And Newt goes boom!

Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination.

“The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system,” said an April 2006 newsletter published by Gingrich’s former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation.

The two-page “Newt Notes” analysis, found online by The Wall Street Journal even though it no longer appears on the center’s website, continued, “We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans.”

And it now appears, as many of us feared; it is ObamaLite’s race to lose:

…While his position in the national horse race matchup is far from decisive—at this writing the RealClearPolitics average of the national polls shows Newt Gingrich with a slight lead—Romney dominates in all of the structural categories that typically correspond with victory. He has a huge money advantage—with more than $14 million in cash on hand as of the last report mandated by the Federal Election Commission (and that does not include the financial assistance he has received from “SuperPacs” that operate freely on his behalf). This financial edge gives Romney the ability to flood the early states with television advertisements and employ plenty of professional staffers to manage his ground game. Romney also has a runaway lead in the race for endorsements by Republican officeholders; while these move few voters, they reinforce Romney’s institutional advantages, giving him greater access to well-heeled donors as well as on-the-ground campaign intelligence.

Jay Cost further writes that the “not Romney” camp isn’t as huge as many believe it to be:

That said, the conventional wisdom about Romney’s candidacy—that there is a huge “not Romney” bloc of GOP voters out there—is massively overstated. Romney’s favorable rating among prospective Republican primary voters is quite high, upwards of 60 percent, and the latest CNN poll of GOP voters shows that 80 percent of Republicans either support him now or would consider supporting him at some point; this is a larger number than that of any of his major competitors. Yet the theory about a “not Romney” bloc has some merit; what is particularly noteworthy about his numbers is that a relatively large proportion of the GOP electorate—between 40 and 50 percent—believe he will eventually be the nominee, but his actual support tends to be about half that size. So, if there is no vehement “not Romney” faction of Republicans, there is at least a group of GOP voters who are hesitant for some reason.

So is that pretty much it? Every other candidate has gone boom and any candidate that we really wanted to see…a Palin, Ryan, Christie or Jeb Bush never even stepped into the ring.

So it will be Romney

Or will it?

With 45 percent of Iowa Republican voters undecided and a roller-coaster ride about to come to a screeching stop next Tuesday with the GOP caucuses, it may be Rick Santorum’s turn to take the final ascent and surprise the political class by … doing better than expected?

Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, has been touted as the sleeper candidate by none other than 2008 Iowa caucuses winner Mike Huckabee. He has relentlessly campaigned in the state, hitting all 99 counties and moving his family out there. He has held 350 campaign events in the past year.

He has received key endorsements from well-known social conservatives in the state, and has had solid performances at each of the debates. And he’s running an old-school style campaign that Iowa voters expect in the retail-style politics of the Hawkeye State.

The man whose at the back of the polling pack — despite recent buzz giving him a late boost — is taking nothing for granted but has nothing to lose.

“My feeling is when you’re sitting last, if you can do better than that, that’s good,” he told Fox News.

Santorum said he’s got 1,000 caucus representatives in a contest with about 1,700 caucus locations. He acknowledges that means no official representative to make his case at each of the locations, but at “almost all of them, and no other campaign is going to have someone there who’s going to get up and speak on our behalf.”

Santorum, who claims organization and message will make the difference, is also banking on a divide and conquer strategy.

“There’s really three primaries going on here,” Santorum said. “Ron Paul has his own primary, the libertarian primary. And (Newt) Gingrich and (Mitt) Romney are sort of the establishment primary. And I think there are three who are vying for the conservative mantle to go up against the Gingrich-Romney duo. And I think that I’m going to be the one coming out Iowa with that mantle.

“And if we can do that, then we’re off to the races here, and conservatives around the country, just like they’re doing here in Iowa, are going to start rallying around our campaign,” he said.

Dick Morris believes he is surging:

All along, the Tea Party voters have yet to unite behind a single candidate. They still aren’t united, but in Iowa, there is evidence that Rick Santorum may be surging ahead.

In the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) telephone poll of 23,000 supporters nationally, Newt led with 31% of the vote, followed by Bachmann at 28%, Romney at 20% and Santorum with a surprising 16%.

But on the ground in Iowa, where it counts, Gingrich has gone through a gauntlet of $10 million of negative TV ads sponsored by Romney, Paul, and the others. Without funds to defend himself, he has seen his vote share drop. Ron Paul’s has risen, Bachmann’s has fallen, and Santorum has increased quickly.

There has always been a sort of mini-primary among the Tea Party followers among Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum – the candidates they find acceptable. Gingrich’s and Bachmann’s drop, Cain’s withdrawal, and Perry’s stagnation all contrast sharply with Santorum’s surge.

The former Pennsylvania Senator has been the also ran in the field, the Rodney (I get no respect) Dangerfield of the Republican primaries. But with the lack of poll numbers has come a lack of scrutiny. These days the spotlight can get too hot very quickly. Santorum, whose conservative record is as solid as they come, is benefiting from the fall of Gingrich in a way Bachmann seems unable to do.

And:

“[Santorum] is the one candidate in the race who hasn’t caught his wave yet,” says Vander Plaats, who served as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 Iowa campaign chairman and now heads the Family Leader, a coalition of socially conservative groups. “We believe he’s going to catch his wave. And we believe he’s the one candidate who can withstand the scrutiny of being on top.”

