwise violate the individual person's liberty, you are losing the fight. The very fact that the TSA exists, and keeps expanding it's roles, is proof that the terrorists are winning more every week, than they ever could have by waging outright war on us.

What ever happened to the America where I was raised?

Overkill

2011-10-18T09:26:00.002-04:00

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11291/1183002-100.stm

Police calling in excessive force is nothing new these days. It just happened again locally. This time the civilian who experienced an overdose of justice is a 75 year old woman. With a mental problem. Who they know.

I understand that police officers need to take steps to protect themselves. But, doesn't it seem strange to call out SWAT ("...a nearby special response unit...") for 1 lady? It strikes me as a severe case of overkill, and it does nothing to give me confidence in those who are supposed to serve and protect us.

The really ironic thing is that I am well known as quoting Rule 37 from Schlock.

Catchup

2011-10-18T09:14:00.002-04:00

OK, so I hope to soon be back to posting regularly, if not daily, again soon. The garage claims I will have my car back by early next week at the earliest, the house was closed on this past Friday, the crazy week at work has passed, and things are starting to settle again. There are a few other things up in the air, but I'm not ready to discuss them here yet.

Stay tuned though, more excitement to follow!

Update

2011-10-12T07:34:00.002-04:00

So, I'm still without a vehicle, looks like a week and a half to two weeks until the shop is able to complete repairs. Being without a car is extremely difficult in this day and age. So I'm left with wandering the streets aimlessly....
I mean bumming rides off friends, borrowing cars, and acting pretty pathetic overall.
That said, I expect posting will be a little light until then. I've got some things in mind, and I'm going to try to get a couple posts up over the next two days. There is a lot in my brain itching to get out. So it is coming, just please be patient with me until I'm able to devote time to it again.
Thank you all so much for your readership, it is greatly appreciated!

In the mean time, be alert, be thinking, and be safe.

Light Posting

2011-10-06T06:48:00.001-04:00

My apologies, but I will not be posting much for a few days.
I was in a severe car accident. While I am physically fine, I am suddenly facing more challenges than I prefer to face. Getting to and from work without a car is difficult, let alone handling everything else I need to do.
Oh well, time to tighten the ol' belt buckle, and get cracking!

Halal Meat (Islamic Version of Kosher, if you will)

2011-10-03T11:57:00.001-04:00

My mother sends many emails my way which she thinks will interest me, or things that might cause me to be concerned, or any of a various number of reasons. I really enjoy this aspect of our relationship, as it allows me to see some of her thoughts. I don't often get to hear her thoughts, as my schedule is incredibly hectic, so this is an opportunity for me to 'see' what's on her mind. Recently she sent me a forward which went on about how Halal meat is taking over at the grocer, and how we need to avoid it. Initially, the writing felt like it was very fear-inspired, not logic-inspired. And I think most of you know me well enough to know that I'll dig into any topic. If you want a copy of the email, mention so in the comments, along with your address, and I will send it your way. For the sake of conserving space here, I will not include the text.

On the surface, I see what they are saying, and what the issue is. I'm going to put my thoughts below in list form.

1 - We should in no wise support Islam.
2 - This is meat essentially offered to idols.
3 - There is nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols. (There is no such thing as an idol, only God is real. 1 Cor 8.)
4 - Politically I have issues with this happening.
5 - As a Christian I couldn't care less where my meat originates, as long as it is handled in a way which poses no threat to my safety.
6 - For the sake of my brother or sister who has a weaker conviction, I won't eat this halal meat if it would cause them to stumble.

Conclusion:
I will try to avoid it if I can, not out of religious obligation, but out of a two fold reason: to attempt to send the message to the grocers that they don't need to carry that product, and to not support financially the making of the meat. That is where my conviction originates. If a brother or sister would be uncomfortable knowing the meat was prepared by those actively worshiping a false god at the time of it's preparation, I will abstain from it as well.

A friend of mine who lived in Israel for a number of years had this to say when I chatted with him about this:

Besides, I had ground lamb and pork-free hard salami, both halal, that were INCREDIBLE

What are your thoughts about eating this meat?

1 Corinthians 8:4-7
1Co 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
1Co 8:5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
1Co 8:7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Petitions Galore

2011-09-29T07:38:00.003-04:00

Sources:
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/lets-play-a-game/
http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2011/09/lets-have-some-fun-with-our-president.html

The anti-rights lobby has established a 'ban private sale' petition with the White House. They need to get 5000 votes for it to do any good. They aren't close.

However, there are some petitions well worth signing, such as support of HR822, and some others. Take a look, and if you feel so inclined, add your name to the petition. I won't say you must, but I would recommend it. Let's send a clear message to the executive branch that this is what we want!

Grandma is Willing to Protect her Own

2011-09-28T08:06:00.002-04:00

Source:
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4480

Bob S. has a great write-up on this incident. The short version is that there was a robbery, suspects were fleeing, one hid under her bushes, and regretted it.
Fortunately she did not need to actually employ deadly force to gain compliance from the suspect who made that mistake. He immediately became polite, cooperative, and compliant when he realized that someone protecting their family is willing to do so without hesitation. He clearly knew he was in the wrong (mentioned that 'the cops are looking for me'), and knew what he had to do to remain intact.
I would tip my hat, were I wearing one, to her, and hope she never is required to take such action again, while taking joy in the knowledge that she is willing and able if she is.
He makes this point, which is the fundamental point of self defense:

She didn’t go out looking for trouble but was ready when it came to her.

That is why we put forth the effort to arm ourselves. Not to find trouble, but to handle it when it finds us.

My Daughter's First Magazine

2011-09-25T17:44:00.001-04:00

So, my daughter has fired a pellet gun before today. Allow me to clarify that. She held it, and I pulled the trigger, because she doesn't have the strength in her hand to squeeze the obnoxious trigger on it. However, she has no problem squeezing the triggers on the actual firearms.

That said, check out the video below. It's the last 7 rounds of her first magazine with a real pistol. She's still a little over-eager, squeezes them off more quickly than she needs to fire them, and she tends to flinch. But for a young lass on her first day, she's not doing too shabbily at all!

She's got some learning to do, but she's off to a good start.

And yes, I probably am biased.

200 Murders - 1 Scandal or Is it the Fault of the Guns?

2011-09-22T07:27:00.000-04:00

Source:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/09/20/attorney_general_in_mexico_200_murders_result_of_operation_fast_and_furious

So, the AG in Mexico has basically said that 200 (at least) murders are the result (so far) of the Fast and Furious scandal. Now, you and I both know that murderers will murder, with whatever weapon(s) is(are) available. Weer'd has a great pile of examples. It's an insignificant percentage of how many actual events like it happen, but it's the exact image of what we know to be true. Murder isn't cause by guns.

So, my question is simple. If we hold them to the same standard they claim when arguing with us, that being 'Guns cause death!' then what is the logical conclusion?

Step 1 - They allowed guns to be illegally trafficked across the border.

Step 2 - Those guns killed people.

Step 3 - Because it was the guns which committed the crime, the supplier(s) of the guns should be held accountable. (After all, when someone robs a bank with a gun, it's the fault of the gun store who sold him the gun, or the firearms manufacturer, or ANYONE but the actual criminal. He's the victim of the terrible evil of being a gun owner. Even if he illegally owns that gun.)

Step 4 - The fault lies squarely with the DOJ and ATF. No one else to blame, they forced the dealers to sell the guns in circumstances where they would otherwise not have made the sale, they forced the situation to fall into such a place that the weapons made it to their destination. They hold all blame. Not even the criminals who pulled the triggers share in that blame.

At least, that's what I'd be forced to think if I bought into the lies of the antis. Instead, I see this scandal in a different light.

Step 1 - Normally law-abiding gun dealers were forced to break the law, their own policies, and have unethical business transactions with people with whom they would prefer not to do business. They were forced into committing commerce against their will, as it were.

Step 2 - Firearms purchased in these circumstances were allowed to cross an international border, violating a large pile of other laws, again at the behest of those who were pushing this agenda.

Step 3 - The firearms were sold illegally in Mexico, to the cartels, violating yet more laws.

Step 4 - The guns were then used in the commission of various crimes, by criminals, including murder.

So this is where my logic takes a turn from what they would espouse:

Prosecute the criminals. Charge them with what they did, and move on. In Mexico, that means prosecuting the murderers for murder. Oh wait, those are the cartels that their own government has allowed to get to where they are. The police there won't cross their paths. So, looks like the murderers are walking.

But, where does that leave the DOJ and ATF here who facilitated, and even forced, this to be an issue?

Accessory to murder, for one. Countless other laws, and international laws, were broken in this scandal. Those responsible need to be held 100% accountable. To do less is to tell the rest of the world that we don't care about justice, only agenda. There are those who say we should send those responsible to Mexico to stand trial.

I have two problems with that:

1 - The crimes they committed happened here in the States, not in Mexico. We should not extradite people to other countries for crimes committed here. They should be charged and prosecuted HERE for those crimes.

2 - We need to lead on the issue of holding those in power accountable. Sending them off to be prosecuted elsewhere in no way demonstrates to a watching world that we are serious about being an ethical, upright, just nation.

Your Papers Please...or Voter Fraud Counter-Measures

2011-09-20T07:57:00.001-04:00

Sources:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/voter-id/groups-urge-feds-stop-voter-id-bill/

http://www.imao.us/index.php/2011/09/nuke-the-news-taxes-create-jobs-day-of-yawn-and-yay-fraud/

American's enjoy several unique options in life, which leads America to be a very unique place to live. One of the options which has defined America throughout her history has been the right of the citizenry to vote. This right has given the people a clear voice int he organization and execution of the government. Well, it used to be clear.

It's no secret that over the last several decades accusations of fraud at the polling places, and in the counting afterward, have been rampant. Chicago is notorious for having the dead turn out in droves to vote. And this before we even really started considering the coming zombie apocalypse. Maybe this is the origin?

What do we do with rampant accusations of voter fraud? How do we protect the voice of the people? How do we prevent a phony lip-service-only voting system like exists in much of the world from taking over here?

UPDATE:
The below paragraph is how I initially worded it. Bob S. from 3 boxes of BS has helped me to understand how I was wrong in my original statements. After this paragraph is the updated version of it, corrected for accuracy and clarification.

~~Governor Perry in Texas instituted a voter ID check. The concept is simple, and it seems to be effective. "Prove you are a citizen, and you get to vote."~~
Now reads:
Governor Perry in Texas signed into law a voter ID check. The concept is simple, and it seems to be effective. "Prove you are who you say you are, and you get to vote."
I now return you to your regularly scheduled blogpost

However, there is some controversy. There are two sides to every argument; this one, I think, has three.

It's only fair to everyone else participating in the system that all people prove their eligibility to participate in the system. It has to happen if the system is going to work the way it was intended to work.
There's no need for it.
This bears too much of a concept of 'Your Papers Please' and is fundamentally opposed to what we as Americans hold to be dear.

Personally, I'm torn between options 1 and 3. Option 2 I completely disregard, as I firmly believe SOMETHING needs to be done. However, what that something is, I'm not entirely certain. I lean toward option 1, as the concept of 'your papers please' is more along the lines of when people are traveling around and are being accosted by law enforcement without provocation or just cause. Really, since when is 'subversive material' illegal in the US? Last time I checked, reading material wasn't illegal.

This is different from those evils, and I think a necessary step to take to protect this nation. There may be a better way to do it, and if there is, I'll be happy to entertain it. While this is a right of the citizens of this nation to vote, the difference in this case is the citizens voting. There must be a vested interest in the future success of this great land. Illegals, the dead, and others have no vested interest in that success.

As Frank said regarding those who oppose this concept:

"...make them carry the pro-voter fraud label as there is no — NO — logical reason to be against having to prove you can vote before voting other than that you are for voter fraud and think it will help your side."

Please, share your thoughts on this issue!

Knife in the Pocket

2011-09-19T14:59:00.000-04:00

Origin:
http://gunblogblacklist.blogspot.com/2011/09/whats-in-your-ouch.html
http://northwest1524.blogspot.com/2011/09/trusty-dusty-knife.html
http://neanderpundit.com/?p=4643
http://nonoriginalrants.blogspot.com/2011/09/scuse-me-while-i-whip-this-out.html
http://rfaa.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-meme-ho-sharp-cutty-stab-edition.html
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/whip-out/
http://www.thebredafallacy.com/2011/09/my-knife.html

So, the concept is 'take the knife out of your pocket, and post a picture.' Except, I have to ask 'which knife?'
To say I have 'many' is probably a fair assessment. I like being able to get to a knife in any pocket in any position I happen to be sitting, in any vehicle or other restraint.
So, without further ado, here are the two which came out most quickly when I saw the meme:

The Tanto bladed knife I've had for more years than I can remember. The other I picked up in 2009 while in San Francisco for business. I especially like that one because of having the seat-belt cutter and window-breaker incorporated. Very useful tool.

What is(are) in your pocket(s)?

Debt Reduction or Holding People Hostage?

2011-09-19T14:24:00.001-04:00

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/obama-plan-to-cut-deficit-will-trim-spending.html

After reading this, it's pretty obvious that the administration's plan is a combination of two things.

1 - Raising taxes by $1.5 TRILLION when the economy is already suffering tremendously (because that's always such a great idea).

2 - Holdng our troops hostage. These men and women deserve so much, and O-nutjob would use them for political leverage?

That doesn't even mention that the plan would cut medicare and medicade, the very thing he accused Republicans of wanting to do. While I would be fine with eliminating social programs (HOW to eliminate, I'm willing to discuss, as we probably can't easily go cold-turkey), to make even hinting at touching these programs out to be an evil, then to proceed and actually do it yourself is as hypocritical as it gets.

