The Specter Of Hypocrisy

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter officially confirmed today what anyone with a brain has always known; he's not a Republican. After decades of voting like a Democrat, Specter finalized his decades-long defection by making it official. Good riddance. Specter represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. Party support of him and others of his ilk are why people like me are not party members and do not make general campaign contributions. Why would I want my money to go to help elect people like Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich et al?

You'll read a lot about Specter's official defection, with lots of Benedict Arnold references. but in reality, Specter has not betrayed anything or anyone. On issues that matter most to true conservatives - big government, spending and taxes, judicial appointments - he has always shown himself to be much more in tune with liberals than conservatives. He has done a lot of despicable things in his career, but one incident stands out the most. In 2004, locked in a tight primary with Pat Toomey, Specter appealed to a then popular President Bush for help. In the first of many moves that would anger conservatives, Bush acquiesced, and his considerable cache helped carry Specter to a narrow, two percentage-point victory.

How did Specter thank him? The day after his 2004 re-election, with conservatives basking in gains in both houses, he came out and stated that the President had better not try to appoint any ultra conservatives (liberal-speak for judges who actually obey the Constitution) to the Supreme Court. What an arrogant, ungrateful, pandering bastard.

Facing certain defeat by Toomey in next year's primary, Specter read the tea leaves, and threw in his lot with the Democrats. He could have simply run as an independent, as did Joe Liebermann, but knowing that he would at best, finish second to the Democrat candidate in a three-way race, he made his journey towards the dark side complete. Rather than thirty pieces of silver, his reward will be a nice juicy committee chairmanship, and an opposition-free path through the (Democrat) primary.

This cowardly act just goes to show what a miserable piece of garbage he is. He's not doing this for noble reasons of conscience. He's doing this simply because he can not stand the thought of not being in power. That, my friends is the epitome of all that is wrong with American politicians in general.

Happy Belated Earth Day - No, Really

I just wanted to apologize to everyone for not wishing you a Happy Earth Day yesterday. I was flat out busy the whole day and just did not have time to post. I first had to get up early to get a hold of some leaded, racing gasoline for my chainsaw. You see, the ethanol that is in standard gasoline is like acid to two-cycle engines, and I really put my Stihl MS-310 through a workout.I had to take down a stand of pines, maples and oaks that are shading an area of my property. I want to use this area as arable land, and that's just not possible when the ground is all wet and marshy. Without the tree cover, it should dry up nicely. I'll also be able to use the hardwoods as firewood, but the pines are useless, so I'll just dry them out out a bit and burn them in a bonfire to get rid of them. I'm also going to have room now for a chicken coop and pen. I'm even thinking about some goats and cows. Well, not fully-grown cows, which take a lot of time, effort and space to raise properly. I have a good beef supply from my friend Bill anyway. so I'll just raise them for veal.

In fact, I then had to run out to my friend Bill's farm to pick up some steaks. Bill raises, butchers and packages his own hormone-free beef. It's pretty funny how every time I go over to his place he he has a fresh side or two of beef hanging from his front loader, draining blood. Not to get off topic, but he once told me a funny story about this one cow he had a problem taking out. He uses a .22 to the brain to kill them, and one time, the round missed the brain itself, and the startled animal broke out of the kill corral in a panic. Its not surprising since a cow's brain is about the size of a large walnut. I mean if they had a bigger brain like us then they would raise and eat us, right? Anyway, he had me in stitches describing this thing running around the place with a bullet in its head until he could finally administer the killing blow.

After saying goodbye, I rushed home to meet the guys from the tree-cutting-service I'm hiring to take down some trees on the other side of my property. These are 100+ foot monster pines that are too big and too close to the house for me to handle myself. Some are just shading the house too much, and some are just too damned ugly to look at. The great thing about these guys is that if I give them a minimum of 50-60 good trees, they don't charge me! So, I'm just going to let them pretty much cut down whatever they want. The wood won't go to waste though, as the logs will go right to a sawmill. So, we walked around and used orange spray-paint to mark the trees that will go. Boy, those chlorofluorocarbons really work well - no way will that paint wash off! The best part about this is that I'll be able to use the newly-cleared area to make my own private shooting range.

Finally.to end my busy day, I had to fire up the grill and cook those steaks for dinner - nice and medium-rare; mmmm mmmm good. So, as you can see, it was a pretty hectic day, and I hope you can forgive me for my tardiness. Once again, Happy Earth Day!

Even Iggy Can't Defend Comrade Obama On WEEI

Barely a peep from Iggy today. This was the first show with John and Gerry since Obama's Magical Marxist Tour. The boys spent nearly ten minutes lambasting The Chosen One, especially over his literally cozying up to Hugo Chaves, and not a single attempt at a defense or a word of rebuttal from Iggy. I guess even he isn't too brainwashed and uninformed to try to defend Obama's abominable behavior. Hopefully this is a sign that the biggest case of buyer's remorse in American electoral history is starting to set in. I would not hold my breath, though.