It may very well be time to visit Santorum, his record and what he stands for. Just a quick search over the past few days of newsbits led me to his thinking on the 2nd Amendment and the importance of getting solid conservative justices on the bench:

More specifically, the former Pennsylvania senator warned that reelecting President Obama next fall could weaken gun rights. He cited the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the 2008 Heller case that struck down portions of the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws.

“If you read the dissent in Heller, no gun owner should feel comfortable this is a secure constitutional right according to this Supreme Court, and that’s why we need a good, strong Republican conservative who understands what it means to appoint and confirm solid judges and justices,” Santorum said.

I like his foreign policy:

But Santorum’s seriousness rebounds to his credit when it comes to foreign policy. The former third-ranking Republican in the Senate has spent a lot of time thinking about America’s role in the world. And during the debates, he’s been a hawk’s hawk, sparring with Ron Paul over the Iranian threat. “I think Michele Bachmann understates how dangerous Ron Paul would be,” says Santorum. “Many conservatives would fear literally for their safety if Ron Paul would get in there to work with liberal Democrats to gut the Defense Department, to pull back every forward-deployed troop all over the world.”

He’s certainly worth a second look it appears. The question is….can he go toe to toe with ObamaLite?

Modern AK 47 With Folding Butt Stock

Attorney General Eric Holder admitted and boasted about operation “Gun Runner” on April 2, 2009 to Mexican officials in Cuernavaca, Mexico.

Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion.

Holder now has subjective memory loss and denies any knowledge of “Gun Runner” AKA “Fast and Furious”. Supposedly, the illegal operation was set up straw men to buy military weapons for Mexican drug cartels and trace the guns back to Mexico to make apprehensions, money was even given to the straw men to buy the weapons. There was no tracking of the weapons or apprehensions of suspects. It is logical to assume that the real intent was to provide the weaponry on the border to invoke chaos and provide reasons for invoking tighter gun control laws. The weapons were used in Mexico in countless murders and in the murder of two federal agents in the US. Again it has become very convenient for Holder to forget all about operation “Gun Runner”; especially, now that he is implicated in the murder of two federal agents on the border by approving the operation that provided the weaponry that killed the agents while insisting that federal border agents fire bean bag bullets at drug runners and murderers.

50 Cal Sniper Rifle Sold To Mexican Cartels

Acting ATF Director Melson’s 4th of July testimony to Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Darrel Issa added fireworks to a government coverup what appears to be the biggest government scandal in 50 years. Melson testified:

“Justice Department officials sought to limit and control his communications with Congress.” Moreover, when he saw the storm clouds rising and attempted to reassign “every major official involved” in Operation “Fast and Furious,” Melson said “Justice Department officials directed him and other ATF officials to not communicate to Congress the reasoning behind the reassignments.”

AK 47 With Grenade Launcher

We are now recovering the weapons at crime scenes along with the bodies of victims.

The Northwestern.com is a Gannett-owned media company based out of Wisconsin. Because Gannett is such a large media conglomerate, it’s important to call them out on their ignorance and stupidity. They have the potential to influence a lot of people who don’t know better, so they must be corrected. Please allow me to educate a clueless editorial board (read the post for the full story):

“Wisconsin to buck the trend and continue to not allow residents to carry concealed (CC) firearms.” In other words, put gun owners in danger by being forced to carry the only way they legally can – openly! CC allows a gun owner to protect himself by concealing the fact that he is carrying at all and carry on as normal. Ignorant people – like this editorial board – who don’t understand gun owners create a false sense of danger and stress at the sight of a gun. Being allowed to CC means that both gun owners and non-constitutionalists can carry on their lives as normal.

“The risks do not outweigh the benefits and in a state where Second Amendment rights are explicitly guaranteed in a number of ways, such as the right to fish and hunt, the principle and practice of the right to bear arms is not in question.” Another ignorant argument of the gun control advocate. The gun control advocate assumes that guns are ONLY good for hunting and should be used for nothing else. They lack the basic understanding that guns are also a great deterrent to crime and provide a valuable protection to the gun owner. Most gun owners who are burglarized merely need to show their gun to prevent a crime from happening. In most cases in which a gun is used to deter a crime, not one bullet is ever fired! The board seeks to assume that only hunters should be permitted to have guns and hunters don’t need CC rights.

“The form that deserves passage is one that takes into account the serious concerns of law enforcement, public safety and common sense that come with concealed firearms.” CC is no more serious to any of the above mentioned entities than CC. But, regardless, this editorial board misses the main point about why the founding founders included the right to “keep and bear arms” as a fundamental right for our nation. Gun rights are meant serve as a deterrent to the government you seek to protect. Without them, we are slaves. Gun control was NEVER designed or meant for strictly hunting.

Under the pen name “Publius”, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Notice Madison didn’t mention ANYTHING about “the right and advantage” of being armed to hunt quail! He specifically mention being armed as a counter to an out-of-control government – much like the one we defeated a mere decade prior to these words being written.

