“What effects will that have on information being suppressed so the public never finds out about it? What would have happened had this been in effect for the Fast and Furious guys? And what is the likely impact on future Clean Up ATF dialogue?" the source was asked. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner report looks a gift bill in the mouth. I hope it's supporters are right to view this as something to celebrate.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
‘Long overdue’ Whistleblower Protection Act signed into law
They're Making a List and Checking it Twice
CSGV's "Traitor's List," that is...
We already know my "boss" Mike is on it.
So are Kurt and I:
I have a ready-made signed confession list for them from a bunch of extremists -- aging white males, at that -- who signed onto the insurrectionist language "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it ... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards for their future security."
And then, of course, there's "progressive icon" John F. Kennedy...
And "progressive icon" Hubert H. Humphrey...
But that was than and this is now. If you believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms has a last resort purpose of keeping enemies foreign and domestic in check, and of resisting tyranny no matter from where it comes, then you, too are on their enemy's list.
Meaning they would like to see you arrested, tried, convicted and executed. But first you need to surrender your guns.
We already know my "boss" Mike is on it.
So are Kurt and I:
And then, of course, there's "progressive icon" John F. Kennedy...
And "progressive icon" Hubert H. Humphrey...
But that was than and this is now. If you believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms has a last resort purpose of keeping enemies foreign and domestic in check, and of resisting tyranny no matter from where it comes, then you, too are on their enemy's list.
Meaning they would like to see you arrested, tried, convicted and executed. But first you need to surrender your guns.
Yep, I Don't Even Have to Read It First
Die, Traitors, Die!
Kurt notes those who would eviscerate the Second Amendment have no use for the First, either. [Read]
What a surprise--they brook no dissent. Yeah, I'll be surrendering my guns to these hive insects real quick.
I actually look at Ladd & Josh as our men in the gun ban camp, and would like to see more "gun control" supporters contribute to, that is, squander their money on CSGV -- they're such obvious barking loons and so utterly inept at making anything but childish noise, they act as a drain on limited resources that might otherwise be applied against us by a more competent threat.
Of course, my track record of backing such groups is about as good as my success at picking presidents...
Remember the last one I endorsed, "Handgun-Free America"?
Neither does anyone else.
What a surprise--they brook no dissent. Yeah, I'll be surrendering my guns to these hive insects real quick.
I actually look at Ladd & Josh as our men in the gun ban camp, and would like to see more "gun control" supporters contribute to, that is, squander their money on CSGV -- they're such obvious barking loons and so utterly inept at making anything but childish noise, they act as a drain on limited resources that might otherwise be applied against us by a more competent threat.
Of course, my track record of backing such groups is about as good as my success at picking presidents...
Remember the last one I endorsed, "Handgun-Free America"?
Neither does anyone else.
Occam's Razor
So the simplest explanation is they have to do something with their money? Really? [Read]
I guess that makes more sense than wondering if they're preparing a haven for after an expected major conflict...?
I guess that makes more sense than wondering if they're preparing a haven for after an expected major conflict...?
Revisionist History
Federal Court of Appeals Misstates Georgia History to Subvert Second Amendment [More]These guys have a dishonest agenda? Say it ain't so!
Ed Stone adds an important dimension to the recent bit of judicial activist right-to-carry subversion.
A Public/Private Partnership
That'll teach 'em to be compliant inmates! [Read]
Let's see, you compel them to be there and then you compel them to surrender all rights while you set your indoctrinators loose on them. I'm actually surprised more don't snap.
[Via Plug Nickel Times]
Let's see, you compel them to be there and then you compel them to surrender all rights while you set your indoctrinators loose on them. I'm actually surprised more don't snap.
[Via Plug Nickel Times]
A Departed Son, Father, Husband and Great Patriot
Alrighty, then, we can just forget that little "3 a.m. home invader" thingie... [Read]
A River in Egypt
Imagine that -- the guy who helped jump the tracks praising the engineer... these stupid ******* have learned nothing -- except how to walk away from the twisted wreck with the contents of the mail car safe. [Read]
The Latest Fad
Apparently there is no correlation between single motherhood and homicide. [Read]
"Scapegoated"? Gee, no agenda there.