As a wise man once said, "If you want to know what the left is doing, look at what they are accusing the right of doing."

Life is Busy

2011-09-19T14:16:00.001-04:00

This is more of a 'light posting' apology than anything else. Life has become hectic!
I've been extremely busy with various things I'm working on with my fiance, not the least of which is planning a wedding and buying a house. We started a new sermon series at church this weekend, which meant I had to spend some extra time getting the lights set for that, and the list goes on.
All that said, I'm planning to step up the posting again at some point in the near future.
Please bear with me, I am only human, after all!

Ataaaack Waaatch Part Deux - Joking Around

2011-09-16T09:54:00.001-04:00

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/attack-watch-new-obama-campaign-site-to-fight-smears-becomes-laughing-stock-of-the-internet/2011/09/14/gIQAspHDSK_blog.html?tid=sm_facebook

It's good to see that there is a post at the Washington Post ridiculing it as well. Sure, they attempt to point out the 'motivation' and the 'good things' that will come of such a site. But let's face it. They know as well as we do that it's an attempt at censorship. One which will ultimately fail.
Instead, it's like being on a battlefield, and our enemies have air-dropped a large supply of weapons and ammunition behind our lines.
As I said to a co-worker, the people know what he's trying to do, and won't stand for it. Her response was that not everyone hates it, the people living on "government money" (our money) love it. I then said 'Stop trying to depress me. I said people, not sheeple.'
Let's keep the joke going. Toss comments and funny links here, share the best stuff you can find!
This video (sent to me by a friend) is priceless!

You Don't Deserve to Keep Your Money

2011-09-16T07:33:00.001-04:00

Source:
http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2285496

The important quote is as follows:

“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together."

Just let that marinate in your brain for a while.
You (the free US citizen) do not deserve (are not entitled to, have no right to, and have no obligation in your favor of having) to keep (possess, to do with what you will) all of it (the money you have earned by your hard work and effort)....
What else do we need to hear from the left before we understand that they HATE freedom, they HATE capitalism, and they HATE liberty?

OC: Pros and Co...Well, Pros Anyway

2011-09-15T08:02:00.000-04:00

Source (Weer'd has some fantastic posts.):
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/we-are-all-open-carry/

My first thought about any sort of carry is simple:

...The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

Emphasis mine.
Any restriction of carrying a weapon is infringing on the right of that weapon-holder to bear his or her arm(s). There is no twisted logic or convoluted methodology of law-making which will ever change that. Any restriction is an infringement.
All that said, the movement for open carry has been growing. The people who are pushing this movement are making great progress for logic and reason. The politicized results of their carrying openly are having the desired effect overall.
I have been OCing for years off and on. There are times I prefer it for various reasons, from having pants on which are too tight to allow proper concealed, to other garments which won't allow for concealment, to knowing I'm going to be in a neighborhood in which I'd much rather not be. The advantages of OC are many, and with a proper understanding of those advantages it provides for the safety of all individuals. As Weer'd said, the stakes couldn't be higher. Those of us who carry, do so following the letter of the law, because it only takes one mistake to be unable to properly defend ourselves and our loved ones going forward.
So, without further ado, a brief list of advantages of open carry:

Crime-against-self reduction. A criminal seeing that you have a firearm on your hip is less likely to attempt to make you a victim.
Crime-against-others reduction. A criminal seeing that you have a firearm on your hip is less likely to attempt to victimize someone else in your vicinity.
Ease-of-access. Typically drawing from concealment is slower than from open. Obviously with proper training any timing differences can be mitigated. However, in an 'all things equal' world, the lack of fabric between your hand and the grip of your sidearm, the faster you can bring it to bear, and put it to it's designated role.
Comfort level. When I am OC, it feels far more comfortable than when I am concealed. I'm a bigger guy, so it's difficult to find that sweet spot which causes no discomfort whatsoever.
Familiarity. Allowing other people with whom you interact on a day to day basis to see that you are carrying a firearm, and at the same time you are NOT shooting people over parking spaces, or randomly shooting people, or any of the other evils the antis claim, is about the most positive press we can ever hope to have.
Style. There are a tremendous number of stylish, beautiful holsters being created today. Personally, I am unable to find one, as it seems there isn't much market for my pistol of choice. However, many weapons have many options for carrying, and with the right accessories, it can really compliment an outfit.

There are many many many more pros than this. Share what pros you consider to be important, or key in your decision making process. Do you OC daily, or just occasionally? Are you prepared to deal with accidental OC?
Share your thoughts!

Attack Watch

2011-09-14T13:12:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00

This is a scary video. Before I go any further, please take a moment to view it in it's entirety.

So, I suspect this blog, among many many other blogs, will appear on this website. Looks like it's time for us to lay low, and cling bitterly to our guns and Bibles.

9/12 - The Morning After

2011-09-12T09:35:00.001-04:00

I thought long and hard about what to post yesterday. I was fully intending to put aside my 'typically don't post on Sundays' habit and write something for the anniversary of the attacks against our nation.
But I couldn't bring myself to do it.
Why? One simple question: What has changed?
Sure I could talk about what I was doing, or how I felt, or what awakened in my understanding of the world around us. I could go on for hours about what it felt like when I realized we are hated simply because we are free. I could go into detail every minute of my day: Evacuation to talking to my friend in Army Ranger School at the time, to the trouble I had sleeping that night. But the point is, it doesn't really matter.
When America awakened on 9/12, we all knew something was different. We all realized we needed to change our outlook on the world around us. We all knew that life would never be the same again. What we didn't know was that we were going to do more harm to our own country than the combined efforts of every terrorist have done.
I know I typically write about freedom, firearms, and the like. But today I'm going to temper that writing with something a little more faith-driven. I've never attempted to hide the fact that I believe the God of the Bible, who sent His Son Jesus to pay the penalty for sin, and die a substitutionary death on the cross for us. For me.
So what does that have to do with the events of the decade following this tragedy? The answer is simple: Everything.
I've learned much in the past decade, not the least of which being that those of us who have this faith have an obligation to lead people. We are to the the ones holding the standard, encouraging people to continue on when it seems there is no hope. We are the ones who are to be willing to give our lives for others, even strangers, because our eternal security is assured. We are the ones who are to bring hope to those who don't see any, and joy to those who don't know her touch.
And we are to do it, not because of anything within ourselves, or because we are better than anyone else, or because we are supposed to do it. We are to do it because greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world. It's not our own power, it's not our own love, and it's not our own means.
So in the decade since that tragedy, while our rights have been being systematically stripped by an oppressive government bent on crushing the people, and we've watched loved ones giving their lives in an attempt to free others from the control of similar evil governments, we continue to stand. We are called to be salt and light to a world in need.
Are we? Are we taking those difficult stands, choosing the right path, even when our own nation seems to be turning completely against us? Are we calling evil for what it is where we find it? Are we prepared with an answer when people ask us questions, or attack us unjustly? Are we ready to defend our faith with our minds and hearts? Are we ready to reach a world in need?

The Evils of Fire(arms)

2011-09-10T13:34:00.000-04:00

Source:
Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind (Amazon)

This is well worth the read.

   "And now, to the other part," Michael continued, "to the real suffering around us. While we have worried about the boundaries that have not harmed a single one of us, many of our families, friends, and neighbors have suffered, and died. Tragic and needless deaths, in accidents with fire. Yes, that is what I said. Fire."
    People mumbled in confusion. Michael was starting to lose his bond with the crowd. He seemed to expect it; he looked from face to face, letting the confusion build, and then dramatically he thrust his hand out, his finger pointing.
   At Richard.
   "There!" he screamed. Everyone turned as one. Hundred of eyes looked at Richard. "There stands my beloved brother!" Richard tried to shrink. "My beloved brother who shares with me" - he pounded a fist into his chest - "the tragedy of losing our own mother to fire! Fire took our mother from us when we were young, and left us to grow up alone, without her love and care, without her guidance. It was not some imagined enemy from across a boundary that took her, but an enemy of fire! She couldn't be there to comfort us when we hurt, when we cried in the night. And the thing that wounds the most is that it didn't have to be."
   Tears, glistening in the sunlight, ran down Michael's cheeks. "I am sorry, friends, please forgive me." He wiped the tears with a handkerchief he had handy. "It's just that only this morning I heard of another fire that took a fine young mother and father, and left their daughter an orphan. It brought my own pain back to me and I couldn't remain silent." Everyone was now solidly back with him. Their tears flowed freely. A woman put her arm around Richard's shoulder as he stood numb. She whispered how sorry she was.
   "I wonder how many of you have shared the pain my brother and I live with every day. Please, those of you who have a loved one, or a friend, who has been hurt, or even killed, by fire, please, hold up your hands." Quite a few hands went up, and there was a wailing from some in the crowd.
   "There, my friends," he said hoarsely, spreading his arms wide, "there is the suffering suffering among us. We need look no further than this room."
   Richard tried to swallow the lump in his throat as the memory of that horror came back to him. A man who had imagined their father had cheated him lost his temper and knocked a lamp off the table as Richard and his brother slept in the back bedroom. While the man dragged his father outside, beating him, his mother pulled Richard and his brother from the burning house, then ran back inside to save something, they never knew what, and was burned alive. Her screams brought the man to his senses, and he and their father tried to save her, but couldn't. Filled with guilt and the revulsion at what he had caused, the man ran off crying and yelling that he was sorry.
   That, his father had told them fa thousand times, was the result of a man losing his temper. Michael shrugged it off; Richard took it to heart. It had instilled in him a dread of his own anger, and whenever it threatened to come out, he choked it off.
   Michael was wrong. Fire had not killed their mother; anger had.
   Arms hanging limply at his side, head bowed, Michael spoke softly again. "What can we do about the danger to our families from fire?" He shook his head sadly. "I do not know, my friends.
   "But, I am forming a commission on the problem, and I urge any concerned citizen to come forward with suggestions. My door always stands open. Together we can do something. Together we will do something.
   "And now my friends, please excuse me, and allow me to go comfort my brother, as I am afraid bringing out our personal tragedy was a surprise to him, and I must ask his forgiveness."

Used with permission under the "fair use" tribute.
Now, re-read the entire story above, and add the word 'arms' after every instance of the word 'fire.' Spooky, right? Now, while doing that, focus on this line:

Michael was wrong. Fire had not killed their mother; anger had.

Terry Goodkind is an excellent author, and I highly recommend the 'Sword of Truth' series. Wizard's First Rule is the first book of the series. The entire series has quite a few analogies such as this. He brings up some fantastic questions, and uses basic, yet perfect, logic to resolve them. Later in the series he discusses the fairness of taking what people have earned from the earners, and distributing it to those who do not earn.
And yes, he was heavily influenced by Rand.

Chime in on your thoughts! (Pun intended, for those who have already read the series.)

Jobs - Now in Brighter Packaging

2011-09-09T13:36:00.000-04:00

Source:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904836104576560593248402036.html

I didn't bother listening to the speech last night. I don't think I was anywhere that I could have even if I wanted to watch my blood pressure climb, and feel my pulse race. That said, it seems to be the buzz today, getting the most attention from outmoded news media (newspaper, tv, radio, etc), as well as current, relevant news publications (such as blogs, online reporting, etc).

While I am not an expert in things of economics, I do have a fair amount of common sense. So I'm going to comment on some of the things I've read.

Under Mr. Obama's plan, the unemployed would see several additional programs to help get them back to work.

When I hear/read that, I can't help but think 'More spending, more government agencies, more cost to the people who do have jobs, more cost to the people who can create jobs.' Government programs have a tendency of backfiring, or resulting in the opposite of their intent.

Meanwhile, employers would get a tax credit of up to $4,000 to hire people who have been out of work for more than six months, a move that would help level the playing field for the long-term jobless, said Rutgers economist Bill Rodgers.

The level playing field should not be forced based on an outside force. It should be level to the people in the playing field. Each person should succeed or fail by their own efforts. If this goes into effect, it will have the result of people who see companies hiring those who are unemployed for a longer period of time choosing to spend that time living off the government teet, and not being a productive member of society, opting rather to wait until they are part of the 'group' which gets special treatment.

As with the 2009 stimulus package, much of the proposed policy is directed toward the construction industry and the more than 1 million unemployed construction workers in America.

Again, special treatment for one group of people. Rather than focusing on the root problems, and how they impact the entire economy and nation, this package seems to be carefully directed at specific people. That sounds a LOT more like a campaign strategy, or a vote-winning strategy, than a 'fix the problem' strategy to me.

The plan would put $30 billion into renovations at schools and community colleges, $50 billion into the modernization of roads, airports, waterways and railroads, $15 billion into "Project Rebuild," a program that refurbishes vacant and foreclosed homes and $10 billion into financing for a national infrastructure bank that would use both public and private investment to finance infrastructure projects. Mr. Obama said these initiatives would create "hundreds of thousands" of jobs.

So, rather than taking steps to increase the availability of jobs overall, this will focus on specific, short-term jobs which may or may not last once the indicated projects are done.

Mr. Obama's plan would cut payroll taxes in half for up to the first $5 million in wages businesses pay and offer a $4,000 tax credit to companies that hire long-term unemployed. It would also extend the so-called "100% expensing," which allows firms to take an immediate 100% tax deduction on capital investments, an incentive that would otherwise expire at the end of the year.

Two out of three ain't bad, right? Anytime taxes are cut, especially taxes which can be seen directly relating to the number of employees, will always benefit job growth. So he's got that part right. But why stop at $5 million? Why not make it across the board? Additionally, the ability to write-off capital investments is extremely beneficial to the economy, as it removes some of the burden of that type of expenditure. The removal of that burden gives more willingness to the companies to spend the money, which provides work for other companies, and more jobs overall. But, again, see above regarding the tax credit for hiring long-term unemployed.