“So-called ‘constitutional carry’ is a misnomer because the responsible application of constitutional rights has never been absolutist in nature.” This is the common straw man argument used by the left and gun grabbers. No reasonable gun rights advocate wants carte blanche rights for anyone and everyone to carry whenever and wherever they want. To even suggest that ANY legislature or group like NRA wants open ended gun carry is either completely ignorant or just blatantly idiotic. The largest group in the nation pushing for firearms training is the National Rifle Association. So that makes the following editorial comment simple fear mongering: “Therefore, allowing residents to carry concealed weapons without any reasonable and responsible safeguards would be akin to saying a citizen has an absolute right to maliciously shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

The Northwestern then gives a bunch of hurdles that gun owners should have to jump through in order to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Some of these I agree with are make sense to a small degree while some of are quite simply the dumbest things I’ve heard.

1. Requiring a permit issued by the state Department of Justice to carry a weapon. The permit would be good for 5 years and include a background check and a $65 fee. The permitting process lays out parameters for who is eligible and not to carry and the penalties for falsifying information carrying felony consequences. This is one of only two points that I agree with in principle, just not in action. Personally, I think that $65 is too high and could prevent lower income Americans from being able to obtain a permit. Permits should ONLY be required to pay for the processing and creation of a license, not to enrich any government bureaucracy. Once citizens are required to pay high fees for a RIGHT, it violates the infringement clause.

If the right to own a firearm can be legislated through fines and fees, why aren’t other rights mandated the same way. Why don’t we charge citizens to speak in public? Why don’t we charge citizens NOT to have their homes searched and seized? Why don’t we charge churches for the right to hold services and bestow five year permits? It’s absurd.

2. Producing a registry of permit holders for law enforcement so police officers, for instance, could check to see if someone being pulled over may be carrying a concealed weapon. I ADAMANTLY oppose this with a vengeance. Any such registry would become public domain and would give criminals an easily searchable database from which they could choose their victims. Gun control advocates (who tend to be criminal apologists much of the time) would throw out the BS flag and say something like, “that’s a strawman argument! What makes you think criminals would target people without guns using the list?” It’s the perfect question, because you can throw it right back at them and ask, “what makes you think CC owners will commit more crimes? In Texas, we are required to show our CC permits if we’re pulled over and carrying. That’s all that needs to done. In my case, I won’t do that unless it looks I’m going to be pulled out of the car. The officer honestly has no “need to know” if I’m carrying if all he’s going to do is issue me a warning or write me a ticket. If I feel like I’m about to be searched, I’ll inform the officer that I’m carrying. But, that information in NO WAY needs to be made public.

I’ll throw another scenario at you. What if it’s a crooked cop? He now has the upper hand on me if he had plans to do anything illegal to violate MY rights rights. I’m not stupid, so I know that’s a 1:1,000,000,000 chance! So, don’t get on to me about that stupidity.

3. Making permit carriers complete firearm training. Such training would help provide a minimum level of knowledge of firearms and how to appropriately make decisions when carrying a deadly weapon. Refresher training should also be mandated. I do agree that firearm training should be a component of the licensing process. Here’s an idea that I’ve NEVER heard mentioned. How about making firearm training similar to driver training and providing discounts on permits to those that have completed the training? Or, those that have completed firearm training keep their permits for longer than those that haven’t. There should be NO requirement for “refresher training.” This is just a forced tax on Americans that will be required to pay above and beyond the cost of a permit.

4. Prohibiting concealed weapons in state and local government buildings, police stations, taverns, courthouses and within 1,000 feet of school property and allowing businesses and homeowners to prohibit patrons and visitors from carrying weapons. This is more fear-mongering. The Texas State Capitol is gun owner friendly and actually has a separate line for CC holders. When I recently testified in Austin, I went through this line along with dozens of other people with my .380 pistol and you know what? NOTHING HAPPENED!! I didn’t shoot anyone. No one shot me. No one shot anyone else.

Sound to me like more fear-mongering on behalf of the editorial board. This is a classic scare tactic of gun grabbers, but obviously lacks reality. I’ve personally carried guns into each and every one of those those locations without negative results. Teachers and school officials should be allowed to carry concealed for self protection just as any other adult on school property. It’s another gun grabber strawman argument.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter what this ignorant editorial board thinks because come this July, Wisconsin citizens wanting to carry handguns will no longer have to undergo a criminal background check or show proficiency with a firearm.

Suck that, editors! Keep it up and I’ll sick the Obamanator on you!

I love guns. I love guns so much that I can’t seem to stop buying them. I love shooting them. I love cleaning them. I love kitting them out. I love buying pretty ammo for them. I love guns. My love of shooting is just one reason of the minor reasons I joined the Army in 1994.

It’s funny because whenever we have a range coming up for those that need to qualify on their assigned weapons, a lot of Soldiers complain about having to go. Heck, we only have to qualify once a year for criminy sakes. But, not me! I try to go to every range I know about, regardless of the caliber. Why not? It’s free ammo! The only thing that sucks about it is all the gear I have to wear to qualify.

With that said, I was naturally pissed off at an ignorant article I found in the USA Today quoting the Center for Disease Control’s finding that gun violence occurs more in big cities. REALLY?! Say it ain’t so!!

According to the CDC, 25,423 murders by gunfire took place in the United States in 2006 through 2007 — the years of the most recent available statistics.

Among these deaths, the rate of firearm homicides was higher in inner cities than in other parts of cities and higher than the murder rate of the country as a whole, Dahlberg said. People living in 50 of the largest cities, in fact, accounted for 67% of all firearm homicides.

