Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the other Democratic fascists are determined to ram a major piece of legislation — health care reform — down our throats despite the fact that over half the country doesn’t want it. They will use trickery, bribery, and constitutionally questionable means to do it.

So, if this legislation is SO IMPORTANT as to be needed immediately, why is it that the major provisions of the bill don’t kick-in until — conveniently — after 2012, i.e. after the next presidential election and after the next two congressional elections?

Second, if the Democrats are so determined to control health care costs, why is it that the most important factor driving costs up over the past years — tort reform — isn’t addressed at all?

And, they’ve promised us they will use the same tactics to legalize illegals, to enact Cap-and-Trade, and a host of other programs most citizens don’t want.

You know, it’s a good thing so many on our side stocked up on weapons and ammo this past year. There could be a civil war or revolution in our future. I hope not, but if it happens then at least those who still value liberty, freedom, capitalism, and the Constitution are ready for it.

We all knew that Mitt Romney was anti-gun, despite his sudden purchase of a lifetime NRA membership when he was running for the Republican nomination for President. From a review of his new book:

In 2008, Romney lost his way as a candidate. Instead of campaigning as an expert in management and a moderate conservative, he was convinced by advisers that he had to pander to the anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-gun-control, anti-gay-marriage right wing.

Meaning all his claims of supporting gun rights were just so much hot air. But, after his stint as Massachusetts Governor, we knew that. And, of course, even during his campaign, he stated he’d bring back the “assault weapons” ban.

From this Ann Althouse post someone commented:

If Al Gore went to hell, would it snow there?

It would freeze over!

Here’s a tidbit from an AmmoLand editorial:

I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase “gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, “gun-owner rights.”

I must be ahead of the curve since I usually — not always, including this blog category’s name — use phrases such as “gun owner rights” or “civil rights.”

From one of those uncredited, multiple-forwarded emails to me. Rockwell, of course, updated to near-brilliant relevance.

Back room deals have spiked sharply under President Obama. You remember; the guy who was going to have an open and transparent administration. From the AP:

The government’s use of legal exemptions to keep records secret rose during President Barack Obama’s first year in office, despite promises of increased openness, an Associated Press review found.

The review of annual Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that overall, the use of nearly every one of the open-records law’s nine exemptions to withhold information rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.

Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hold back records that detail its internal decision-making. Obama had directed agencies to stop using that exemption so frequently, but that directive appears to have been widely ignored.

Major agencies cited that exemption to refuse records at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, compared with 47,395 times during President George W. Bush’s final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.

So is this the “hope” or the “change”?

Kudos to the Associated Press for this report.

Forget Starbucks. In Fairbanks, Alaska, folks are open carrying to public meetings. From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner:

Carrying a firearm into a municipal building is legal, but is it wise to openly display a gun at a heated public meeting?

The presiding officer of the Borough Assembly said openly displayed sidearms at a meeting on Feb. 25, when emotions ran high, didn’t bother him. But some assembly members said it concerns them. Borough officials said no one complained to them about the firearms, however.

On the agenda at that Feb. 25 meeting was the introduction of an air pollution control plan, and it drew more than 100 people to the meeting, including vocal opposition. Many criticized the plan and some criticized the municipal leaders. People held picket signs. There was shouting at assembly members and at the mayor. There were threats.

Officials with the three area municipalities said firearms are allowed in most municipal buildings and at public meetings. State law prohibits local governments from restricting gun rights any more than the state’s restrictions.

While a couple of the officials had no problems with it, the article says that many did. This, despite the fact that only one of them actually SAW the openly carried guns.

Since there were no incidents, no “brandishing” of guns or threats to shoot anyone, I’m not sure what the problem is. I’d be more worried about the guy sitting next to me spending all his time texting instead of paying attention to the issues being discussed.