Still, because the proposed tax breaks are temporary, their effectiveness in creating hiring will be blunted, said Bill Rys, tax counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business association.

So make those tax incentives permanent.

As of right now, I see nothing in what I've been able to find which gives me any confidence that this plan will have a positive, lasting impact. There are steps here which will help, but only if taken to their logical conclusion. The rest is just another stimulus package, and more 'spreading of the wealth.'

If the purpose of the money being given for these projects is job creation, how about a tax refund to everyone equally based on what they paid? Match that with permanent tax cuts, and you'll see job growth. Anything less than that is merely lip service for the purpose of garnering votes.

Setback for Freedom in VA Court

2011-09-08T13:24:00.002-04:00

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE7874S720110908

The court ruled that the federal government has the power to FORCE the citizenry to purchase health insurance.
This is just one more loss we face as we attempt to fight to keep the American way of life intact. The very concept of a government forcing it's citizens to participate in any activity is as tyrannical as it gets.
It also appears the VA court thinks the federal government can undermine the state's own laws.

Sadly, no Debate Update

2011-09-08T00:12:00.002-04:00

Due to my schedule conflicting with the schedule of the Debate (really, why didn't someone tell them I was busy, and would be unable to watch?) I was unable to watch the debate this time. As such, no update on the debate. If I'm able to find the entire video, audio, or transcript, I will toss some commentary out there. If you happen to know where I can get any of the above, please drop me a link.
Thanks folks!

The TSA is Evil

2011-09-07T08:45:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.popehat.com/2011/09/06/complain-about-being-sexually-assaulted-by-a-tsa-thug-theyll-sue/

DISCLOSURE: This post and the link contain graphic descriptions of non-consensual sexual encounters. Not appropriate for all ages.

I highly recommend reading this entire article. I also highly recommend offering any support you are able to Amy. She did what every one of us who has flown under the TSA should do. This gradual taking of more power by them, and more denial of our rights needs to stop, and be reversed. The TSA needs to be disbanded. They are an evil organization, which takes pleasure in using what little authority it has to sexually assault US citizens, and pays it's employees to do that.
Not only is that rape, but it's inverted prostitutional rape. Yes, I made up a word and phrase. But think about it. When someone pays for sex, it is prostitution. When someone is sexually assaulted, it's rape. When someone is paid to rape someone else, it becomes a new issue all together.
Don't believe me? Just ask any of the women who have had fingers and hands pushed "...between their labia." Ask any of the men or boys who have had their penises grabbed. This is legalized rape. This is the dehumanization of the citizens of the USA.
The TSA is a criminal, evil organization and must be stopped.

At Least He Shot Himself For Us

2011-09-06T14:33:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/06/at-least-8-reportedly-shot-at-ihop-restaurant-in-nevada/

Yet another example of the police and law enforcement agencies being too slow to react. After a shooter shoots people and himself, they arrive. After the threat is neutralized, they shut down a street. After ________ they _________. Fill in those blanks with pretty much anything you want. We see this in case after case, instance after instance.
If the police existed to prevent crime, this discussion would never happen. however, they are a reactionary force, not a preemptive force. They are unable to prevent this sort of thing. \
I don't know anything about the shooter at this point, if he was high, if he had mental problems, if he was an escaped con out to get the world, or if he was a normal Joe who snapped, or what. At the end of the day, that doesn't matter. What matters is that no one there took the action to stop him. It could be that none of them was armed, or it could be that he already shot those who were. What will you do if you're confronted with such a situation?
This is why it's important for us to take our safety seriously, and responsibility for ourselves, and not rely on others for it.

Blog publishing post

2011-09-06T11:22:00.001-04:00

Just tossing a unique code out to the interwebs. Please keep moving.

AVWHV6KXW2CM

Busy Weekend

2011-09-06T07:45:00.002-04:00

I had a very busy Memorial Day weekend. It included interviews for reception halls for a certain upcoming event, as well as the other party of said event putting an offer on a substantial investment.

What did you do this weekend?

What Does it Mean to be Aware of Your Surroundings

2011-09-02T12:48:00.000-04:00

Source:

http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4379&cpage=1#comment-18379

I have always made it a special point to be alert to my surroundings. We have a responsibility to ourselves and to our loved ones to be aware of danger, alert to trouble, and the like. This can be exhausting, if you don't apply your methods correctly.

To use the definitions used here I have personally primarily used a combination of two levels of awareness:

1 - Relaxed Awareness - when in places where I spend most of my time, and it's easy to be alerted to something being out of place. The office, the house, church, etc.

2 - Focused Awareness - when in places where I am not familiar, and as such things out of place are less likely to stand out to me, as 'everything' is out of place by my perspective. New settings, new city, job interviews, special social occasions, and public areas which change frequently due to layout and visitor changes such as malls, restaurants, stores, garages, and the like.

I have constantly encouraged this concept (though not worded nearly so well, or so detailed) to my loved ones.

In what level of awareness do you typically find yourself? Do you pay attention to what's going on around you? Would you be taken by surprise if someone unexpected walked in the office? Would you be unable to react if you witnessed a mugging while shopping? Would you see that box sitting somewhere that it shouldn't be?

It's very easy to be aware of what is going on around you without draining yourself. I encourage you to try!

Idiocy Begets Idiocy

2011-09-02T12:25:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://christopherburg.com/2011/09/02/citations-and-anti-gun-stupidity/

I always enjoy reading a solid refutation of idiocy. Simple logic, common sense, and any ability to reason more than a mouse will lead to the logical conclusion that restricting freedom does not lead to safety. Quite frankly, it leads to the opposite.
I have always found it rather telling as well that so often their arguments are either unsupported by any statistic, or they simply repeat the same things they hear within their own circles day after day. It's the old adage that if you tell a lit often enough you'll start to believe it.
Take a look through the post, follow the links to the data, and smile to yourself as you gain even more firepower to use in the war for freedom.

Privatize the PA LCB?

2011-09-01T08:07:00.001-04:00

I'd love to see the LCB privatized for more reasons than I can count. The biggest are as follows:

1 - Why does our government think it's a good idea to sell it's citizens something?
2 - Broader selection and variety.
3 - Lower prices.
4 - The ability to order wines from around the world, and have them shipped to your home. (Other drinks as well, not just wines.)
5 - Opens the door to transporting across state lines and not violating any laws in the process.

The list can go on, but these are the most important aspects of this effort. So please, if you live in PA, and care about freedom, contact the president of the state senate here, and ask that he move the liquor privatization bill forward:
http://www.senatorscarnati.com/connect.htm

Update:
Turns out Sebastian talks about it as well.

Ugliness Gets a Handout

2011-08-31T08:16:00.000-04:00

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html?_r=2&hp
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/29/hey-shouldnt-we-have-some-extra-legal-protections-for-ugly-people/

Before I go any further, I accept without any hesitation that I am ugly. Those of you who know me understand this to be true.

The first thing I wish to mention is a fairly simple, yet profound, question that begs answering: What makes ugly people more deserving of special treatment than attractive people? The entire point of the American system is that we are all created equally, and as such no one deserves any special treatment over any others. To say someone deserves special treatment for any reason is to say that they are a lesser person. That's one of the largest issues I have with the concept of affirmative action. By it's very nature, it's encouraging the thought that those benefiting from the program are lesser humans, and as such deserve more than the rest of the human race.

There are several excellent questions surrounding this issue which would need to be addressed as well. Who determines ugliness? Would there need to be yet another bureaucracy established for the purpose of determining that? What will it do to the psyche of the people who are deemed ugly? What method of qualification will there be? Where will that line be? What about the people who fall just on the fair side (pun intended) of the line?

Once we get past those questions, we get into the social ramifications, the bitterness created between yet another two classes of people, more division between Americans, and the like. If I'm offered a job because I'm ugly, how unfair is it to someone who is far more qualified, but is just too pretty? Or too white? Or too young? Or too healthy? This is just more classism being created to drive wedges between the people of this land, and destroy any semblance of unity. Quinn speaks of classism frequently, and has some excellent thoughts.

How do you feel about the ugly class? Do you hate us? Do you want to see us be given a chance to get ahead? Please share your thoughts.

Personal Experience: Kayak Trip Gone Wrong (And how the Anti's are Wrong Again!)

2011-08-29T13:43:00.003-04:00

On 8/20 I took a group of 14 of my friends on a kayak trip in Western PA, a place called 'The River's Edge'. I've not worked with them in the past, but had read some good things about them. To get the full story, we need to go back about a week prior to the trip.

I had sent an email to a different outfitter (further upstream, along the same river) that I have used in the past with a great experience, and left a voicemail to make a reservation. Several days after both of those were sent, I received an email from them that they were booked for that day, and would be unable to meet my needs. So, I found another outfitter (River's Edge) and made a reservation there. I did this after reading several comments online stating that people had great experiences with them.

We arrived in time to get setup, sign the waivers, load the shuttle, etc and have plenty of time left to get to the put-in. When my kayak ('my' meaning 'owned by me, brought from home to the outfitter) it was loaded on the bottom of the trailer. I normally would have no issue with this, however there was a missing fender on that side. One of my friends also pointed out the obvious issue, and I went over to inspect it. When I asked the gentleman loading the boats onto the trailer, he said 'The straps will hold it, and it will be fine.' I pushed my boat toward the center of the trailer, and it seemed as though he was right, I was able to push it several inches away from the exposed wheel.

Upon arriving at the put-in, we hopped out of the van, I walked around behind to the trailer, and my heart dropped. I saw this:

I saw this hole, and realized that not only had the straps NOT held my kayak in place, but it had shifted, and laid on top of the tire. The friction generated by the tire rubbing against the boat was sufficient to burn a hole clean through the boat. Obviously this kayak is completely ruined. The bodies do not lend themselves to repair of this sort of damage, and it is clearly not water-worthy as is.

I was upset. One friend took my fiance aside immediately as she exited the second shuttle which arrived behind ours, and told her she needed to speak to me right away, and it was urgent. She looked at me across the parking area, and realized something was wrong. Her calming influence was sufficient to prevent me saying anything terrible, or making a total fool of myself.

One of the co-owners of the outfitter was in that second shuttle, and the fellow who had loaded my kayak so terribly pulled her aside before I was able to talk to her. He explained what happened, and took her around to show her the damage. Not only did the tire destroy the side of my boat, it also destroyed my bilge pump.

They returned to their store-front in order to get a boat for me to use for the day, and brought it back. We waited about an hour for that to happen. I had told my friends to get started, as they should not lose time on the water, and enjoying the beautiful day because of my problem. Without exception, they all said they'd wait for me. They are awesome people.

When the outfitter returned they had a boat for me to use, and a bilge pump as well. I helped everyone else get into the water, loaded my loaner, and off we went for a day of floating down the river.

Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves well, and I tried to as much as I could under the circumstances. The highlight of the day was finding a rope swing, and having a blast swimming and falling into the water. Ironically the youngest people on the trip, and one of the oldest were the ones to enjoy it most. I did not trust the rope, the platform, or anything else there with my weight. The others seemed to have no problems with it.

When we returned to the shop, I went to see the owners. They were both surprised that such a thing had happened, they'd never had a problem in their 5 years of providing livery service. They did, however, make it right. They offered to pay me what it would cost to replace the boat. Without going into the details on that end, they did send me a check for the cost of the boat I had, plus shipping and tax, so I am now able to replace the kayak I had with an identical boat.

They made it right. I received the check 1 week to the day after the incident, and while the time without a boat is going to be frustrating and aggravating, I do understand that things in life DO happen, and we have to deal with issues as they come up. They handled themselves professionally, and provided me with fair remission for the incident. They made it right, and I look forward to doing business with them again, probably next season at this point, as it will be some time until I'm able to receive my new kayak (3-4 weeks minimum delivery time, according to the website).

On a side note, and because I have to get politics involved, I have to point out one thing in this: The antis are wrong. According to those who would restrict our freedoms, and take our guns, as soon as someone becomes even slightly upset about something, and they are armed, there will be bloodshed on the streets. People will shoot each other over parking spaces, traffic jams, and the like was something we heard often recently. Here in PA we heard it recently because of the Castle Doctrine passing. We heard people saying such things as a method of using fear to attempt to get their way.

When I saw what happened to my boat, that someone else destroyed it through their own ineptitude, I was angry. The fact that my property was damaged beyond use, and that my investment of money, time, effort and everything I put into that boat was gone, because of one person's mistake, I felt angry. I wasn't just angry, I was downright livid. I also had one of my firearms on me.

Not once did the thought of drawing my weapon ever enter my mind. Not once did the thought of causing injury to anyone else enter my mind. Not once did any of the things which the left and the antis claim will happen in that scenario even enter into the mind of the person in that situation.

Not once.

Sounds to me like I had more reason to be upset than over a parking space, and it also sounds to me like they are so far off base with their ideas that gun owners are violent people looking for a reason to start killing that they can not relate with ordinary people.

The important lesson to take from all this? Be involved when someone else is handling your property, and point out issues, and don't be afraid of expressing your concerns. At best you avoid the headache I have had, at worst you have a falling out with whomever is handling your property, and have to find a resolution.

Zo is no Dummy

2011-08-27T21:32:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.pjtv.com/s/GQZTMMY

I've enjoyed AlfonZo Rachel for a while. He has a great sense of humor, and watching him stand for his faith, and what he knows to be true about our history, and conservative values is fantastic. He's gone after the black community as a member of it, pointing out so many of their bad choices, mostly due to believing the lies of the left. It is well worth watching his archives to better understand what I mean.
This particular episode is from a little over a month ago (7/19/11). The best part is his correct interpretation of 'Render unto Caesar' which he explains shortly after 3:30.
In this particular video, he is destroying the concept of income tax, and pointing out why it's such a bad idea, why the founding fathers did NOT include it in the constitution, the questionable ratification of the 16th amendment, etc. It's classic Zo, saying exactly what's on his mind, and pulling absolutely no punches. My hat is off to you, sir!