Our liberal media didn’t seem to notice one important fact into why big cities have higher murder rates – nearly all big cities have strict gun control laws that prevent citizens from being able to defend themselves! Yeah, didn’t see that little tidbit in the story! As a matter of fact, the city with the tightest gun control laws also has the highest number of law enforcement officers killed by guns-yup, Chicago!

When will the gun control crowd actually open their eyes and see the reality of allowing law-abiding Americans to “keep and bear arms?” They can continue living as victims. I’m not saying that everyone or anyone should be required to carry guns. They can go on about their merry lives thinking that when the time comes they can talk their way out of a violent robbery or break-in. I just ask those bad guys to let me know ahead of time when they will target the gunless so I can pull up a grill and a few chairs to watch the show!

A friend of mine on Facebook was telling me that he was arguing with a liberal about the 2nd Amendment. In typical liberal fashion, the liberal was trying to argue that the 2nd Amendment only applied to armed militias.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, my friend used the following argument to argue his case, which made sense to me but I’m sure confused the liberal (it’s not hard):

“A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.” I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the anti gun people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms. – Bruce Tiemann

Case closed.

I, CJ Grisham, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

With those words, I became a Soldier in the United States Army.  I joined the Army with long, purple hair. Because my head still had a slightly purple tint after my first shaving, I got my first Army nickname – Barney.  I would later earn the nickname “Chcknhawk” for beating the crap out of the biggest guy in the platoon during pugil sticks (I’m all of 5’5″ tall).

This was taken at my second reenlistment ceremony at Ft. Stewart, GA

Needless to say, I understand the oath I was about to take before I took it.  When I vocalized each of those words, they meant something to me.  ”I will support and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,” the document that is now under attack in this country by the very people responsible for upholding it.

Since this administration (and even during its campaign), the first amendment has been under fire.  Liberals have been trying to get talk radio legislated into oblivion.  Opposition to homosexual behavior is beginning to gain protection under so-call “hate speech” provisions.  You can’t even joke with police officers or TSA agents about just about anything anymore without getting detained on some nebulous terrorism charge.

While the second amendment has always been under attack by the left in this country, the recent Tucson shootings, during which a psychopath almost killed Democratic representative Giffords, have provided a spring board to creating more gun control while the emotional impact is still fresh in everyone’s minds.  The Obama administration is seeking to reinstate so-called “assault weapons” bans that would ignorantly and foolishly ban magazines or clips that hold more than 10 rounds.

President Obama has nominated one of the most anti-gun former FBI agents I’ve ever heard of, Andrew Traver, to head up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).  I’ll ignore the obvious question of how someone like that even became a special agent in charge of a major field office – oh wait, it was in Chicago!  Never mind.  He doesn’t think Americans should be allowed to even own “assault weapons” because “they’re dangerous.”

In November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”

So, “heavy caliber, military-style weapons” are “dangerous” and uncontrollable? I happen to be a second amendment loving, gun toting, bible thumping, rightwing extremist combat vet, so I put his theory to the test.  It should be noted that prior to making this video, I leaned the guns up against the trunk of my pointed directly at me as I sat in a chair behind the car.  After about 10 minutes of have three very different “assault rifles” aimed at my head, I rightly concluded that these guns weren’t dangerous just sitting there.  They didn’t seem very out of control just sitting there.  There is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous men!  Maybe what Traver meant was that in the hands of a person, they are difficult to control.  Let’s see:

The TSA and just about every federal, state and local law enforcement agency is stomping on our 4th Amendment rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yet, every time you want to exercise your right to travel by plane, you are subjected to the possibility of an intrusive search.  Aaron Tobey had both his 1st and 4th amendment rights violated when recently trying to fly to a funeral.  I hope he wins his lawsuit, but the TSA doesn’t care about the rulings of judges, which adds the 5th amendment to the list of constitutional demolition.  I refuse to provide ID at “DWI/DUI Checkpoints” as well.  When I get pulled over, I don’t let law enforcement search my vehicle if the stop was a result of a traffic violation.  I have nothing to hide.  I don’t even drink, smoke, or do drugs (except the Vicodin prescribed for my back injury from combat).  I’m Mormon!  I’ll go to outer darkness for doing those things.  ;)

I could write an entire post on 10th amendment violation that have been going on for decades by BOTH major parties.  State sovereignty is under attack as much as the Constitution is.  Since the states pretty much sit back and let the feds run their business, the feds think it’s okay.  Now, they’re trying to pass a federal law that would limit the minimum age for driving to 16 before a LEARNER’S PERMIT would be issued.  Drivers would have to wait until age 18 before they received an unrestricted license.  And, if during that time they get a ticket for speeding or driving under the influence, it could be later!  If states don’t comply, the feds will withhold money from the states that the states sent to the feds to begin with!  I say to the states: just stop sending them 10% of what you send and make up the difference!

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act also violates the 10th amendment sovereignty of individuals by mandating that they purchase some form of health insurance or face huge fines.

The 14th amendment is violated every time an amnesty bill is passed into law and illegals are suddenly given free reign on our social programs.  The IRS is seizing property without proper judicial due process.  Liberals continue to push for reparations for all sorts of minorities, another violation of the 14th amendment, despite the fact that not one American citizen alive today was a slave.

By refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers, the administration is allowing segments of our society to violate the 15th amendment, which liberals apparently think only applies to blacks!