A follow-up on the Tea Parties. Many of the groups that helped organize it are planning a march on Washington for September 12th. I like it. It is a good next step. The elite media may have ignored and belittled the protesters and their cause, but lets seem them ignore hundreds of thousands (hopefully more) of patriots descending on that cesspool that is Washington D.C.

Birds Of A Feather, Iggy

Sorry for the layoff. My schedule this past week has been totally screwed up. Not much chance to listen to the show, and even less chance to write. I was able to read a few news stories over the weekend, though and I noticed a disturbing, yet not surprising trend with Iggy's messiah.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, Iggy has maintained that Obama is not a socialist. So how did he spend his weekend? Kissing up to the two biggest socialists in the Western Hemisphere! Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are two of America's greatest enemies. At least, that is, the America that is defined by the Constitution - you know, that thing that Obama swore to defend.

Of course, the Obama regime and its lemming defenders like Iggy, Everett, Jermaine, et al will counter that this just Obama "repairing America's worldwide reputation", or "engaging in constructive dialogue", but you need to call it what it is. A socialist, American president reaching out to fellow socialists.

A true American would rather cut out his tongue and lop of his hand, rather than speak with Castro or shake hands with Chavez. Instead, Obama embraces them. It is quite simply, birds of a feather, flocking together.

A Tea Party In Boston And Beyond

Iggy's been on quite a roll of silence as of late. During Emails and Buzzerbeaters, it sounded as if he had said something pretty stupid, but I must have missed it. About the dumbest thing I heard him say or do was knee-jerk defend Michelle Obama's "beauty". The rabbit ears are not because I think she is or is not attractive. To be honest, it does not matter either way. Now we could talk about how she's a racist, America-hating bitch, but that's another column.

With Iggy's reticence to reaffirm for us what a fool he is, I guess we're going to have to expand our horizons. One story that seems to have some legs is the growing Tea Party movement. Basically, people who are fed up with a government that confiscates its citizens' money and squanders it on things for which it has no constitutional justification, are fed up and organizing protests. They have been popping up nationwide, and some big ones are planned on tax day, April 15Th. These patriots are calling their protests Tea Parties, hearkening back to the pre-Revolution Boston Tea Party.

I'm not sure how this will pan out. It could just end up being a marketing scheme for swag, but I hope and pray that this is not the case. I've been hoping for years that something like this would happen. They won't really make a difference by themselves, as politicians care nothing either for the Constitution or for the plight of the people they bleed dry. I've always believed that because of the power of incumbency and the corruption that it spawns, ultimately, actions more resembling Lexington and Concord than the Boston Tea Party would be required to remove the shackles of government. Still, the Tea Parties are a good a start.

Allow me to make some predictions. The establishment left-wing media will cover as little of this story as possible. What little of it they do cover, they will attempt to portray as sour grapes from a bunch of white, racist, right-wingers who are upset that Obama is in office. The only pictures or video you will see in the N.Y. Times, CNN, MSNBC and the major networks, will be of angry-looking, middle-aged, white males. You will also see any protest signs and hear any chants that can be painted as racist in an attempt to marginalize the true sentiment and forces behind the protests. In fact, groups like ACORN have already gone on the record as to how they are working to undermine the events, by using planted operatives to hold up offensive signs and chant racist slogans. Aren't you glad that $4.5 billion dollars of your money were in the "stimulus bill" for groups like this? They are so confident that the media will play along, they have no problem brazenly announcing their insidious plans.

Just take a look at the above, linked story at what lefty Leslie Marshall had to say. Leslie Marshall, a nationally syndicated radio host, dismissed the tea party protests. She said the mainstream media are not covering them because they're not worthy of coverage. "It's not sexy. It doesn't bleed," she told FOX News, suggesting the protesters were doing the American Revolutionary a disservice by operating under the "tea party" name. "You have to look at our history. The reason these people revolted is they didn't want to pay taxes that were not presented by elected officials," she said. "Last time I checked, Obama's not taxing you to death -- he is spending to stimulate the economy and he is an elected official."

What a socialist shill. What an absolute fraud. The American Revolution happened because people did not want to pay taxes not presented by elected officials? Who needs to look at our history, Leslie? You are either a liar or a fool; perhaps even both. The American Revolution was not about taxation without representation. It was about government interference in the lives of people by a distant, tyrannical government. Back then, it was London; today it is Washington. Benjamin Franklin, the colonial representative in London prior to the revolution was under explicit orders not to accept parliamentary representation for the American colonies, because the colonials knew that they would be outvoted at every turn. All they could gain was the tyranny of the majority; which is exactly what we face today.