And progressive "Authorized Journalists" are happy to jump on the bandwagon.
See?
Well hell, some sociology professor said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Except the graph seems to assume a specific demographic enjoys co-equal credit for a trend, no? On the flip side, the same ideologues like to point out America is the most "violent industrialized nation" or some other line of bilge as if there aren't millions and millions of peaceable gun owners who get along just fine, thank you, with lower crime rates than those in "gun-free" Japan, and that it's from some concentrated populations where the majority of the problems emanate from.
What I don't see is the percentage of people convicted of violent crimes correlated with those who come from either broken homes or homes that were never whole in the first place. And it also seems extremely simplistic to draw any conclusions from such a narrow data set that--and one that does not account for changing conditions and effects years down the road.
Before drawing any, I'd like to see someone do a serious correlation of high violent crime areas and low ones, and factor in, among other things (like government subsidization), the single female head of household demographic. Not that I'm representing myself as a competent statistician or the following example as the final word, but I would like to see someone who is address this on a larger scale: Take a low violent crime rate city and a high violent crime rate city. Now look at the percentage of single female parent households.
Case in point, I did a post some years back using the 2000 census to compare that metric in relativley low-crime Seattle to relatively high-crime Milwaukee, and observed:
Sure, there are plenty of other factors, including income, education, relative population ages, race, etc., and no one is saying just having "a man" around is the answer--unless he is a good and caring man. But all of these considerations are why you need someone who knows how to identify and crunch all the right numbers to come up with models that can best approximate the reality.
And that's why everybody jumping on this latest bandwagon is not only wrong, but those doing it know it is, and they're manipulating opinion to advance an agenda. Because, ultimately, what they really want to do is keep us from looking at the impact of policies they espouse on populations most directly affected by and responsive to a continuing history of destructive government policies.
That way, they can keep on keepin' on the road to collectivism, and growing the dependency vote.
I'd like to see somebody like John Lott take this topic on.
"Scapegoated"? Gee, no agenda there.
And progressive "Authorized Journalists" are happy to jump on the bandwagon.
See?
Well hell, some sociology professor said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Except the graph seems to assume a specific demographic enjoys co-equal credit for a trend, no? On the flip side, the same ideologues like to point out America is the most "violent industrialized nation" or some other line of bilge as if there aren't millions and millions of peaceable gun owners who get along just fine, thank you, with lower crime rates than those in "gun-free" Japan, and that it's from some concentrated populations where the majority of the problems emanate from.
What I don't see is the percentage of people convicted of violent crimes correlated with those who come from either broken homes or homes that were never whole in the first place. And it also seems extremely simplistic to draw any conclusions from such a narrow data set that--and one that does not account for changing conditions and effects years down the road.
Before drawing any, I'd like to see someone do a serious correlation of high violent crime areas and low ones, and factor in, among other things (like government subsidization), the single female head of household demographic. Not that I'm representing myself as a competent statistician or the following example as the final word, but I would like to see someone who is address this on a larger scale: Take a low violent crime rate city and a high violent crime rate city. Now look at the percentage of single female parent households.
Case in point, I did a post some years back using the 2000 census to compare that metric in relativley low-crime Seattle to relatively high-crime Milwaukee, and observed:
Just look at the comparison between "female householders, no husband present" (8.09% vs. 21.07%).Lather, rinse, repeat. Does anyone really think there's no correlation?
Sure, there are plenty of other factors, including income, education, relative population ages, race, etc., and no one is saying just having "a man" around is the answer--unless he is a good and caring man. But all of these considerations are why you need someone who knows how to identify and crunch all the right numbers to come up with models that can best approximate the reality.
And that's why everybody jumping on this latest bandwagon is not only wrong, but those doing it know it is, and they're manipulating opinion to advance an agenda. Because, ultimately, what they really want to do is keep us from looking at the impact of policies they espouse on populations most directly affected by and responsive to a continuing history of destructive government policies.
That way, they can keep on keepin' on the road to collectivism, and growing the dependency vote.
I'd like to see somebody like John Lott take this topic on.
This Day in History: November 29
After the winter of Valley Forge, Black slaves and free men were welcomed into the American Army. [More]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)