It sickens me as a patriotic American to see the Constitution that I swore an oath to treated like toilet paper.  Our leaders in Washington passing these “laws” take a similar oath, but aren’t required or penalized for ignoring it.  I didn’t swear an allegiance, oath, or true faith to any public official.  I swore to obey lawful orders and I will do that till the day I die.  It’s the reason why I think these idiots refusing to deploy should be thrown in solitary confinement until their legs turn to jelly and they forget how to breath.

I love this country more than I can intelligently state here.  In spite of efforts in Washington to the contrary, this is the greatest country on earth!  Even though our debt is the largest in the world, our economy is now in third place, and we have resorted to bowing to leaders of country that produce the same people trying to kill us, I will never feel differently.  And I will never WILLINGLY surrender ANY of my rights so long as there is a breath to take!

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? – Thomas Jefferson

Has to be, because the rationale that ATF higher-ups gave to the operators makes no sense at all:

Agent Dodson and other sources say the gun walking strategy was approved all the way up to the Justice Department. The idea was to see where the guns ended up, build a big case and take down a cartel. And it was all kept secret from Mexico.

How could it possibly matter where criminal Mexican drug gangs get their illegal weapons? ALL their guns are illegal under Mexican law. If the illegality of their weapons could bring them down, there would be no need for their guns to come from America.

Unlike our sweepingly stated Second Amendment, the Mexican constitution only enumerates a highly qualified right to possess arms, and as in my state of California, enumerated gun rights in Mexico are not enforced. Thus Mexico’s armed-to-the-teeth criminal gangs could in theory be taken down by gun prosecutions (if Mexico had the wherewithal to do it) by enforcing MEXICAN law. Evidence of violations of AMERICAN law is completely irrelevant, never mind its being tainted by U.S. government complicity.

The only actual reason the ATF would have to let American-sourced guns “walk” into Mexico is to provide facts in support of the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to blame Mexican gun violence on American arms dealers, as justification for further infringing the constitutionally protected gun rights of American citizens. They have been putting out trumped up charges of U.S. blame for Mexican drug violence since they got into office, but their weak evidence hasn’t stood up to scrutiny. So they decided to manufacture some hard evidence. It is the only logical explanation.

Where do Mexican drug-war weapons actually come from? This from James G. Conway Jr., “a former FBI special agent and program manager of FBI counterterrorism operations in Latin America”:

On the surface, a cursory review of the high-powered military-grade seized weaponry — grenades, RPGs, .50-caliber machine guns — clearly indicates this weaponry is not purchased at gun shows in the United States and can’t even be found commercially available to consumers in the United States. The vast majority of the weaponry used in this “drug war” comes into Mexico through the black market and the wide-open, porous southern border of Mexico and Guatemala. This black market emanates from a variety of global gunrunners with ties to Russian organized crime and terror groups with a firm foothold in Latin America such as the FARC, as well as to factions leftover from the civil wars in Central America during the 1980′s. Chinese arms traffickers have managed to disperse weapons, particularly grenades, on the streets of Mexico. In addition, many of the Mexican military-issued, Belgian-made automatic M-16s currently in the hands of traffickers have been pilfered from military depots and the thousands who have deserted the Mexican army in recent years.

The exception would be those few thousands of semi-automatic M-16′s and AK-47′s let into Mexico by the AFT, along with however many Barret-50′s. Yeah, those are serious weapons. Obama’s minions definitely added to the murder spree, all in pursuit of their unconstitutional war against gun rights here at home.

Mexico getting guns from America?

For those leftists who have trouble with this language, no, Mexico is NOT part of America. It is part of North America (the continent) and is part of The Americas (the two continents), but the only country with America in its name is The United States of America. We, and only we, are “America.”

Wrong and wrong, pea brains.

The Elite, is almost a dubious term that few can define. Those who are Elites will never admit it, not even to themselves. In this article we will attempt to define the concept according to the writing of Orwell and the Socialist leaders of the mid-twentieth century and today.

Orwell wrote,

“There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.”

At first glance the reader is incredulous; what a bizarre sentence, it doesn’t make sense. However, like most deep thoughts, the sentence induces a secondary response that slowly sifts through the reader’s consciousness, producing memories of experiences with intelligent, but extremely impractical people.

Every neighborhood has the truly gifted person that has created their own world because they don’t fit in: colleges are well stocked with professors who either take advantage of tenure to act as differently as possible or else they would truly have no other position in life if it were not for the world of academia. These people have never been adverse to holding ideas so wrong that only they, as very intelligent people could believe in them. If you haven’t known one, perhaps it is time to do an objective personal evaluation.

Orwell could have included ideologues and Useful Idiots within that sentence, but the sentence would have lost some of its dramatic effect. By definition a Useful Idiot is an ideologue, but an ideologue is not necessarily a Useful Idiot. Ideologues occupy the entire spectrum of political and philosophical ideas: the term Useful Idiot is a Leftist term coined by Stalin that refers to the wild eyed fanatics who believed so strongly in the Communist Ideology; yet, had no concept of the evil nature of his regime and often worked themselves into a position of prescribing their own demise with their fanaticism and naive allegiance to the Leftist movement. Stalin considered many American Socialists and journalists to be among his Useful Idiots. He held them in contempt, but appreciated their untiring efforts while he laughed at their naive assumptions that they were somehow invaluable to his cause: to Stalin, they were disposable and insignificant, merely Useful Idiots.