Obama is not taxing us to death? He is spending to stimulate the economy? Let's put aside the insanity that his brilliant solution to the recession is to take money out of the economy, so he can put it back in - after government employees get their cut. The truth is, Americans are being taxed to death, and have been for decades. Stop and think about what you really pay in taxes in a given year. There are federal, state and local income taxes. There are property taxes on our homes, vehicles, boats and a plethora of other belongings. There are sales taxes on everything beyond food and clothing. There are excise taxes on things we may or may not know. Gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, ammunition and more. Have you ever taken a look at your utillity, telephone or cable bill? More taxes galore! Then there are the indirect taxes. Additional costs built in to goods or services because of government regulation and interference in the marketplace that drive up the cost of business. I'm sure there are others I'm missing, but when you add it all up, Americans are paying forty, fifty, sixty percent or more of their income in taxes of some form or another every year. The tax that inspired the Boston Tea Party was a drop in the well. Adjusted for inflation, it amounted to only a few hundred dollars a year in today's dollars. Compared to the raping we endure today, it was a bargain.

This movement goes far beyond Obama. As I have written before, Obama's election is merely a symptom of America's disease. He is the festering boil of the bubonic plague. America suffers from a combination of envy and sloth. An ever-growing segment of the population has decided that life should consist of leeching off of the labors of others. We have simply reached the tipping point where a majority of the population has realized that they can vote themselves the earnings and possessions of others. The tyranny of the majority.

Second Ammendment Under Fire

Since for the fourth day in a row, Iggy just seems too beaten down to provide us with any topics of conversation, I thought I'd take a crack at a more general topic; specifically, the anticipated upcoming assault on our second amendment rights by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.

In the fall of 2008, as the frightening prospect of an Obamination became inevitable, the sale of firearms, ammunition and firearms parts began to rise sharply, with significant upticks immediately after the November elections and presidential coronation in January. What began as a swell has turned into a tsunami of panic buying and stockpiling reminiscent of the bank runs at the beginning of The Great Depression. The inevitable supply and demand result is both a scarcity of firearms and ammunition (not including breech-loading, single shot, long guns) and an increase in the cost of back-ordered items and whatever table scraps remain available at the retail level. Why the concern? The answer is obvious. We now have a Democrat president in the Oval Office, and a Democrat-controlled congress. The last time this was so was 1993-94, and what happened? Of course, The Assault Weapons Ban; appropriately named as it was an assault on law-abiding Americans' second amendment rights.

First, a little background information. A true assault weapon is one that can fire in fully automatic mode; that is by depressing the trigger, the weapon will continue to fire until it either depletes its ammunition source or the trigger is released. The legal ownership of fully automatic weapons in America has been severely limited since 1934 by the The National Firearms Act, and was further restricted by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. When someone hears the words assault weapon, the image of an AK-47 or an M-16 assault rifle usually comes to mind - an image which can be frightening to the uneducated or the indoctrinated.

What the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" did was to make it harder or impossible for Americans to obtain semi-automatic (where each depression of a weapon's trigger results in one round being fired) rifles, shotguns and even certain handguns. Wrapping the legislation in the cloak of a ban on legally obtaining those scary fully automatic weapons was a typical Democrat slight of hand tactic. Beyond the subterfuge of the name, the key word here is legally. As with all gun-control measures, legal restrictions never lead to a reduction of either crimes committed with guns or crime in general. Instead, they lead to a reduction in the number of law-abiding citizens who possess firearms, and usually also lead to an increase in violent crime rates. To turn an Obama phrase, its simply a common sense result. Criminals willing to face twenty-plus year sentences or even the death penalty to commit a robbery, rape or murder are not going to be dissuaded by a one or two year sentence for illegally obtaining a firearm. Instead, they merely end up having an easier time committing their crimes against a disarmed population.

When the 1994 ban was allowed to sunset in 2004, liberals howled in protest, predicting a wave of gun-fueled assaults, robberies, rapes, murders - and that was just by members of Congress! Of course none of their dire predictions came to fruition. This fact was never reported by the left-wing media, a classic example of how media bias is often not just how a story is reported, but whether or not it is even brought to light. This fact has also not stopped Obama from stating that he wants to re-institute the 1994 ban. In fact, the Obama administration has even lied about American-purchased weapons being the source of 90% of the weapons used by warring Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to create a pretext to bring back the ban.

Obama has also supported end-around attempts to institute firearms restrictions on law-abiding citizens without actually legislating against firearms themselves. For example, he has stated that he supports a 500% increase in the current federal ammunition tax of 11%, raising it to 55%. In effect, $100.00 of ammunition which currently has $11.00 of excise taxes applied would jump to $55.00 of excise taxes, raising the retail cost (before any local and state excise or sales tax) for a consumer from $111.00 to $155.00 dollars. Not only would this make ammunition more expensive for individuals, it would drive down the revenues of ammunition producers, making it harder for them to stay in business.