Still, unlike California and the Starbucks controversy, where it’s near-impossible to get a concealed weapons permit, in Alaska you can CCW without a permit. I’m not sure why these residents didn’t. I’m not saying that they did anything wrong, just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

One of the gun control proposals being considered in Albany is to ban the manufacture of firearm silencers. From the Little Falls Times:

Chairman Raymond Smith, R-Dolgeville, said the proposed bills would also outlaw manufacturing of firearm “suppressers,” or silencers, in New York state. And this restriction could harm the Remington Arms plant in Ilion, he added.

Remington Arms, which is one of the largest employers in Herkimer County, is involved in manufacturing firearms for the U.S. military. The plant, among other projects, is competitive for contracts to produce sniper rifles, and the inability to manufacture silencers for the rifles could cause problems, county officials said.

County legislators frequently speak of the importance of Remington Arms to the area’s economy. And last year, the legislature showed its commitment by giving $2 million to the plant to help with an over $13 million capital project, which resulted in 100 local jobs.

First of all, are silencers actually a problem in crime. Are thugs regularly using them?

Secondly, the County Legislature is correct to try to protect jobs. I’m just amazed that there is such a thing as a “county legislature.” I understand local, town pols. And state pols. County pols?

These were guns confiscated from criminals — who committed crimes with them — by Tennessee police. Later, as many cash-strapped police departments do all over this country, the guns were sold to gun dealers, not to individuals. The Associated Press finds this shocking! After all, cars used in crimes are never confiscated and later auctioned off. Right? Sorry, just joking about the irony. From an AP/Yahoo story:

One of the weapons in the Pentagon attack was seized by Memphis police in 2005 and later traded to a gun dealer; the gun used in the Jan. 4 courthouse shooting in Las Vegas as sold by a judge’s order and the proceeds given to the Memphis-area sheriff’s office. Neither weapon was sold by the Memphis law enforcement agencies directly to the men who later used them to shoot officers.

Oh My Ghod! Reading this paragraph — buried far down in the story — is the revelation that the Memphis sheriff’s office did nothing wrong. They traded the guns to a gun dealer. And then, the article continues with:

The trail of the gun used at the Las Vegas federal courthouse is older and harder to pin down. Johnny Lee Wicks, an elderly man enraged over cuts to his Social Security benefits, opened fire with the shotgun at the security entrance to the courthouse. He killed one officer, Stanley Cooper, and wounded another.

Oh My Ghod! They can’t even figure out how the other gun mentioned in this article came into the hands of the mutant who used it. Again, it was sold (or traded) to a federal licensed gun dealer.

Oh My Ghod! We need to destroy all guns in police custody so that the rare few that make it into the hands of criminals, won’t.

In the meantime, let’s slur Tennessee law enforcement for following standard procedure (as used by half the states in this country) to try to recoup expenses by selling off confiscated items. [Would that they did that with drugs! — ed.]

We need to close the the police department loophole.

The anti-gun, anti-Bill of Rights crowd (including 90 percent of our nation’s newspaper editors) love to throw phrases out like “Common sense gun control” or “sensible gun control” and so on. Responding to a Chicago Daily Herald editorial, one letter-to-the-Editor writer gets it right:

If you want a common sense law to achieve better gun control, how about this one - if you use a gun to commit a crime, you go to jail for life; no parole, no plea bargain, no exceptions for underage offenders, no second or third or fourth chances.

Would you like some more common sense? If you and the other, as you put it, “liberals who advocate gun-control laws” spent as much time, money and effort trying to get the criminals off the streets as you do trying to take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, maybe those same law-abiding citizens would feel safe enough to not feel a need to own a gun for self-defense.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Those Blackberries and iPhones (etc.) can be power hogs. The New York Times has an article today designed to help you extend battery life.

On a related subject, I use rechargeable batteries for most of my home stuff. Not the Franklin Ace Spell Checker* that I keep by my computer, or the TV remote which uses so little power that the average NiMH would be dead from internal drain after a week — it makes more sense in an application like that to just use regular disposable cells. But, for instance, the portable radio I carry around the house with me is a typical high-drain application where rechargeables are great.