Today we find the detritus of the Useful Idiot and the ‘highly intelligent but extremely impractical’ still being used as laws, regulations, and policy. We should consider some of these ideas of the recent past and of the present that are being discussed or implemented, while contemplating quotes from Orwell:

Soon we will be forced to accept America as a totalitarian regime.

Air should be taxed or more precisely, the air that every animal and human on earth needs to live, should be taxed as a means of population control and of generating tax revenue for every person their livestock and their pets.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

President Bush hurt the US economy because he overspent: President Obama is good for the economy because he out spends President Bush.

A jury can render a more informed and fair decision if evidence is withheld.

The Boy Scouts are evil to have policies that discriminate against pedophiles. The Catholic Church is evil for not ridding itself of pedophiles.

As we are made into blind believers of the state, they gain more and more power over our lives.

A government that loads itself down with over regulation approximately the size of 30 New Deals is considered a radical laissez-faire free market.

Pulling a terrorist toward you while holding onto his shirt in a rough and impolite manner is considered an “enhanced interrogation technique”. Therefore it is “tantamount to torture” and beyond normal accepted procedures of interrogation. However using a drone aircraft and sending a missile into his home, with neither trial nor tribunal, and killing him his family and friends is perfectly acceptable.

We can only ask a country not to pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons: once they have assured us they do not intend to acquire nuclear weapons, they may proceed toward acquiring a nuclear arsenal with due haste.

It is immoral and illegal to ask a person for his papers; especially, after he has committed a crime and fits the profile of an illegal alien. However, it is federal law that all non-citizens must carry identification. In the near future, every citizen will be required by law to have health insurance.

Soon we will be forced to accept America as a totalitarian regime.

A state may confiscate private property or give it to someone else who can better use the property because of this phrase “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”; however, the phrase also means you can kill a baby whose head is in the birth canal, but has not yet seen the light of day.

…if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.

The phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” does not necessarily mean that you may keep and bear arms.

It made sense for John McCain to prove he was a “natural born” US citizen in court, despite the fact that both his parents were American citizens and he was the son and grandson of two Naval Admirals, but it was preposterous to even consider asking Barack Obama to prove his birth status, despite the fact that all the records of his life are hermetically sealed.

It is the dream of every Useful Idiot to be an Elite and that is partially why Stalin regarded them with such condescending disdain. They can disguise their intent, but they are truly power hungry and always crave the recognition of higher ups; in essence they are political climbers in the sense of social climbers. Most or nearly all receive minimal recognition for their efforts to advance the party line; yet it is endemic among Elites, tyrants, and despots to be power hungry at what ever level they function. Is our government run by a power hungry cadre of Elites? Absolutely.

It is a precarious position; unfortunately, it is the nature of Useful Idiots to be lacking in reasoning and wisdom, since so much of their life has been in pursuit of ideology, a discipline that requires only rote memorization of the party line and discourages analytical thought processes. Therefore like moths that are fascinated by the flame, they hover in ecstasy before the flame, until they get too close and realize their fatal mistake in one agonizing moment before they crash to the earth and oblivion.

`
Epilogue:

Lenin: In a state worthy of the name, there is no liberty. The people want to exercise power, but what on earth would they do with it if it were given to them.

Krushchev: Every year humanity takes a step toward Communism. Maybe not you, but at all events your son will surely be a Communist.

Solzhenitayn: For us in Russia Communism is a dead dog; while, for many in the West it is a living lion.

M. Spark: Every communist has a fascist frown, every fascist a communist smile.

Trotsky: Lenin’s method leads to this: the party organization at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole. Then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the party organization, and finally a single dictator substitutes himself for the Central Committee.

Stalin: A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

After the tragedy in Tucson, everyone is concerned with the metaphors that had nothing to do with the murders or the homicidal maniac who pulled the trigger, but if there was some kind of connection, there would be Hell to pay in the Liberal Press. The Propagandists of Progressivism parading as unbiased journalists have exposed their bias to all who have an open mind or at least those who have a shred of analytical judgement. For they have shot themselves in the foot.

Lord have mercy, Ol Skook has made the same error. He has used an old metaphor and is now eligible to be persecuted and hit with the lead weighted purses of all the dainty boys of the Left Wing Media Complex. But wait a minute, Ol Skook has been a professional hunter and trapper, has been a rancher and worked around the rough and tumble world of horses all his adulthood and childhood. He’s a little course around the edges, you could say he still has the bark on and makes no apologies.

Now our silly boys who get tingles up the inside of their legs watching Obama recite teleprompter messages are going to seem a mite different than a man who hunted elk and moose to feed his family and butchered his own pigs and smoked hams and bacon. You see men like Skook have never farted through silk and aren’t likely to ever consider the possibility.

Once upon a time, at least a few decades ago, before our public education system insisted that young boys act more like girls and adopt feminine mannerisms or be put on anti-anxiety drugs to prep them for being drug addicts, while worrying about self-esteem and majoring in societal disciplines to help form a national dystopia of the future, most men had no doubt as to their manhood and sexual preferences. They were men, some were better than others, but they were men.