Tased Man Awarded Damages

2011-08-26T16:55:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11236/1169599-100.stm

I live far too close to this city for my comfort. The short version of the story is that a police officer used excessive force, a jury found in his favor, but yet he was only awarded a couple hundred dollars compensation for it.
The man had to go to the hospital, and we all know how cheap that is. This is insanity. Get me out of here.

Part of a Greater Whole

2011-08-26T08:05:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/blogroll-of-the-antis/

When I started this blog, all I knew was that I had a lot to say about various things. As I started writing more, I learned what grabbed my attention most often, and ran with it. Today, I consider this blog to be a mashing of several topics, but primarily Liberty, Politics, and Firearms. It's only over the last several weeks that I've come to realize just how many other people are passionate enough about these topics. It's intimidating to try to read everyone.
Last night I attempted to read all the 'current' posts listed on the Black List. I fell asleep long before I get far into it. The worst part, I felt badly about it. This community is filled with people who have a passion for these things, and really understand what it means to be American. And as I look through this list, and find other similar blogs, I realize how much of an honor it is to be included in such company. At the same time, I am also humbled and a little intimidated as there are people far more talented, many who have been writing far longer, and those who are able to find stories and information far more efficiently than I am.
Weer'd says it best:

Meanwhile Gun Blogs you simply have to play favorites, because there is too much for any one person.

The opposite side of the issue (I would say the "wrong" side of the issue) seems to have the opposite problem. Take a look at the information Weer'd provides. Quite enlightening, and frankly a bit amusing. I know it's not polite to laugh at the expense of someone else; but sometimes I just can't help myself.

Blog List

2011-08-25T07:24:00.000-04:00

I have finally joined the 2000's and added a list of the blogs I read daily in the sidebar. There are a few others I read less regularly, but there's a reason these blogs are in the bookmark folder called 'daily.'

I hope you all enjoy them as much as I do!

Unusual Holster Design

2011-08-24T14:28:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://averagejoeshandgunreviews.blogspot.com/2011/08/versa-carry.html

First, let me clearly state that I am no expert of holsters. I have (shamefully) tended to stick to cheaper holsters (Hello, Uncle Mike's), and of quality holsters, I've tended toward the cheap end. However, I understand VERY well the concept of a holster. The accepted definition is fairly simple and straightforward: a sheathlike carrying case for a firearm, attached to a belt, shoulder sling, or saddle. I would modify that definition by making this simple change: a sheathlike device used for SAFELY carrying a firearm....

The goal of carrying a sidearm is to do so safely. When one is armed, one must take reasonable precautions to verify that they are not taking foolish risks with their safety. It's not very difficult to imagine a circumstance in which an object (arm of a chair, wooden dowel rod, etc) can apply pressure inside the trigger guard when it is only covered by a layer or two of clothing.

I also have serious issues with inserting anything which doesn't belong into the end of the barrel. It sounds like they attempted to make it a material which will do no damage, and it certainly sounds more delicate than the cleaning brushes I tend to use. However, that is only done as needed, and only for a short time. The motions which my body performs on a daily basis (walking, sitting, standing, laying, driving, breathing) will all cause motion in the pants. This means more friction, more rubbing, and a greater possibility that it will cause damage.

Overall, while this is a very interesting concept, and I am definitely a minimalist when it comes to holsters, I do not think this is a good idea as is. There are a couple variations which might make me more comfortable with it, however as it stands, I'd not want to carry my sidearm with it.

Union Thugs - Making Life Interesting

2011-08-24T07:11:00.000-04:00

I received the e-mail alert below yesterday at work. Names and locations have been altered to protect the innocent.

Picketers on [Company's Name] Road

We are aware that Glazier’s Local Union 751 is picketing today on public property along [Company Name] Road, near the entrances to Building 1, 2 & 3 and 4, 5 & 6. Our understanding is the union is protesting a subcontractor's use of nonunion personnel to renovate some buildings on campus. We respect the union’s right to gather and picket on public property. [Company Name] is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate in employment and personnel practices on the basis of race, sex, age, handicap, religion, national origin or any other basis prohibited by applicable law.

Please refrain from engaging with picketers, and exercise caution as you enter and exit onto [Company Name] Road, as always.
Any safety or security concerns should be reported immediately to [Company Name] Security at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

So, here I am, a lowly office drone when I see this e-mail. My initial thought when I saw the headline was that someone was protesting some product or other that we manufacture. Then I realized it's picketers, not protesters. So when I read it, and realized it's a union thing, I couldn't help but laugh. My company didn't not hire unions (intentional double negative), they hired a subcontractor who did not hire unions. This is so that they could compete with other offers, and actually get the work done at an affordable price to us.

The part that really boggles my mind, however, is that a local union group would come protest that. If your unions didn't artificially raise the cost of doing business the way they do, and understood the importance of a free market, you would have actual work to do, perhaps even here on our campus. Instead, you get to go hold signs outside a business that couldn't care less about your petty squabbles, making yourselves look like nitwits who have nothing better to do than...well...stand around holding signs, annoying people.

When will the unions realize that they have outlived their usefulness, and at this point are merely just digging their own graves deeper? I absolutely understand the importance for the unions to have been formed when they were, and that they served a wonderful purpose. However, laws in America have been changed, and there is such a foundation of precedent in court for employees rights that I would say the effort and intent of unions was a success long ago. Since that has been the case, they have done nothing to better the system, and have begun to have a negative impact instead.

Maybe we should all picket union shops, and demand that they go away. Oh, right, the rest of us have jobs we have to do.

Gun Blog Black List

2011-08-22T14:35:00.000-04:00

This is a great resource:

Carry Restricted in a Mall of Fear

2011-08-22T08:04:00.000-04:00

I've been meaning to post this for quite some time. Today, I have finally finished writing the incident in a way which I think is fitting for here. This is purely a personal experience, so there is no source material today. I hope this anecdote is useful to you, and you are able to benefit from my experience.

As you know, I possess a CCW in my state, and carry constantly. One evening, I was doing so in a local mall. Being in one of the more upper-class neighborhoods in the area, I rarely visited it. As such, (and as is my habit) I checked the doors as I entered. No signage. In PA, if there's a sign indicating firearms are not allowed, you leave. If you don't, they are required to ask you to leave. If you don't leave at that point, they can charge you with civil trespassing. So, no huge risk even if there is a sign posted.
My fiance (then girlfriend) and I were in one of the kitchen stores when I reached to a high shelf to retrieve an item for her. My shirt lifted, and one of the employees saw my weapon in my belt. She just happened to be looking at just the right place she'd need to look to see it.
As we continued perusing their goods, we were in a corner, to the side and fairly far back in the store. I was in the midst of a conversation with my girlfriend regarding some item in her hands, when I noticed out of the corner of my eye mall security (unarmed, older gentleman, who I'm pretty sure couldn't fight his way out of a burlap sack, no offense intended toward him, but not the kind of guy who could be effective in stopping any sort of determined criminal), but didn't realize they knew I was armed. I had in no way been acting suspiciously, so I just assumed he was making his rounds, or coming to socialize. Next thing I know, he's standing immediately behind me, tense as one could be. He was polite enough to wait until my girlfriend and I ended the current conversation thread in which we were engaged prior to interrupting.
Now, I'm not a small person, by any stretch of the imagination. When he said 'Excuse me, sir,' and I turned to face him, he lost most of the color in his cheeks. It was all I could do to keep from laughing. He then said 'I would like to talk with you, would you care to come with me?'
Not knowing what was going on, and not about to comply with someone who had as yet not identified himself, I opted to go the public route, and said 'We can chat here as well as anywhere.'
Long story short, he proceeded to tell me that the employee saw my weapon, and he asked why I felt I needed to carry in a peaceful mall. I responded that it was to keep my girlfriend safe and in one piece, not that it was any of his business thankyouverymuch. He then said weapons are prohibited, and I asked where the signage is, he said it is in the office, on the top floor, behind the counter. So, in short, there wasn't a visible public sign, but he attempted to enforce it. He suggested a compromise that I return my weapon to my car, and continue my shopping. My answer was that I was not about to do business with any organization which has a complete disregard for the rights and safety of their clients. I also was not foolish to leave a weapon unattended anywhere, as that is an enormous liability to me. I looked at my girlfriend, and told her to come out to the car whenever she was ready to leave, and that I'd be waiting for her there.
The looks she got from all the women in that store were priceless. The snobish folks who frequent that particular establishment were expecting to see her pull some heat out of her purse, especially as she tends to carry a large purse.
I eventually wrote them a letter, indicating that I'd be informing all my friends about how poorly I was treated, and how unsafe I would feel shopping in a place like that, and how their policies restrict the freedoms and rights of theirs customers, and that I'd not be doing business with them until they changed their policies. I also sent a copy of that same letter to the stores in the mall, and the corporate offices of those stores.
It may not be much, but it's a little chip in their customer base. Out of curiosity I stopped by while I was in the neighborhood several months later. The proper signage was added to both sets of doors past which I drove. Rather than understanding a customer's perspective, they stuck to their ideology of fear. Now, rather than having an armed, concerned, engaged, aware and alert citizen in their building, willing to step up if the need arises, they are more likely to have the people who ignore such things enter, and act without any others willing to protect the innocent lives and property there.
Complete and utter disregard for common sense, simple logic, and most importantly, the rights of the American Citizen.

One Down...

2011-08-14T09:36:00.000-04:00

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/14/pawlenty/
http://www.670kboi.com/rssItem.asp?feedid=112&itemid=29708801

Tim Pawlenty dropped out of the GOP primary race this morning. Michelle's win in the Ames Straw Poll seems to have been a sever blow against his campaign. He was initially hoping to show growth, and his 3rd place finish did that. However, after he looked things over more closely, he realized that loss against Bachman was significant enough to end his run.

Now, for my opinion on the events:

First, and foremost, I'm glad to see one of the more liberal of the contenders back out of the race. This gives me marginally more hope for having a properly conservative candidate.

Second, I didn't see where Romney finished. If he did well, the MSM would be blasting that all over the front pages, trying to sell us on how wonderful that socialist is. The fact that he's NOT out there, tells me he did badly enough that they don't want to talk about it. WAY TO GO IOWA!!!!

Third, Bachman winning the poll suggests to me that the people (of Iowa, at least) do want a real conservative in. Unfortunately, I have my doubts about Michelle being a strong president. She has potential, and I'd certainly take her over many others who are a possibility, but I do have my doubts.

Fourth, this is the best news to me from the weekend, Governor Perry is in. He announced yesterday, and he couldn't have made me more happy. He has a solid record of conservative policies, conservative voting, conservative solutions, etc. As the field currently stands, he's the most conservative with the most experience, and best record.

Please, share your thoughts about the weekend's events, the debate last week, or anything else related to the GOP nomination race.

Fascinating

2011-08-11T21:03:00.003-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDaKzQNlMFw

I love this stuff.

California Open Carry

2011-08-10T07:44:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/morning-video-2/

This gem from Weerd. The video is very to-the-point, and it is amusing to listen to Portantino. He's so far out of touch with reality that it's hard not to feel sorry for him. As Weerd says:

Great arguments if you’re an emotional hand-wringer. Not much if you ever….you know…think.

Do you want to reduce crime? Do you want to see people take personal responsibility? Do you understand that the police have neither the ability nor the obligation to protect each and every individual citizen in each and ever circumstance throughout the course of a day? Do you have the ability to think critically and apply logic? If your answer to any of these is 'Yes' the odds are that you are in favor of enabling the private citizen to take an active stand the protection of his person, his family, and his property. This means repealing the legislation which prevents individuals from performing those duties. This means drafting and enacting legislation which supports the law-abiding, and protects them from criminal and civil liability when engaged in the act of defense (see Castle Doctrine laws).

At the end of the day, the nanny-stateism that is rampant in this country is doing nothing to better the lives of our citizens, but rather is doing more to hinder freedom, and take responsibility away from people who are more than capable of behaving like adults. The problems which need to be addressed are with those who intend others harm, not the idea that any sort of inanimate object is to blame.

Thanks for the video, Weerd. Fantastic.

Debating on the Internet

2011-08-08T17:53:00.000-04:00

Debate:

https://www.facebook.com/ChristianPost.Intl/posts/10150258757723635

Yes, I know debating on the internet is silly. It's more effective to use a wall as a stopping device for one's head repeatedly. However, that said, it is still very fun to debate people in such a forum occasionally. I have been engaged (briefly) with a few people who don't understand basic political or economical science. It's rather amusing, feel free to check out the debate and join in if you like. Or, post here your thoughts on the debate.

The basic context of said discussion is the president's refusal to understand that the S&P changed the rating of the US because of his poor leadership. Instead he's choosing to blame others, use scape goats, and even deny that the rating deserved to change. Can't have it all, either it should change, or it shouldn't, not a combination of 'it shouldn't and it's someone else's fault that it did.' It doesn't work that way.

Anyway, please weigh in!

Jumping at Shadows

2011-08-05T11:01:00.000-04:00

Source:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-virginia-tech-lockdown-4-20110805,0,3215763.story

Most of you, by now, have heard about this incident. Back in 2007 there was a mass shooting at the school. While that was a sad, and even unfortunate incident, it has had the effect of making people at the school jumpy and afraid. Rather than encouraging the students, faculty, and others to be aware of their situation, and prepared to handle it, they are skittish. One person, who saw something they weren't even certain about having seen, led to a lock-down of the school, a massive amount of expense to the school, local tax payers, and emergency responders. This comes with the additional side-effect of putting many officers into play in a non-issue, and leaving other areas un-patrolled, and reducing the response time to any other issue.