Incidentally, and anecdotally, I find that Energizer brand last longer than Duracell brand — all other things like mAh rating being equal.

(*Firefox’s built in spell checker isn’t all that good.)

Noel Sheppard reports that two “news” networks found the story of urinals shaped in the likeness of former President George W. Bush to be humorous and worth reporting. From NewsBusters:

A sculptor in San Francisco makes urinals in the likeness of former President George W. Bush, and two American media outlets actually reported it last week.

[…]

The following day, CBS News felt it necessary to share this vulgar farce with Americans from coast to coast by publishing the segment at its website.

The folks at MSNBC couldn’t resist this story, for David Shuster reported the following on Friday.

Photo and video at the NewsBuster article.

I wonder if CBS and MSNBC will also be chuckling over this:

The Senate version of the Health Care fiasco has been on line for a while, but when it comes to putting the final one, with the reconciliation on line for all citizens to read, suddenly, Pelosi and Obamas’ pledges for open-door, transparent law making are out the window. From the CNN Political Ticker:

House Democrats appear to be softening their pledge to allow the public 72 hours to review the health care reform package online before a House vote. “We will certainly give as much notice as possible, but I’m not going to say that 72 hours is going to be the litmus test,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Friday.

“I’m a little bit taken aback that now that 72-hour rule has been completely cast aside, since nobody in the House has seen what’s in the reconciliation bill,” said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised earlier this year Democrats would make the final health care bill public at least three days before voting.

Eh. What’s one more broken promise by this administration?

Gosh, just like they do it in D.C.! From the Washington Post:

Yes, Democratic leaders in Virginia’s Senate broke the rules when they killed a bunch of gun rights bills in a specially formed subcommittee. And, no, there’s not a thing anybody can do about it.

That’s the upshot of a ruling that came down Friday from Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R), who is president of the Senate.

[….]

Saslaw wasn’t shy about the purpose of the Courts of Justice special subcommittee, which was stacked with four Democratic senators and one moderate Republican. Saslaw said in interviews that the Democratic-controlled Senate was merely engaging in a little payback after years of watching bills roll out with significant majorities only to die at the hands of a few delegates on subcommittees in the Republican-controlled House.

It is sad that our rights are turned into a game by those who are supposed to represent us.

For 7 1/2 years I’ve been ranting about the need to preserve and to expand our natural and constitutional right to own and carry firearms, and I’ve certainly railed against politicians who would infringe on those rights.

I can not be sympathetic to tactics such as this:

A Maryland senator and delegate are the targets of a flier that attacks them as “bagel brain Jews” for their support of pending firearms legislation in the General Assembly and accuses them of pursuing “racist policies to destroy your gun rights.”

Sen. Brian E. Frosh, a Montgomery County Democrat, said the flier - with the headline “Bagel Brain Jews Want Your Bullets and Your Guns” - was mailed to his home and to those of others in his precinct.

What makes the story more peculiar is that the flier was made available by the group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership although the director of that group denies that he was responsible for mailing the flier to Frosh’s constituents:

The flier was produced by group called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, whose executive director is Aaron Zelman of Hartford, Wis.

Zelman said his group produced the handbill and makes it available on its Web site but denied distributing it. “That’s what the Internet is for. Let someone else go do it.”

I suppose that just as Blacks can call each other the “N-word,” Zelman thinks the shock value of his handbills is worth resorting to his group calling Jews “bagel-brained” or such.

Personally, I don’t find this a helpful way to win over supporters to our cause — the fight for gun rights, and would prefer that our side take the high road and base our arguments upon the valid merits of resisting gun control laws.

Common sense still prevails there:

A proposal to require background checks on all persons buying firearms at gun shows in Minnesota failed to clear its first hurdle Wednesday before a House committee.

The measure failed by a vote of 5-3.

Well, maybe that’s over-stating it a bit. Still, the Democratic Governor of Wyoming has done the right thing:

This week, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal signed House Joint Resolution 2 (HJ0002), claiming “sovereignty on behalf of the State of Wyoming and for its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States.”