Is it no wonder, that a man who fed his family with the meat that he killed and butchered, without ever buying a steak or roast wrapped in cellophane, might use more colorful and descriptive metaphors than one of these boys who would rather starve kill and butcher a moose.

There are different perspectives between these two types of people. One is a survivor and one has lost touch with the elemental factors of nature that can mean the difference between survival and starvation. Unfortunately, it is the survivor that is vilified and looked down upon. He has no compassion for the wolves and the Delta Smelt of the Sierras. Of course he knows of the savagery that wolves use to kill elk and moose, and to the wolf, a rancher’s cow and calf is no different than an elk cow and calf. He knows that the Delta Smelt is being used as an opportunity for the Sierra Club to flex its muscle and control over the farmers of the San Joaquin Valley, so that the water of the Sierra will need to be diverted to San Francisco Bay instead of being used to grow crops in the most productive farm land in the world.

So we talk a little rougher, not with swearing necessarily, we just don’t talk like the dilettantes at the Sunday Wine and Cheese Clubs. Just as truckers will use trucking terms to describe his life and a military man will use military jargon to describe his particular life, and a fisherman will use fishing terms to describe things in his fishy life; although, this is now supposed to change, if we don’t speak in a politically correct manner like our sanctimonious propaganda journalists, we can and will be held liable, just in case someone reads a few lines of our prose and is driven beyond the limits of human endurance and can’t resist killing a few people.

It’s possible that some pathetic soul, that failed to ‘lock onto’ the pacifist pablum of socialism might hear me say or read my writing that implies that certain journalists weren’t worth three dead flies. Does that mean, I will be under the gun, since my metaphor will be the ominous smoking gun that will put the noose around my neck; especially, if some gender confused man-child raised on video games while medicated on the anti-anxiety drugs Zoloft and Ritalin, decides to take his fantasies into reality. Will the Pontificating Lords of Political Correctness and Propaganda sharpen their axes and set their sights on poor Ol’ Skook.

The precedent is being set, we must apologize for any phrases that might imply noncompliance with the new norms of political acceptance, essentially those established by our propaganda bureaus and the Progressive Socialists they represent.

CNN’s John King: “Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language.”

Of course, the transgression becomes much more serious to a propagandist if the perpetrator is a Conservative or a Republican, this is the nature of propaganda.

I am imagining how I will need to write my hunting stories of the future: I saw the bull moose; no, I saw the moose with male genitalia emerge from the river. I looked through the scope; no, I looked through the magnifying apparatus. He was a prime specimen; no, he was representative of a healthy moose population. I snugged the rifle into my shoulder and began the trigger squeeze after exhaling half a breath; no, I placed my led projectile implement in position and slowly initiated launching procedures. The rifle barked and the bullet landed dead on, piercing both lungs and the heart; no, the lead projectile pierced the breathing apparatus and the animal’s vital pump. He swayed on his feet for a few moments and collapsed to die a few breaths later. Aw Hell, this is getting ridiculous; about as ridiculous as being blamed for rhetoric that didn’t cause a homicidal maniac to go on a killing spree.

It’s ironic that when you look up the definition of “knee-jerk” on Merriam Webster, they use “knee-jerk liberals” as an example of usage of the term. It’s proven true once again as the Tucson shooting, starring an idiot acting out his “conscience dreams” using a gun, brings the gun control freaks out of their closets with their morality banners held high.

Congress… who’ll take any advantage of a crisis or tragedy to exercise power or forward a personal agenda… plans to do just that as “one of the fiercest gun control advocates” in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)” plans on introducing a bill to reinstate a ban on high capacity magazines, similar to the sunsetted provision in the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

McCarthy ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down and her son seriously injured in a shooting in 1993 on a Long Island commuter train.

“My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as tomorrow,” McCarthy told POLITICO in a Sunday afternoon phone interview.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) said he’s preparing to introduce a similar bill in the Senate.

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.“

Heaven help us from do-gooders with a personal vendetta…

No, Mr. Lautenberg”…the only reason to have “33 bullets loaded in a handgun..” … a rather impossible feat in itself since the “rounds” reside in a spring fed “magazine”, not the gun nor a “clip” sigh… is not just to kill a lot of people very quickly. sigh… And in fact, even one who is merely a reasonable shot can kill more than Loughner did with just one of the more common 15 round magazines, plus one in the chamber, in similar close range circumstances.

When the Clinton AWB (assault weapon ban) came into being in the mid 90s, limiting magazine capacity, I was an active participant in the sport of Action Pistol, as sanctioned by many an association. To this day, my brother.. an ex AF Vietnam veteran… still enjoys the sport. While I didn’t like the bulkiness and weight of the longer magazines, high capacity for your chosen competition weapon, within the sponsoring association rules of competition classes, could often make the difference in time in between magazine changes on each stage.

With that same legislation in place, not only did the Columbine shooters and the Beltway sniper take lives, but many an action pistol sports enthusiast became felons overnight… not only for the magazines they possessed, but the threaded barrels they included as a signature of an “assault weapon”. Why? You could attach a silencer. Never mind that they were most commonly used for recoil compensation, which would improve the accuracy for the larger calibre guns needed to drop the metal pop ups commonly used in the competition’s staging.

But therein lies the utter ignorance of those who – because of their lack of exposure, respect and knowledge for guns – tend to mislabel that which they do not understand.