In what world does it make sense for the masses to live in perpetual fear? In what world does it make sense for people to blindly rely on the reactions of someone else to save their lives? But most importantly, in what world is it the business of one person what any other person is or is not carrying on their person? If you are worried about someone else carrying a weapon, train yourself in their use, and be prepared to do something about it yourself. Otherwise, shut your mouth, stop whining like a nitwit, and leave the rest of us to live our lives the way we want.

Camping Trip

2011-08-03T11:18:00.000-04:00

This past weekend I went on a camping trip. I haven't done a proper camping trip in many years. Those of you who know me well will understand that this is the sort of thing I really enjoy. Being outdoors, experiencing the call of nature, breathing fresh air, not dealing with traffic, and all the other things associated with getting back to basics are very appealing to me.

This trip, I went to one of the state parks in PA. It was peaceful considering how full the campsite was. There was one group of people who insisted on being louder than they needed to be, but they were far enough away that it wasn't terribly distracting.

I purchased a new tent for this trip (my old one was...well, let's just say it's not in the best shape these days). All I can really say about this tent is that I love it.

Standing upright in a tent is a wonderful thing. Being able to walk around, upright, is even better.
Large windows allow a tremendous amount of airflow to pass through the tent.
Setup of the tent was extremely easy considering the size. Two adults, first time setup, took less than 30 minutes in a stiff breeze. That was the worst part, without the wind it would have been 15 minutes.
Storage for a variety of things, some pockets built into two flaps, allowing for phone, wallet, keys, etc to be kept safe and organized without fear of being lost.
There is an e-port to allow an extension cord to be run into the tent to power electronic devices, charge phones, or whatever. We used a site without power, as that's part of the joy of being camping, is not depending on electricity for everything. However, that is a nice feature for the back-yard-camp-outs, and other uses the tent would have.

We borrowed a Coleman camp stove for the trip, and as always, I enjoyed using the white-gas stove. Very useful stove for burning without any toxic emissions. White-gas is safe to use in a tent, or anywhere, without risk of CO poisoning. The one we took had the electronic ignition, which was very convenient, but with having matches and a lighter, there would have been no issues if that was not working. I am definitely going to purchase one of their dual fuel stoves for myself in the somewhat near future. They have basically updated the white-gas stove to be able to burn either white-gas OR regular unleaded gasoline. I will stick with the white-gas, unless I'm in a 'worst case scenario' and that fuel is not available.

Beyond those couple toys, we had the basic camping supplies (sleeping bags, pie irons, knives, etc), and it made for a very relaxing trip. We rented a motor boat for a few hours and tooled around a portion of the lake (We did not have enough time to cover the entire lake, it's surprisingly large!), swam for a while, read, got engaged, made some s'mores, and other outdoorsy camping activities.

Now it's time to start planning the next trip!

Light Posting

2011-08-03T10:44:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the light posting. I've had a very busy couple of weeks, the last week being especially so. I'll provide more details in the future as to what I've been busy doing in the future.
Stay tuned, I'll be writing some posts this week.

Atheists are Vampires?

2011-07-28T07:42:00.002-04:00

Source:
http://m.christianpost.com/news/atheist-groups-lawsuit-against-9-11-cross-sad-misguided-52940/

I don't have time to write my usual commentary on the idiocy of people, however here is the winning quote of the article:

According to the lawsuit, several claimants have suffered both physical and emotional damages from the “existence of the challenged cross.”
Among the damages listed are “dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish.”

Reading that makes me think these atheists have more in common with vampires than humans. Seriously, it's a symbol, seeing it isn't going to hurt you.

However, it DOES make me think about a new career path:

"Boydy - The ~~Vampire~~ Atheist Slayer"
All I need to do is wear a cross, put some on my car, and mount them on every door and window of my house.

What are your thoughts?

Update: A coworker just suggested that '...anyone who is physically hurt by seeing something needs to grow a pair." I think she's right.

Global Warming Explained

2011-07-22T07:36:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=related

I found this in a comment over at IMAO. I actually laughed out loud. This is an excellent rundown of the arguments people have for global warming. It's most definitely all politics. And as the man in the video says, 'I think I'm a global warming denier.'

Political Correctness Kills Another Group

2011-07-21T18:40:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.ccci.org/about-us/donor-relations/our-new-name/press.htm

It's a shame. It's an absolute shame. The entire purpose of this organization is to bring people to Christ, and they don't have the courage to keep His name in their title. People were crucified because of their faith in Him. People gave their lives to further the gospel. Yet this group is unwilling to stand by His name because of fear of offending people?

Disgusting. My heart breaks for the Brights, who founded this once-great organization.

To Build? Or not to Build?

2011-07-18T15:11:00.000-04:00

Sources:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a-southern-baptist-leader-chides-cain-for-mosque-comments-52448/

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2011/07/herman-cain-and-murfreesboro-mosque.html

In short, this article points to an instance where Herman Cain is being attacked by a pastor because on the surface it appears that he is taking an anti-First Amendment approach. I would tend to agree, if I only looked at the surface, and no deeper.

Let's look deeper, shall we?

It seems that there is quite a bit of information leaking which points to this mosque being the project of the Muslim Brotherhood. That group is not a religious group, but rather a political one, which would like to see a 'conservative' (in this case, read strict adherence) application of Sharia law. This is a major issue for any American.

Sharia law is about as far removed from the concept of individual liberty, and equality that we have established in this nation, and about as anti-American as it is possible for an organization to be. Additionally, the terror group Hamas is closely related to this group. The last thing we need in our country is a breeding ground for terrorists.

Beyond this, there is sufficient protesting and complaints from the residents of the area that they do not want this constructed in their neighborhood. While I'm a firm believer in private property, there is a point where you need to understand that your neighbors don't want your business there. And let's face it, if this is an entity related to the MB, this is no religious center, but rather a political one.

Were this to be a purely religious facility, with absolutely no ties to politics, or any attempt to muddy the local political waters with Sharia law, I would have no ground on which to stand. However, just look at the organization(s) backing it's construction, and pushing for it to be built. There's an old saying that suggests that following the money will lead you to the source of any activity. I think the same applies here.

Amendments in Danger

2011-07-13T18:30:00.000-04:00

Sources:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-10-muslim-women-mosques_n.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ever-hear-of-the-first-amendment-an-argument-to-watch-52222/

While I typically write most passionately about the importance of the Second Amendment, I would be a terrible citizen of this nation if that was the only amendment I supported. The first 10 are all vital to our way of life as a Free people, and we must defend them all.

The First Amendment (you know, the one that says Government can't force us to practice our religion or not practice our religion in any fashion?) is coming under attack, by a Muslim woman, who reported for the Wall Street Journal. Apparently she hates freedom too, and would use the legal system, and the overwhelming weight of bureaucracy to crush it.

The attitude behind this approach is disgusting in so many ways. Speaking from an American perspective, I would say that 'There are enough other religions and sub-sects within those religions that you can find one with any set of beliefs in this land that match those which you hold.' As someone who understands what it means to be faithful to a 'religious concept' (In my life, I would refer to this as a relationship with Christ, not a set of beliefs, or book of rules, or anything limited and man-centric such as that.) I would suggest that she either needs to understand what her faith teaches, and adhere to it, challenge it from within using any examples or scripture or teachings or any other source needed, or leave it.

If a government attempts to force religions to practice within their set of rules, it defeats the entire purpose of any religion. Following a set of beliefs based on faith is an understanding that a higher power than man is the source of those beliefs. To give government authority over religion subverts the purposes of both.

This is something our founding fathers understood, and specifically wrote 1A to protect us from that very real, very evil reality.

Our rights are under attack daily. This is why it is vitally important that we the people make our voices heard.

Listerine

2011-07-13T18:01:00.000-04:00

For the record, swallowing Listerine is a bad idea. Just saying.

Another Unwasted Tragedy

2011-07-07T16:02:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/caylees-law-gains-over-250000-signatures-to-prevent-another-casey-anthony-case-51949/

Rham Emanuel said:
"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

That's what it looks like is happening again. I was not planning to comment on this case, as it has been covered so extensively by others, and it's been all over the MSM as well. However, this result of the case is enough to get me commenting.

The jury seems to have reached their conclusion based on the evidence (or lack thereof) as presented by the prosecution. Regardless of what people believe happened, there was not enough clear-cut evidence to convict. At least, as far as the jury was concerned, that is the case. Personally, I'd rather one guilty person go free, than one innocent person be convicted wrongly. Every time.

However, rather than be grateful for the American justice system, which is designed to protect innocent people as well as convict the guilty, there are those who would suggest a new law, or more regulations, or other requirements on the American people. This is another example of those in the government using a tragedy to their advantage, to push legislation they would otherwise not be able to push. To be perfectly blunt, I do not care how sad or terribly you feel about what happened to an innocent child. I despise that evil exists, and that these things happen. However, as a person who loves freedom, and loves having the right to choose how I live my life, I would be remiss to not extend that same freedom to everyone else. That includes small details about my life, such as deciding when to alert authorities that my child is missing. There is no way to legislate a time-frame which makes sense across the board. Every family is different, every instance of a child 'getting lost' varies.

When I was growing up, in the rural mountains of Pennsylvania, it would have been very easy for me to go 'missing' any given day of the year. In fact, I'm pretty sure that at some point along the way, I probably did. If my parents had been required to alert authorities every time they didn't know precisely where I was, it would have been a tremendous waste of tax-payer resources, additional unneeded stress in the family, and a myriad of other negatives. This is just one problem of having a nanny-state.

I would suggest that any legislator who thinks it's a good idea to enact a law because of a single tragedy is a traitor to the very concept of personal liberty and responsibility. Rather than pushing for more regulations, or more restrictive rules regarding parenting, perhaps the government should consider getting out of the way of families, and giving them the freedom to grow how they wish.

Now, obviously that is all speaking to the missing portion of the issue. This bill also mentions (and has a focus on) death of a child. My one question is this: Why do we need another law to push parents to do this? Several reasons come to mind as to why we don't. Firstly, give the parents a chance to mourn the loss. In the case of accidental or unintentional death of the child, it's simple respect toward the parents. Secondly, there's the issue of all the other legal reasons which exist for the death to be reported. The need to have a burial, the need to notify the IRS, and SS office, and any other governmental agency involved. Also, acquiring a death certificate for the child needs to go through the system. However, an even more obvious reason is simple: In the case of intentional death (which is the logic behind this bill), IT......WOULD......CHANGE......NOTHING! If the parent murdered, or intentionally allowed the death of, their child, what makes anyone with the ability to reason think that said parent, who is now a criminal, would follow that law, which would carry a much less stiff penalty?

The very logic behind this bill is flawed, and in a way that inhibits innocent people, rather than promoting freedom, and preventing crime. It's the same concept as why gun-control laws fail: Criminals are already committing crime, why would they stop a crime because of one more law? I urge you to let your representatives know that this bill is a waste of tax-payer resources, and a drain which we do not need on our system.

God as a Political Concept

2011-07-05T11:12:00.000-04:00

As most of my readers are aware, yesterday was Independence Day. That is the day that the United States of America celebrates independence: Not only from Great Britain and the tyrannical rule that was happening at the time, but independence from all forms of rule which would inhibit freedom. Or so we think.

As the world progresses, we lose our freedom. With every administration, more laws are passed which limit personal liberty ever more. As I heard on a recent Vicious Circle episode (and I have to paraphrase here, I don't recall the exact phrase, or who said it), "It doesn't matter who is driving, we're still going the same direction. Some drivers just happen to not be accelerating toward destruction as quickly as others." This was said in reference to republican, or conservative, vs democrat, or liberal. Such a simple yet profoundly true statement.

One of the key reasons for this, I think, is a fundamental shift in understanding of what liberty is, and where it's origins can be found. For the sake of this discussion, we'll focus on American Liberty, as opposed to general liberty.

Let's look at history. 235 years and 1 day ago, a document was signed which declared our independence from another tyrannical rule. This document is vital to our history. This document is the official announcement of the people of the United States of America that they would not live in subjection to a power which was going to rule them in an unfair, or unjust manner. It marked the separation of America from Britain. The war, the constitution, and the rest were related, but this key document did more to establish freedom for the people than any other. So let's take a look at the phrases used to establish that liberty, and where we stand today in relation.

The first paragraph:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

From the beginning of the document we see reference to the world (Nature) and the Creator of the world (Nature's God). As far as introductions go, this one is excellent. It introduces the source of the freedom to be discussed in depth, as well as the purpose of the document, and what the result of it will be. no beating around the bush, no wavering, or making excuses, just straight to the point, and effective.

The first portion of the next paragraph is what so many of us remember from school, and hear quoted so often in life:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

This reiterates the source of human rights: The Creator. The words 'of humanity' can easily appended to His title, as the implication is that the One who created humanity is the One who decides what rights we shall have, and how we should govern ourselves.

This is a key point, and the focus of my thoughts today. We live in an era which has done everything to remove God from any public forums. If we fail to keep God in some form of public recognition, the foundation of our rights becomes diluted, and baseless. This erosion will lead to a loss of liberty, and return us to the days of unjust, unfair, slave-like subjugation by government.

This is NOT, by any means, a demand, or even a request, for a formal, official government-pushed religion. Quite the contrary, the concept here is that all men have the freedom to worship whomever they want, in whatever manner they want. The bases of that freedom is also from God. From a political perspective, God must exist to be the source of rights, as a power higher than the government. If the people chose to worship or not, that's not the government's concern. Maintaining their freedom to worship is.