Best of all, I like what he wrote in a memo to his legislature a couple months ago:

“For decades we have shared increased frustration dealing with the federal government and its agencies. What started out as a leak in the erosion of state prerogative and independence has today turned into a flood. From wolf and grizzly bear management, to gun control, to endless regulation and unfunded mandates – the federal government has become far too powerful and intrusive.”

That could certainly serve as a preamble to the charter of the Tea Party.

This story might be more at home in England. From SFGate:

With unemployment still stubbornly high despite last year’s $800 billion fiscal stimulus, a top House Democrat and Bay Area lawmaker on Wednesday proposed sending cities $100 billion over the next two years to forestall predicted layoffs of hundreds of thousands of city workers, teachers and other local public employees.

And what happens in two years? Do they then get laid-off? So, these are temporary jobs being saved? Oh wait! Here comes the bogus claim by the Democrats:

Miller predicted his bill would immediately create 1 million jobs, counting spillover effects on private businesses that sell goods and services to public sector employees. He did not propose offsetting spending cuts or tax increases despite Democrats’ vow to institute pay-as-you-go budget rules, arguing that deficit spending is necessary to boost job growth.

But this $100 billion is about preventing municipalities from laying workers off. IF they are currently working, then the “private businesses that sell goods and services to public sector employees” are already there. How does this create 1 million jobs?

Sure, there are some valuable public service jobs that will be lost but the reality is that almost all cities and states have far too many public employees doing not very much and if there is one small good to the current economic situation, it is to force local governments to trim the excess fat. Of course, many localities instead just keep hiking sales or property taxes.

Keep that key handy. From the Boston Herald:

In a case that drew attention from the Gun Owners Action League and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday upheld a state law requiring trigger locks on guns kept in people’s homes.

In what was seen by some as a victory for law enforcement and advocates of gun control, the state’s highest court ruled that the Second Amendment does not restrict the right of Massachusetts to impose its own rules on gun ownership.

“We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms in [state law] is not unconstitutional,’’ Justice Ralph Gants wrote for the unanimous court.

This case stems from an incident in 2007 where a “developmentally challenged” 18-year-old got hold of his father’s BB gun and fired off a few shots from a window. I wrote about this case here.

I think this headline says it all:

Researchers: Men want sex until almost dead

Money well spent. Who’d have guessed it if scientists hadn’t done the investigation?

Because, you know, you just can’t regulate every little thing enough. From the Center for Consumer Freedom:

Not content with just trying to tax soft drinks, New York’s nanny-state politicians are also considering legislation to prohibit the use of salt in the preparation of restaurant food. Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced this absurdist bill on March 5. Ortiz is one of New York’s more strident food cops, having already introduced strict restaurant menu labeling proposals in the past. He is also following in the steps of fellow food nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg who went so far as to compare salt to carcinogenic asbestos.

Those McDonald’s fries will taste just great. And, the chefs of some of the greatest (real) restaurants will now serve you some of the blandest food you’ve ever tasted. You know what BYOB means? Now, it will be BYOS. You’ll have to sneak in that salt shaker you stole from the diner a few years ago.

Now, I will admit that salt is rather freely used, maybe overused, in many restaurants. The cheap ones. The fast-food ones. Not the good ones. In the good ones, the chefs know exactly what taste and sensation they are trying to achieve.

This legislation will effectively tie their (the chefs’) hands, or spice shelf, all in the name of [Say it all together now — ed.] “protecting you from yourself.”

The fact of the matter is that once again the government, in this case — as usual — the NY government, wants to control your life, in this case all that you eat. 5,000-years-ago, we’d have simply clubbed them to death. Alas, that’s not an option in these “enlightened” times.

I hate what this country is becoming.

Retail chains and small mom-and-pop shops alike put non-selling items on clearance sale. That’s just part of running a business. Right? Not to the professional victims class:

Walmart is raising eyebrows after cutting the price of a black Barbie doll to nearly half of that of the doll’s white counterpart at one store and possibly others.