Nevertheless, the sport accommodated for the new no more than 15 rounds legality, and created new classes until the ban’s sunset in 2004. Today, it’s mixed. Many of the action pistol classes use smaller capacity magazines, challenging the competitors’ speed in reload. Others use the large magazines… all without committing mass murder.
So no, Ms. McCarthy…. there are more reasons for carrying a larger capacity of ammunition than murder. And it takes only a little practice to swap out magazines in seconds.

But Congress is not so quick to embrace logic. Instead they turn to old, favorite nanny agendas, again purporting they will make a difference. So today… because just idiot with truly disconnected brain cells decided to saunter over to Safeway and commit mass murder at a political meet and greet with a politician he’s on record of despising for over three years… Ms. McCarthy and Lautenberg think that adding one more law about magazine capacity would prevent such an event.

Such a notion defies all sanity. Loughner obviously had no problems with breaking laws, or he wouldn’t be committing multiple felonies under AZ gun laws, including reckless handling, displaying and discharge of a firearm with the intent to disturb the peace and entering a public establishment… not to mention the most obvious… murder in the 1st degree.

So a law about magazine capacity is now going to stop another Jared Loughner? You must be joking me… He’ll buy two 15′s, and practice.

Then we come to concealed carry… and the burning question of just how long it will take the anti-RKBA types in Congress to pick up on Jan Brewer’s signature on the Constitutional Carry law enacted April 2010. Since the intent by most gun control lib/progs has been to simultaneously demonize guns and conservatives, they will be frothing at the bit to run off half cocked on the Constitutional Carry law.

Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days. The permit system remains in place but will no longer be required for discreet carry.

Alaska enacted a Constitutional Carry law in 2003, and Texas passed a limited version for traveling in 2007. Montana has enjoyed this freedom since 1991 on 99.4% of its land (outside city limits). These states experienced no increase in crime or accidents from the expanded freedom to discreetly bear arms in public. However, numerous dire warnings of “blood in the streets” preceded those new laws, but proved false. A list of circulating myths about the law, also known as “Freedom To Carry,” appears at the end of this article.

Arizona residents have been able to openly carry weapons since their 1912 statehood, but Constitutional Carry enables any citizen to also carry discreetly without permits, paperwork, added training or permits. Considering AZ, and Phoenix being the abduction capital of the nation, it’s long overdue for self defense in AZ’s illegal immigration “wild west”, overrun my the Mexican drug cartels.

Before everyone thinks this is somewhat unique to AZ, Alan Korwin at AmmoLand notes, 11 states have similar CCW abilities, sans the paperwork. AL, DE, GA, ID, IN, MD, MS, NH, PA, SD, WA

In fact, there are only two states in the nation with no right to carry laws… WI and IL. Wisconsin is not for lack of trying. It’s been passed twice, just to be shot down (pun intended) by Gov. Jim Doyle. IL? Well now, they say it’s making progress, but it does have the most corrupt Chicago at it’s heart. How that goes remains to be seen.

But here’s the irony… while the lib/progs will scream mightily that this is a preventive measure the nation cannot afford to implement again, they ignore the real preventative measure that would have worked from the onset. That is the fact that Loughner had not only a history of abuse for drugs and outbursts, but that it was documented by both university officials, and local police officers…

…. and ignored.

They turned a blind eye.. just like the Ft. Hood shooter… to a walking time bomb. Yet the true preventative measure isn’t even a glint in the Congressional anti-gun members’ eyes as they eagerly reach for more control over guns.

Exactly what will one more law will do? Nothing. But then, it’s not about preventing the future Loughners. It’s about inserting a favored agenda back into the mix to take shameless advantage of a crisis. It’s about power, and it’s about stripping freedom for law abiding citizens.

Yes, the gun control agenda is coming back full force. For another brief period, an embattled Congress will stand with locked arms. But just how far will that shared truce go? Now is the test for the GOP House majority. Will they be able to withstand the rocks – not to mention the mistruths – the Dems will be throwing? Or will the emotion of the moment prove another open door for useless laws that do not stop criminals from engaging in crime?

Let’s remember what the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is all about…

But wait… there’s *more*. It’s not enough that Congress has virtually put all issues and bills on hold, the ones they are planning on considering all have to do with further erosion of our Bill of Rights and Congressional amendments. So in addition to McCarthy’s magazine capacity bill is PA Dem Rep. Robert Brady, and his plans to introduce a bill making it make it a federal crime to use symbols or rhetoric that appears to threaten members of Congress.

“I want to protect our congresspeople in a way that they can’t put a crosshair on us and they can’t put a bull’s-eye on us,” Brady told Fox News. “Whoever does it should know it’s going to be illegal to do it.”

~~~

Brady, who is the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration and a member of the Capitol Security subcommittee, indicated he believes the image posted on the website was a factor in the alleged shooter’s motivation.

~~~

Gabrielle Giffords is in a coma, in a coma, because there was a bull’s-eye put on her,” said Brady.

Brady stepped back from his statement a moment later, telling Fox News that he didn’t “know what was in his [the alleged shooter’s] demented mind.”

And from the Political Ticker blog, quoting Brady…

Brady said it is now time to put an end to the hyper-charged language.

“The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” Brady said, noting that “I’ve had my share of death threats” over his many years in politics.

I’m sorry… what was all that about hate speech and rhetoric again?