If we allow God to be removed from public office as we have been doing, we will certainly lose these freedoms. Our independence from government and tyranny will be replaced. We will again be dependent on the state for all of our needs. We will not have the luxury of choosing how to shape the world around us. We will no longer share the experiences of living in this great nation, which has been built on the ideas found in the Bible of Christianity. That foundation must remain intact if we are to continue in our liberty.

At the end of the day, it is important to remember that whether or not you believe that God does exist, you must believe that the people of this world derive their rights from Him, as a power higher than government. This is what keeps the door opened to allow a just self-governance. This is what gives people the freedom to live life as they see fit.

I strongly urge you to read the rest of the Declaration of Independence at the link above. Study it. See what the king of England was doing at the time. Compare each of the statements of his actions to the government today. Replace 'he' with 'they' or 'the feds' or 'congress' or 'the president.' It is alarming how similar our country is today to what we faced as a people in those days. Look at where we are today as a result of the work done by those who signed the document. And thank God for the 235 years of freedom we have enjoyed.

Drill Baby Drill

2011-06-29T13:22:00.001-04:00

Source:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/75_say_u_s_not_doing_enough_to_develop_its_gas_and_oil_resources

As you can see in the above article, Rasmussen is reporting that people still want us to develop domestic fossil fuel sources. This is obvious when you see how the economy booms around the industry.

Let's look at what I like to call "The Shale Rush." Living in an area which is sitting on a large amount of natural gas from one of the shale sites in the US, and seeing first-hand the economic benefit it is bringing to the area, I can attest to the obvious demand for these resources. In just the past few years since it has started, there has been an increase in jobs, an increase to local businesses, an increase in just about everything in the area. It's rather simple to watch the vehicles which are related to this effort move around the area, and see where they are spending money. What's not so obvious is the increased spending of the people positively impacted. More money in the market means more money for everyone. Some would suggest we should tax this industry heavily, because of the obvious desire for it. I challenge that strongly, as taxing things never increases production, and never accomplishes anything positive in regards to economic growth, but rather stifles it, and causes it to suffer.

The same logic can be applied to drilling for crude oil. Be it in the tundra of Alaska, off the Gulf Coast, or in Colorado, the immediate and long term benefit to any region which drills is significant. Beyond that, we can reasonably predict that oil prices will drop as production increases, which will stimulate better growth elsewhere in the economy. When shipping prices drop, and movement of product costs are lowered, the economy will blossom beautifully.

We, as a nation, are sitting on tremendous resources which rival what is available elsewhere in the world. I would argue that there is not a reasonable, logical reason why we should not be tapping into the resources which have been provided to us. Yet still the left insists that drilling is a "Bad Idea" for some unknown reason. They are unable to back their reasons with any sound evidence, they are unable to respond to legitimate, intellectual questions with anything other than emotionally charged, angry language. The president has claimed to lift the ban on drilling, yet his administration has yet to authorize or approve any movement in that direction. Clearly he is posturing to get the benefit on both sides of the issue, and in the process is doing nothing to help the American people or economy. It's time we returned to being a nation of freedom, rather than a nation under a dictatorial heel.

Too Many Issues!

2011-06-24T08:38:00.001-04:00

This week I have been struggling with what to write. Not because there is a lack of material on which to comment, or because there is nothing going on in the world around us. Quite the contrary, it is because I only have so much time to write, and can't decide which topics to cover. Instead, I am going to do a quick mash of several topics, and lump them together.

First one: Delta hates Jews.

The original article which I saw last night on USA Today's website has been changed. Wyatt mentions this is his blog. But the basic idea of what happened is simple. Delta entered into an agreement with another airline. This airline happens to be based in Saudi Arabia. Well, they happen to hate the Jews, and have a law about them not being in their kingdom. Delta complies with the regulation of Air Discrimi-Saudi. I understand when you are operating between various sovereign nations you need to be aware of their laws. But this is a case of making a bad decision by Delta. They could have picked better. There is already a fairly intense backlash, we'll see what comes of it.

Item number two: Wisconsin Passes Carry Bill

I love what Tam has to say about it. For the last score of years and change the states have been passing legislation making clear the legality of carrying weapons, especially carrying them concealed. The last decade has seen quite the increase. When I started carrying 10 years ago, the map of the US of which states had laws, and more importantly to me specifically, which states reciprocate with mine, was sparse. Over the years I have watched these maps become more filled with freedom and liberty. It has been an absolute joy to watch. Illinois is the last hold-out. Granted some states have tighter restrictions, make it more difficult for their citizenry to employ their rights, but only one remains where they have laws counter to the Constitution, and deny freedom. Illinois, you're next. :)

Thirdly: Rick Perry for President?

This is a conversation by Trifecta on PJTV. I strongly encourage you to check them out.

To my knowledge, Governor Perry has not yet announced an intention to run for president of the United States. Here is a quote from his speech:

And our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let's stop trying to curry favor with them. Let's stop this American downward spiral! We're doing this, and it's happening because of twoo much spending, too much interfering, and too much apologizing."

When any politician makes comments like that, I have to admit that it gives me some hope. However, when I see their actions, I'm let down more often than not. And sadly it's not infrequent that I am not only let down, but that I am crushed, beaten into the ground, and demoralized. Governor Perry seems to be true to his word, however, based on what I've seen in Texas. Is he perfect? No, no human is. It would be wrong for us to pin all of our hopes on one man, if that man is not Christ.

Also, Bill Whittle's comment about Perry is spot on, when he says that he can fill a room, and has a presence which befits a president. He makes a comparison of personality and charisma to Regan, and I tend to agree with that assessment.

That's all I have time for now. Stay tuned for more posts in the future!

Also, if there is a topic you'd like to see me address, please let me know in the comments. Also, share your thoughts on any topics you'd like here, not just these. Consider this an open thread.

The US Military is a Military - not a Test Market

2011-06-22T22:54:00.000-04:00

Source:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/04/16/u-s-army-has-net-zero-vision-for-national-security/

This thought should be self-explanatory. The DoD is not an organization which is designed to drive commercial products, or to encourage the use of particular technology. It is an organization who's mission, who's purpose, is to protect the citizenry of this nation. To attempt to use our defensive forces to push an unneeded, wasteful program is taking major risks with the security of our citizens, our interests, and our national security.

In previous years, the military was able to create products which saw varied success in the free market. Take for instance the GPS. The technology the military developed to better their strength was given to people who saw the potential of the technology on the free market, were willing to put the work into commercializing it, and followed through on the investments. The driving force behind the success of this product is that someone saw the commercial use, and took a risk.

The reason no one has taken a risk with green energy is because the people who understand the market know there isn't a demand. It's inefficient, far more expensive to generate, and the end result is just as much waste as with traditional solutions. If money could be made on it, it would be. As science advances, and research is completed, steps are taken to make these types of energy sources more viable, however as it stands now, being 'green' is expensive, with no visible return on the investment.

The government has been attempting to force these not-yet-mature technologies on the citizenry for entirely too long. Now, rather than realizing the reason they are losing the fight, they turn to the military. Only, rather than turning to them to fulfill their mission, they turn to them to assist in forcing unwanted tech down our throats. Only now they are risking the very lives of the men and women who volunteer to protect us. The idea of being in an under-powered, poorly-equipped base when it's attacked, or when need arises to respond to an attack on Americans elsewhere, does not sit well with me. Our men and women will be putting themselves at a greater disadvantage with these changes.

The military needs to focus on what allows the troops to do their jobs effectively, completely, and efficiently. To put an emphasis on anything else will weaken our strength, and open the door to various attacks. That is a risk we'd be foolish to take.

The Heritage Foundation has done the research, and written an article on this, with some excellent information. I strongly recommend reading over it. It is located here.

What are your thoughts? Should we be using our military to help develop technology which doesn't directly apply to their jobs, or allow them to focus on the mission at hand: Protecting these United States?

Science and the Bible: Mutually Exclusive, or Complimentary?

2011-06-20T21:23:00.002-04:00

Source:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/can-science-creationism-coexist-one-christian-author-says-yes-51315/
Update:
Just read this article as well:
http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god/page/full/

If we consider the Bible, the very Word of God Himself, to be something which contradicts science, we are treading on gravely dangerous ground. God's Word is Truth. To attempt to say that it is limited, or misleading, or inaccurate in any sense is to undermine the entirety of Scripture. If we do that, then we are basically saying we can't know that we can have salvation, and that we can't know about a personal relationship with a loving God.

In his new book, Seven Days that Divide the World, John Lennox presents a simple yet profound idea. This is an idea which has been floated in various forms, and various phrasings over the centuries. However, it is an idea we must at least consider, if not embrace. The idea is that the Bible and science compliment one another, and do not contradict one another.

For most of history, atheists have liked the idea of a universe which always existed. This was because they understood that a universe which was created must have a creator. Any being capable of creating the universe would fit nearly any human definition of deity. To this end, atheists long held that the universe was eternal, and limitless in size. In the last several decades things have changed. The big bang theory came about as a result of scientific study. This theory indicates that the universe has a beginning point. Fundamentally, we know that everything which exists has a cause. If nothing existed prior to the universe, what caused it to exist? The only answer for that is one which atheists prefer to avoid.

This is one example of an instance where the Bible appeared to contradict science. Man's limited understanding of this universe pointed toward a limitless universe, without cause. Rather, science today has shown that there is a beginning to the universe, and as such a cause. In actuality, despite the seeming contradiction, the Bible pointed toward the truth long before man was able to discover it for himself.

It is with that understanding, and that precedent, that we are able to confront the lies of those who would say that science is truth, and the Bible is fanciful. Clearly, this Scripture is not a textbook or other resource for seeing scientific theory played out, or how to measure events to learn more about science. Rather it is a book of truth, some of which is provable with science.

Science is unable, by it's very nature, to show us how the world was created. It is a limited tool, in that regard, that it can only be used to verify testable data. Some historical events can be examined using advanced mathematical concepts, and observable events in the universe today. Other historical information, such as which plants grew first, or which animals first inhabited the skies, can not be determined with science. This is something only history can teach us. However, it is history which is unrecorded. Therefore, today we have no way to know some of these answers.

Scripture gives us all the answers we need, and provides us with sufficient information and knowledge to live our lives. It shows us that the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, this planet, and the life on it, including us humans, were all created by a loving God, in a fashion which was pleasing to Him, When it was completed, He said it was good. One day I hope to learn the methods God used during creation. Man has a myriad of theories about it, ranging from individual, complete attention to detail, loving acts for each creation, to His creating a process which allowed life to give way to more advanced life. While I know which I believe to be true, I am eager for the day when my Father and Creator can show me precisely how He did it.

Until then, I will study His Word, and know that it does not stand in contradiction with science, but rather compliments it, and often will give me clues which science is unable to answer today.

Child Spanking a Felony?

2011-06-20T16:13:00.001-04:00

Source:

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/14926804/texas-mom-who-spanked-toddler-pleads-guilty-to-felony-injury-to-a-child-charge

When I saw this, I realized we truly are living in a time in which there is a distinct lack of understanding about what is right and wrong; and that applies both religiously and politically.

First, the relationship of parent and child is a critical relationship to both, but especially the child. They will learn about life, and how to live it, from their parents. As part of the great responsibility of teaching a child how to live in the real world, there are various means available, one of which is spanking. It is not the place of any governmental body to interfere in that relationship.

Yes, I will acknowledge that there are evil people in the world who would and do beat children needlessly. Yes, I call this evil. Yes, 'something' should be done about that. However, it is absolutely wrong to prevent proper healthy parenting for the sake of stopping those who abuse children. It's the same logic that liberals use for so many other things. "Criminals would use guns to rob places, we should outlaw guns." The criminals will use whatever they can, including illegal guns, to do so. The gun isn't the issue. In this case, spanking isn't the issue. Bad parenting is. That is what should be address, and even that should at least initially be addressed from the perspective of family, church, extended family, local community, etc. When it's determined that they are going to do what they will regardless of offered help, etc, then yes, a punishment needs to be levied against the abusers, and their role in the life of the child needs to be reduced significantly.

However, the use of corporal punishment as an effective means of teaching proper and improper behavior patterns to children is a good thing. It is proven (I'm a good example of that, to some degree) as an effective tool. If done in a loving manner, and not out of anger or frustration on the part of the parent, it is one of the best tools available for a child to learn and grow.

Let's take a quick look at what Scripture has to say on the subject:

From Proverbs:

^3:11 My son, do not reject the ^[a]discipline of the LORD
Or loathe His reproof,
¹² For whom the LORD loves He reproves,
Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.

^13:24 He who withholds his ^[a]rod hates his son,
But he who loves him ^[b]disciplines him diligently.

^19:18 Discipline your son while there is hope,
And do not desire ^[a]his death.

^22:15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

^23:13 Do not hold back discipline from the child,
Although you ^[a]strike him with the rod, he will not die.
¹⁴ You shall ^[b]strike him with the rod
And rescue his soul from Sheol.

^29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom,
But a child ^[a]who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.

From Hebrews:
^12:6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”

⁷ It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

[All Scripture is from the NASB translation.]

As we look through these passages, we clearly see that God has ordained use of 'the rod' in the raising of children in wisdom. It plays a vital role, when used appropriately. With the understanding that the rod is not to be used for every situation and circumstance, and not when the child is too young to understand the meaning of the discipline, and the various other concepts which are natural to parents, it becomes even more obvious to us that it is irresponsible to allow a child to live in the way they choose, without having any discipline. Hebrews speaks to our relationship with our Heavenly Father in chapter 12. Part of this comparison is the use of discipline to bring us into line. God uses it in love, the same as we as parents are to use it with our children.