[…]

A Walmart spokeswoman, who could not verify the exact store shown in the photo, said that the price change on the Theresa doll was part of the chain’s efforts to clear shelf space for its new spring inventory.

[…]

But critics say Walmart should have been more sensitive in its pricing choice.

“The implication of the lowering of the price is that’s devaluing the black doll,” said Thelma Dye, the executive director of the Northside Center for Child Development, a Harlem, N.Y. organization founded by pioneering psychologists and segregation researchers Kenneth B. Clark and Marnie Phipps Clark.

There’s more criticism but you get the gist.

Me? I think it’s reverse racism. It’s even discriminatory. White people (who are the most likely buyers of the “white Barbie” are being discriminated against by being charged more for their doll then black people buying the “black Barbie” are.

Why should the purchasers of “black Barbie” get a price break but not the buyers of “white Barbie?”

I cry foul!

See, I can be just as silly as anyone else.

In a new statement, the coffee cafe giant offered — or clarified — that franchise owners did not have to follow state law regarding “welcoming” — as the Brady Bunch puts it — openly carrying firearm owners. From the News Record (Ohio):

This week, Starbucks issued a statement indicating it would not bar customers from carrying guns where the local laws permit; however, businesses are allowed to prohibit customers from carrying firearms inside their stores regardless of state laws.

On the one hand, I’m cool with that because business owners should have some right to control their property. I’m also cool with gun owners using the exact same tactics that the Brady Bunch is using — including picketing and boycotting those businesses that refuse service to legally armed patrons.

Personally, I do not shop in any store displaying a “firearms prohibited” sign. That’s pretty much a non-issue in Vermont and New Hampshire since I don’t actually recall ever seeing such a sign.

The writer of the article in the News Record displays her own prejudices when she includes this inane paragraph:

This discussion steamed to a frothy head following a November shooting at a coffeehouse in Lakewood, Wash. A man carrying a gun opened fire at the coffeehouse, killing four Lakewood police officers.

Does she actually think that the mutant who murdered those four cops would have obeyed a “firearms prohibited” sign and waited outside or dropped his psychotic plans?

From an editorial in today’s LA Times, that is the bizarre logic of the Brady Bunch:

The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. . .

[…]

After hearing complaints from individuals concerned about “real-life Yosemite Sams,” as The Times describes them, the Brady Campaign kicked off its petition drive. Starbucks says it wants to be left alone. But imagine the outrage — possibly even on The Times’ editorial page — were the company to offer the same response after being cited for serving food tainted by E. coli.

Paul Helmke really is deranged. Starbucks does not “welcome” nor to they not welcome patrons who are legally carrying guns. They have taken no position at all other than to say that they defer to state law.

It’s interesting that while the Main Stream Media is currently obsessed with tactics of a Republican organization “using fear” for fund raising, there’s not a peep out of them when the Brady Bunch does the same (remember the Florida billboards warning tourists that Floridians have the right to CCW?) or all the constant claims that there will be “blood flowing in the streets” whenever a state loosened its gun laws.

He might deny it but Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley knows that the Supreme Court will probably nullify his city’s ban on handgun ownership. Rather than bow to the Constitution, he’s now trying to get Illinois to adopt yet more firearm regulations. From the Boston Herald:

Daley on Monday proposed legislation for the Illinois General Assembly requiring semi-automatic pistols manufactured or delivered for sale in the state to be capable of “micro-stamping.” The technology helps law enforcement link spent ammunition with the gun used to fire it.

The mayor also wants to make it a Class 1 felony to “knowingly sell or transfer a gun to a known gang member.”

Surely he must know that other states have tried “micro-stamping” and found that it has been found useless to law enforcement, and is easily defeated by those he really should be targeting — street gangs.

I’m sure he also knows that criminals — such as gang members and those unscrupulous enough to sell illegally gotten guns to them — could care less what the legal penalties are for violating any laws, new or old. I say illegally gotten because gang members typically steal their guns or get them through (illegal) straw purchasers.