I am so blessed to have a daughter who behaves, and needs only be told things once. I have yet to need to use spanking or any other corporal punishment with her. She has had privileges suspended, and other minor punishments. With her that is sufficient, and I am ever grateful for that. I do not ever want to have to cause my child physical pain for their betterment. However, I am willing to do so, for the sake of their own future, and to protect them from mistakes, and to understand that actions do indeed have consequences. That's a lesson I'd rather my child learn from me in love, than from the world in any other fashion.

Hypocrisy on the Left

2011-06-16T23:07:00.000-04:00

Sources:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/tim-pawlenty-attacked-with-confetti-in-san-francisco.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/union-leader-calls-nj-gov-chris-adolph-christie/

The left has long accused the right of being hypocrites, being filled with hate, tending toward violence, and the like. However, during the Tea Parties last year, which are arguably the most right-wing gatherings we've seen in this nation's history, the violence tended to come from liberals showing up with violence in mind.

The left is filled with hateful language, violent behavior, and repeated attempts to distort truth with lies. Name-calling, insulting, demeaning, and other forms of verbal assault are commonplace on their side, yet when even one person from the right slips in a moment of frustration and says one demeaning thing, there is a media blitz to condemn the behavior as deplorable. While frustration does not excuse that behavior, the double standard of the left is laughable.

The latest example is a union thug comparing Chris Christie to Adolph Hitler. Anyone who has studied history, much less lived under the rule of Hitler, understands that he was a man of pure evil, who did not treat humans equally or respectfully, had a disdain for liberty, and disregard for human life. His actions are beyond the realm of most men to grasp happening, let alone the behavior and mind of the person who would do such things. Yet, the left has compared so many people on the right to Hitler. The most ironic part of it is that Hitler's behavior was closer in motivation to the left than the right! His removing rights from citizen, killing innocent people, and the like are socialistic in nature. Today, the left seeks to revoke freedoms, encourages and funds murder of innocents, and the list goes on.

Yet we do not see signs or read stories comparing anyone on the left to the person who is arguably the most evil in recent history. Because as much as we disagree with our opposition, we do not stoop to that level, nor do we resort to name calling. That is the behavior of the insecure, and the man who understands that his arguments are indefensible.

And please, throwing glitter on a man? That's no only disrespectful, that comes dangerously close to assault.

Be careful the ground you tread, as your actions speak far more loudly than your words.

Republican Debate - Thoughts

2011-06-14T22:01:00.000-04:00

The debate is being covered by a large number of bloggers, many of whom are far better at analyzing it than I am. So rather than making an attempt to do something of lesser quality than you'll find elsewhere, I will give my thoughts on it.

Biggest takeaway:
I like Michelle Bachman. I had not paid close attention to her as a candidate previously, as I didn't think it likely that she would run. To my knowledge, no one holding the elected office of Representative has ever won a general election. The higher house of Congress, yes, but not the lower. That said, she came out strong, didn't hesitate in her answers, spoke directly and succinctly, and didn't have an apologetic attitude about her stances. I think she handled herself better than the men on the platform last night.

Biggest letdown:
I know many people are going to say Pawlenty not taking on Romney and his health care plan. That isn't my biggest letdown of the evening. I think Herman Cain was my biggest letdown. I had extremely high hopes for him based on what I understand of his politics. While I didn't see a weakness there, I did see a weakness in how he handles himself in public forums, and in this kind of pressure. While I personally don't mind someone who forgoes political correctness, and speaks his mind and heart freely, that rarely gets one very far in politics. I am certain that is one reason why I will not ever win an election at -any- level, should I ever decide to try.

I will say that I was not surprised in the least that Pawlenty did not go after Romney more aggressively. I say this because he is no true conservative. He sounded far more conservative last evening than I have heard him previously, and I believe that is because of the competition on the stage. Looking at the state of Minnesota, sure he's conservative - because compared to the rest of the state he is. He's not quite as liberal as Romney, but he is a progressive.

Romney surprised me with a couple of his answers. He did make one point that managed to get me to agree with him and disagree with him in the same thought process. That's a neat trick. When he was confronted on Romneycare in Mass, his response was that it is appropriate for the states to institute that sort of thing, but not the federal government. While I am a strong supporter of states' rights, the idea of forced medical care is still socialism verging on communism.

Ron Paul is still Ron Paul. He has some good things to say, sounds like a conservative, but it doesn't take long to realize that he doesn't hold the same values that most of us do. While there are areas where I consider myself a libertarian, he takes that concept in a direction that would not be healthy for this country.

Being from Pennsylvania, I was hoping for a stronger showing from Rick. He's a solid, upstanding man, and I have a lot of respect for him. I don't know that his place is in the White House though. I don't think he has the presence, or the executive style that it takes to lead from that seat. I don't think he's going to make it. I have mixed emotions about that, as it will be sad to see him lose, but I don't think he's the strongest candidate we have available.

Should I ever bother mentioning Newt? He's done nothing to impress me since he was Speaker many moons ago. There is too much of a cloud surrounding him today for him to be effective should he win the vote. Additionally, I doubt his true conservative motives, as he's been part of the establishment within the GOP for entirely too long. I think we'd be better off with him out of the race.

That about sums up my thoughts after last night's debate. Let me know what you all think.

The EPA - Destroying America, Protecting Nothing

2011-06-14T10:41:00.001-04:00

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/165651-aep-epa-regs-will-cost-billions-and-result-in-five-closed-plants
HT to Mark Matthews for the link on Twitter.

Big government is causing problems again. This time, it's forcing regulations on business in a fashion that is going to cost jobs, increase the price of products in the market, and create a lower supply of said product. This tends to be the end result of all regulation, but in this case we get to watch it happen immediately and dramatically.

Let's take a look at 'how we got here' with this agency:
1 - The EPA was created for a noble purpose. "...protect human health and the environment."
2 - The administrators of the EPA are appointed, not elected. Seems to me there's a lack of accountability in that scenario.
3 - The bureaucracy needs to justify it's existence and budget. It does so by doing more than just enforcing existing policy, it creates new policy. This policy is dictated without Legislative or Judicial control, as laws are to be. This is working around our constitution.
4 - Corrupt people appoint corrupt administrators, who enact these policies for various reasons, most of which we can't know. We are unable to vote them out, and must wait until the political climate changes to bring about any needed change. By then, the damage is done.

So what does that mean for us? In the linked article, the first impact is obvious: Up to 35% increase in electric usage prices, and a loss of jobs. Both of those are going to do exactly nothing to improve the economy. Quite the opposite, they will contribute to the second dip we are beginning to see.

One thing I noticed that I need to address is the EPA's use of a certain phrase.

But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are “reasonable, common-sense and achievable.”

"Common-sense" is the catch phrase the left uses to dodge questions of logic and practicality. They use it when they know that what they are espousing holds no ground in a logical debate. Instead, it appeals to the idea that common sense is a trait lacking in many today, a statement with which I would agree. However, rather than revealing where the true lack of common sense is, it misdirects the attention from the culprit, to those who would disagree with them. This is the same language the anti-rights people use when they attack the second amendment, spouting "common-sense gun laws."

Additionally, when they use a word like "achievable" it misleads as well, indicating that the goal isn't difficult, or problematic. It overlooks the issues that will be encountered, the costs (to the business, to the employees, to the customers, to the economy, and all others impacted) and other negative factors.

This fundamentally different view of the world from what hard working Americans see is going to become more and more of a problem as the country slips further into debt, and further into recession. Is it any wonder why so many feel like we don't live in a free nation? When an agency can dictate policy to a business without any legislative checks, our freedoms have already been more than infringed. They are being eaten away at their very core.

Republican Debate - Round 1

2011-06-13T19:27:00.001-04:00

http://apps.facebook.com/ustream_live/100133201750

I'm watching it on UStream on Facebook, via PJTV. I enjoy their coverage, and love their staff.

What are your thoughts on the GOP for 2012?

UPDATE: Debate is over, I'm overall very impressed with Bachman and Cain. I may write a post tomorrow about it, I may review other posts, or I may just write about another topic, as this one is going to be so well covered. Time will tell.

Sighting in the Savage

2011-06-13T13:06:00.001-04:00

About a week ago I acquired a new (to me) hunting rifle. It's a Savage Arms in .300 Win Mag. I must say, I'm rather impressed with it so far. I haven't owned a proper, PA approved hunting rifle in quite a few years, so needless to say I'm rather excited to be able to get back out this coming season and do some hunting. My license will be purchased the day the new ones are available.

While I live in a location which sadly does NOT allow me to step outside and site in a rifle, one of my coworkers does. He has a 100 yard range across his driveway from his home. He was kind enough to allow me to come over on Wednesday of last week, and again yesterday, to site in the new rifle. He also thought it would be a good idea to take a video of one of my shots, after the initial changes to the scope were made.

It sounds like a solid group in the making. Two rounds, approximately an inch apart, at 100 yards, with factory ammunition. However, after those two rounds, my group suffered. I think part of it was heat (it was so hot that it took 45 minutes for the barrel to cool after firing 5 rounds through it), part of it was user error (it has been about 15 years since I last fired a hunting rifle, I'm out of practice), and other variables. After another group, we decided to end for the day, and resume another day.

On Sunday we finished sighting in the rifle. The end result was a group of 5 rounds, between 1 and 2 inches above the center of target, with just slightly over a 1 inch grouping, at 100 yards. I'm satisfied with that for the time being, and I'm confident it will carry strong accuracy out to 200 yards. The next step will be deciding what and how I'm going to reload, and begin that process.

One of the payments I gave my friend for allowing me to use his range for sighting in my rifle was throwing some rounds downrange with a slightly more fun to shoot rifle:

And of course, I can't break out that firearm without putting a few rounds through it myself. This video has some NSFW language. It's also important to note that the white pistol target in the foreground was not ever the target. That would not stand up to abuse these guns would have given it. Instead, the AR was used primarily for shooting old satellite dishes that he has had laying around the house for a while. Who doesn't need a little practice for the coming zombie apocalypse?

UPDATE: Correct video put in this time.

Oh, also, please forgive the camera operator. He was filming away while I was shooting, and didn't consider that rotating the Android amid filming that it would be a problem. We're not video people, obviously.

For those of you who live in the same state I do, and were unaware, beginning this past April the Game Commission has created a requirement that one obtain a $30 permit for using the public ranges at the state game lands. Previously they had been free, and the repairs, upgrades and the like subsidized by the cost of hunting licenses. Now, if you have a hunting license, you can use these ranges at no additional cost. If you do not have a license, you must purchase the permit for $30. The new licenses for the 2011-12 season go on sale in July. I'm not spending $30 to use one of those ranges for a few weeks, I'll wait till I have my license this year.

If any of you hunt, let me know in the comments what you hunt, what you use to hunt it, where you hunt it, etc. Consider this open discussion about hunting!

Feelings of Freedom

2011-06-10T11:31:00.000-04:00

Sources:

http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/quote-of-the-day-bob-2/

http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=4067

When I first read these two articles, my initial reaction was one of 'Duh, it's their usual double standard' mixed with 'How selfish and one-sided they are.' But the more I think about it, the more I realize this indicates a deeper issue.

There's an inherent desire for freedom built into all people. While personally I believe God wires us this way, I can understand various people each having their own ideas about where this desire originates. However, what I have never seen is someone requesting to be controlled, asking to be locked inside a box, or otherwise desiring to have no choices or freedoms. Instead, I see people who mistake restricting the rights of others as their idea of freedom for themselves. This happens to be the most obvious scenario, but there are others. Let's consider abortion. Pro-Death proponents tend to say it's their freedom with their body, ignoring the right to life their unborn child has. Pro-Life supporters understand freedom for ALL people means that the right to life for the unborn is a crucial right. Feel free to mention other areas where we can see this in the comments.

Weerd makes a great point when he makes this statement:

Well first I’ll point out that anti-rights people, and that includes “Progressives” in general are bigots by nature.

Quinn often uses a phrase similar to this: "If you want to know what the left is doing, look at what they are accusing the right of doing." How often does the left attempt to portray those on the right as bigots? How often do they try to find any anecdotal evidence to suggest that we fall under any one of the negative '-ists' being used today? Why is that? I sincerely believe it's to distract from being caught as being bigots themselves. They realize that if they make a loud enough noise about it, we won't show their flaws, because they talk such a good talk. However, their actions belie their words. Things like the 'fairness doctrine' and other concepts which are designed to silence the right, or stifle what we have to say are nothing more than an attempt to avoid having to have direct, honest communication about any topic.

So why is that? Do they realize that the ground on which they are standing is as soft as it is? Do they understand that they have no sound logic in their arguments? Are they afraid to learn the truth? I can think of no reason why they would avoid honest, fair discussion aside from a knowledge (whether they are aware of it or not) that their arguments are either invalid or indefensible. What are your thoughts? I think Bob addresses that excellently in his article.

So where does that leave us? Clearly we have the disadvantage in the 'feelings' department, because we understand that logic and reason MUST trump emotion when it comes to dictating policy. So while in reality that is a very good stance, the culture and media today emphasize feelings, 'what feels good is right' and this lack of absolutes partnered with a humanistic worldview that causes people to have the concept in their minds that they don't need to think through dilemmas before taking steps. They tend to ignore logic in favor of an easy, sounds good solution.

That makes our job more challenging. When people are willing to think through a process, use simple accurate logic in that process, and reason honestly with themselves and those around them, it's easy to see what we consider to be obvious. Instead, groups like CSGV, Brady, et al play to feelings, ignoring logic, and using false information and lies to get their message across. When people have been conditioned to not do research on their own, and to take at face value what they are told, and that if their feelings matter in things, it becomes difficult to discuss with them from a sound position. Now, we need to learn to keep the discussions on the facts, the verifiable, documented facts. We need to keep the conversation away from feelings, and refute any argument that is founded on them. We need to understand why someone would think it 'feels' good, but then demonstrate to them why 'feeling good' doesn't mean it IS good. We need to make absolutely certain that we practice what we preach as well.

I think we also sometimes forget that we are on the side of liberty and freedom. The constitution already gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. We need to make it perfectly clear to those who have a view that differs from that simple understanding that they are the ones who are trying to take our freedoms, and make us the victims of bad policies, criminals, and the other things which come with a disarmed citizenry.

The U.N. is Attempting to Take Our Freedoms....Again

2011-06-09T12:48:00.000-04:00

Source:

http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

While there are reasons for our nation to engage in treaties with other nations, and to work together in the global community to strive for common goals, we should remind our leaders that their FIRST, most important duty is to the citizens of this nation.

There is overwhelming evidence which indicates that gun control fails it's stated intent every time it is enacted. This ranges from states with tough gun laws (California New Jersey, Massachusetts, and others come to mind), to other nations with histories of failed attempts (UK, Canada - Page 4 and others). To suppose otherwise is to ignore the warnings of history, and to create an environment to experience the same failures.

The worst case scenario is another Nazi Germany (specifically pages 8-10) type removal of weapons from private citizens, which will then leave then vulnerable to an evil regime intent on doing far more than limiting their freedoms. The best case scenario is that we allow our God-given freedoms to be revoked by a corrupt authority structure of man, and give up the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones from harm, as well as our property and livelihood.

While we are yet unable to see the language in the treaty (which alone is of great concern, and begs the question, "What about transparency?"), we can make educated guesses as to what will be contained within it. There are the obvious restrictions and steps along the path to complete regulation and disarmament. It may not include wholesale action yet, but it will most certainly be laying the groundwork for it.

Any time an organization from outside a sovereign nation attempts to dictate policy within that nation, one has to consider the motivations behind the action. The UN has never been a friend of the US, despite our being the largest fiscal member, providing more resources than any other nation. They constantly push for legislation which goes against the very nature of a free people, the kind of people who built this nation.

My hope is that we will all watch this closely, and when the time comes to reach out to our senators, we do so in overwhelming numbers, demonstrating to them that their constituents are watching, and we DO know what 'We the People' of this great land want and expect in our leadership.

1770's Revisited

2011-06-07T21:56:00.002-04:00

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R5cSUj14II

Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle of PJTV discuss a rather profound question:
"Is this what it was like in the 1770s when the men we call The Founders were debating the principles of liberty and organizing the separation of themselves and their colonies from oppressive English rule? To survive, will liberty have to make a similar break from the increasingly oppressive American rule?"

Bill makes a statement (approx 2:00) indicating that he finally understands the pain involved in deciding to break away from one's government. He makes a very valid point that we are approaching the point where we need to either refresh the principles on which our nation was founded, or abandon them.

What are your thoughts? What will it take for us to have freedom once again in this nation?

When the United States of America was founded, the idea of keeping the government was small, giving liberty and responsibility to the people was common sense, and people understood that they had to work for what they wanted. However, as it has been said in various generations, by various individuals, and with various subtle differences, "When the populace realizes that they are able to vote themselves money and entitlements, the nation will cease to be free, and will cease to be wealthy. It will collapse fiscally, and a dictatorship will follow."

Today, we can see that mindset in the voting. The politicians winning the votes are the politicians making the most grand promises of what will be given to his constituents. The problem encountered when people challenge the size of the government is oft waived aside by the very people who want it to grow larger, and have greater control. The weak continue to seek provision from the government, rather than finding the means to provide for themselves. The government grows ever larger to feed the lazy and weak, perpetuating the cycle. Only two options remain open when this becomes the norm: Return to the days of yore, forcing the government to reduce it's spending, eliminating programs, cutting taxes, and restoring liberty to the citizenry; or embracing this new idea, that the government is to provide, and spend until there is nothing left, and the nation is left destitute, and a dictator steps in to take control of the crippled land.

Which future would you want to see for America?

Who Should Own Firearms?

2011-06-06T11:47:00.001-04:00

Source:
http://bit.ly/j7H5bI

A couple weeks ago I discovered the podcast that is "Vicious Circle.' It is a very entertaining distraction from the norm, usually revolving around firearm ownership, rights, and other topics related to guns. The current post (#95) recorded on 6/3 engages in a very interesting discussion about how we as a firearms community reach out to groups traditionally not known as being part of this community. This includes women, inner-city minorities, gays and lesbians, and the like. This is a very important conversation in which we should be engaged.
Obviously, as a Christian, I take issue with certain lifestyles, and the unrepentant attitude that tends to accompany them. However, that is not what is being discussed in a case like this. The discussion is focused on who should own weapons, why they should, what benefits there are, and the positives of it. Let's be blunt for a moment. Homosexuality is going to be with us as long as we exist. While I do believe that is a sin, I will not attack an individual for having that lifestyle. I may attempt to persuade them to change their mind, but I firmly believe that they have the right to defend themselves by whatever means they feel sufficient. I say this because there are so many groups who DO attack them, not just verbally, but physically. They are one of the key groups of people who need to be equipped to protect themselves.
Let's consider who else should be able to provide for their own defense. Women? Mothers? Single ladies? College girls? They all are more likely to be attacked than a large man in terms of random violence. They should absolutely have the option to protect themselves, and their children. What about inner-city residents, especially minorities? This has been a touchy subject for years for many reasons, not the least of which being that violence between minorities in the inner city tends to be more frequent than elsewhere. However, how often are innocent people in the inner city victimized? They absolutely need to have the same ability as we have to protect themselves from attack.

At the end of the day, the 2nd amendment exists to enable our citizenry to protect themselves. Unfortunately it is impossible for police to be everywhere at all times, so it is impossible for them to prevent every crime. As such, we need to be able to protect ourselves, no matter what our walk of life, or ideology, ability or handicap in the world. Someone once said that God created men, but Samuel Colt made them equal. Let's make sure all people have the option to be equal.

Pro-tip: This podcast is for those who don't suffer from sensitive ears, and don't mind language that can be a bit impolite.

Is the Church of Satan an Organized Religion?

2011-06-04T22:28:00.001-04:00

Source:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/04/how-to-bury-a-satanist/?iref=allsearch

What would motivate someone who believes in literally 'nothing' (including no Satan) to call their movement a religion, specifically a religion with the name of something that doesn't exist according to their own teaching in it's name?

I'll grant that in the late 1960's heavy drug use influenced many people to do many things which defy logic. So I can understand the organization being founded. But as a movement which has a central office, and calls itself a church, it seems to have never come to grasp with the initial logical contradictions inherent in it's foundation.

Now, with that said, to address the main point of the article linked above. Death is, for many people, a terrifying event, or moment in life. This is something which every human faces, without exception. We all must prepare ourselves for what we will face at the end of life as we know it.

One of the greatest questions all humans ask themselves is a form of this:

"What will happen on the other side?"

Christianity has the obvious answers of 'Have faith in Christ, and you go to paradise; live for self, and you will spend eternity separated from your Creator.' Other faiths have various answers ranging from some form of paradise to re-incarnation to absolutely nothing. This organization takes a slightly different tact. They state that there is nothing after death, and that the afterlife one experiences is the aftermath of their actions while alive. They want their memories to live on after they do.

This strikes me as an outlook with very little hope. While we can have no scientific discussion on what happens to any sort of spirit or soul postmortem, there is a curiosity about it. People with near-death experiences often speak of seeing a light at the end of a tunnel, or other events in which they see family members, or familiar places. Are these visions manifestations of fearful minds, calming images given by a Loving Creator, absolutely nothing, or something completely different? I think the only people who know without any doubt are the ones who have preceded us in death.

Perhaps some day we will have the means to discover exactly what people experience in their last moments without the need to experience it ourselves. Until then we are left to speculation.

Or are we? For those of us who have placed our faith in Christ, we have His Word. With study, we can see a glimpse of what awaits us in eternity. Christ promises things from preparing a place in His Father's house, to feasts, to a new Heaven and a new Earth at some point in the future. That is hope. That is something to which we can look forward with eager anticipation. Faith and Hope are wonderful things.

How Many Adams Were There?

2011-06-03T11:18:00.001-04:00

Source:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-ham-agrees-with-atheists-on-literal-view-of-adam-and-eve-50773/

Whether you hold to a young or old Earth view, it is important to realize that through one man sin entered the world. That man was Adam. An excerpt from Romans 5 (NASB):

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15 But 1the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so bgrace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

It's clear that sin entered the world through one man. That sin is then inherited by the rest of humanity. It is critical in the understanding of the work of Christ on the Cross, and the necessity of His death. If sin did not enter the world the way Scripture indicates, then man did not need a savior. Without a requirement for a savior, there is no need for God's only Son to perish.

1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

While we were not there for the creation, and we don't know scientifically what method God used to bring into existence all that is, nor do we know the details of every event that has occurred throughout history, we do know that there is a starting point, and that the first man was Adam, and through him sin entered the world.

Thank God that He provided recourse to the sin under which we have been born!

Is Atheism or Agnostisims a Valid Religion?

2011-06-02T14:16:00.001-04:00

Source:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/state-ag-appeals-tx-garuation-prayer-ban-says-it-unravels-us-moral-values-50761

This is an interesting case. Not being an attorney I will make no attempt to examine the legal details of this. Instead, I will comment on the implications.
The largest implication I can see is that for any state to BAN prayer is enforcing a lack of faith (or a faith in nothing) as the religion of choice. The only way to not force religion on anyone is to not prevent those who DO hold faith from practicing it. Logic dictates that two things which contradict one another cannot both be true. Let's examine what happens in two scenarios.
Scenario #1: 10 people are gathered together. 8 of them have various faiths (some Christian, some Islamic, some Hindi, etc). The last 2 believe in no super-natural power, and have a faith in nothing beyond what they are able to see. Now, let's tell the 8 that they are not allowed to practice, express, or otherwise exercise their freedom of religion in a public place.
Scenario #2: Let's take those same 10 people, and tell them all that they can practice or not practice any aspect of whatever faith they do or do not have in whichever way is appropriate for their religion (provided it does NOT cause harm to any of the other 9).
Which of these two instances is freedom? Which of these two methods holds true to the principles in the foundations of our nation, and which of these methods violates an individual's rights, and restricts freedoms?

Feds Deny Indiana Defunding of Planned Parenthood

2011-06-02T13:02:00.001-04:00

Source:
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/01/obama-admin-denies-indiana-request-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood/

First, before I begin, I will state that I am unashamedly pro-life. I do not like any organization which encourages abortions, and provides them to people in the manner in which PP does.
That said, my biggest issue with this is NOT the abortion side (as much as that bothers me) but that this is another case of the federal government overstepping it's bounds, and strong-arming a state into doing what the administration wants, as opposed to the population of the state. The elected officials of Indiana were acting within their power to withhold the funds to PP after a bill was passed in the state giving that direction.
When will this administration see that their ideology is not consistent with that of the American people?

Share a Pulpit?

2011-06-02T10:18:00.002-04:00

This is an interesting read:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-jews-and-muslims-to-share-pulpits-50752/

I guess the questions I would ask include:

Is there any circumstance in which a pulpit from which truth is spoken should be allowed to be shared with a false teacher?
Is Islamaphobia a true 'phobia' (a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. - www.dictionary.com definition of phobia, emphasis mine) being irrational and not based in reality, or is there a basis in the actions of the religion, and a complete lack of condemnation of those actions by the leaders of that religion?
Is there a difference between respecting a false religion and it's adherents, and respecting individuals in spite of their following a false religion?
There are many other questions which this article raises. The ultimate question I think we need to consider is how do we show love to teachers of false religions while at the same time condemning their false teaching?

Misuse of Force, Violation of 4th Amendment, Death of Civilian

2011-06-02T08:09:00.003-04:00

Confederate Yankee has an excellent article written detailing the video that is available on youtube of the incident in question. Exceedingly unprofessional behavior by the LEO as a whole, and a seemingly complete lack of understanding of "Tactics' by the SWAT team.
This is well worth the read!
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/316833.php

The video of the incident can be seen here:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/05/27/the-jose-guerena-raid-a-demonstration-of-tactical-incompetence/

Shall the punishment fit the crime?

2011-06-01T23:35:00.001-04:00

"The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin. Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin—it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen—and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him." - Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Ia2ae. 87, 4.)

This is sound logic. In our American culture today, we attempt to make all men equal to one another. But let's face it, if someone would commit an act of violence against an elected official which resulted in that individual's death, the punishment would be swift and severe, increasing proportionately to the rank held by the victim. If that same someone would commit that same act of violence against a motorist on the road, the proceedings would drag on for months, if not years, and the sentence levied upon the perpetrator would likely be mild in comparison.
If we extend this concept to the infinite, it only makes sense that an 'endless' punishment be meted out upon those of us who sin, all of us (Psalm 14:1-3, Psalm 53:1-3, Romans 3:10), in order for God's character trait of being JUST to be satisfied.
I for one am exceedingly grateful to Him for His gift!

Introduction

2011-06-01T23:17:00.001-04:00

     I have a myriad of thoughts go through my head on any given day. This is going to be an attempt to log the more significant thoughts, to give some of the randomness within my mind a place to call home.
     Sadly, my schedule will prevent me from being able to post as frequently as I have these thoughts, however I will post things as they are impressed upon me.
     My topics will be a wide range, some of interest to any given person, others of interest to a different subset of persons. There is no requirement or pressure to read every post. I also suspect that the quality of my posts will vary tremendously as I explore this aspect of writing.

End Entry