As a U.S. Senator he voted (no, not present) against a bill designed to protect gun manufacturers form frivolous lawsuits crafted not to punish them for any wrong doing, but rather to put them out of business under the guise that they are responsible for the scumbag who uses one of their products to kill a bunch of people during a robbery, for example. That's the same kind of logic which would allow the Kopeckne family to sue General Motors because Ted Kennedy used a Buick to kill their daughter. There are some very interesting facts about Obama's second amendment record here http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1045161.

Sometimes, these end-arounds are instituted at the state level. For example, Massachusetts lawmakers are considering legislation which would require all new handguns sold in the Commonwealth to be unable to fire if there is no magazine inserted into the weapon. Today, automatic handguns are still capable of firing a round left in the chamber, even if the magazine has been ejected. This sounds like "common sense" gun control, correct? Stupid people may assume a gun can not fire if it is not holding a magazine, so let's legislate it so. Who would be against that? It does not violate any second amendment rights, its just a safety rule! The rub is that law-enforcement officers in Massachusetts, as well as everyone else in the world, are still going to want handguns without this limitation. Browning, Beretta, Smith & Wesson and SigSauer are not going to spend millions retooling their production lines to produce the few thousand guns which may be sold in Massachusetts because it is not cost-effective. The result? Virtually no new automatic handguns would be available for sale in the Commonwealth. Mission accomplished!

The recent spate of highly publicized gun violence incidents in Oakland, Pittsburgh and Binghamton will merely embolden those who would rather deprive law-abiding citizens of their rights rather than create laws to punish perpetrators of crimes or heaven forbid - allow more people the right to defend themselves and their fellow citizens. The receptionist who was shot and played possum, enabling her to dial 911 for help is being lauded, correctly, as a hero for her actions. Police arrived on the scene within two minutes of her call, and the local chief of police has stated that her actions saved 30-40 lives, God bless her. That should not stop you from asking how many additional lives would have been saved had she happen to have been armed. The police took only two minutes to arrive on scene; a .45 would have put that coward Voong down in seconds.

At this point, you might be thinking I'm some militia member gun nut. The fact is, at age 39, I had never even fired, let alone owned a gun until two months ago. While I was an avid supporter of second amendment rights, I was one of those people who wondered why people needed so many guns, and why gun owners are against virtually every piece of gun-control legislation. I'm fortunate enough that five years ago, I moved to a location where I should never need one for home defense. However, faced with life in Obamination, I realized that that I could not afford to take the chance that should I ever find myself in that situation at some future point in time, I would no longer be able to legally obtain one. As with anything I do in life, I did significant research to determine which gun or guns would meet my needs, to ensure that I complied with federal and state statutes.

Now informed, I understand that guns are a lot like tools. Each has a specific task, and you don't use a hammer when you need a screwdriver. To put in in golfing terms, you don't use a putter to tee off. I also understand the resistance to anti-gun legislation. First, each new law is an intentionally laid brick in the wall that liberals are trying to build between law-abiding Americans and the second amendment. It's ironic, that liberals have used the "slippery slope" argument so often to justify some of their more unappetizing values to ordinary Americans, yet when it comes to gun control, claim that no such slope exists. Make no mistake about it, it exists, and the left has been pouring fifty-five gallon drums of 10W-30 on it for years.

A second reason to oppose most anti-gun control legislation is for practical reasons. Think back to that Massachusetts legislation that would force new automatic handguns to not be functional when it not containing a magazine. Now, let's assume a homeowner is engaged in a gun battle with three criminals during a home invasion. As a law-abiding citizen of the People's Republic of Massachusetts, he is armed with (for example) a .45 caliber automatic with a ten round clip - ten rounds being the legal limit in Massachusetts. The criminals are armed with whatever they want, legal or otherwise, because they are criminals. Mid-confrontation, the homeowner, not knowing how many rounds he has left, has a brief moment to change magazines - a process which even the best-trained individual requires 2-3 seconds to accomplish in the best of circumstances. Should one of his attackers suddenly appear in the midst of this change, being able to fire that round still in the chamber would sure come in handy, wouldn't it?

Ultimately, it comes down to the goal of the anti-gun lobby. They don't want gun-control enacted because they think it will curb violence - they know that all of the evidence is to the contrary. What they really want is a nation where the only people who have guns are the police and the military. Before you say that sounds like a good idea, take a gander at these twentieth century statistics. If the left truly wanted to reduce violent crime, they would join with groups like the NRA in supporting things like twenty year sentences for people who commit a crime with a gun, instead of trying to punish innocent. law-abiding citizens for the crimes of others.

It simply comes down to the fact that liberals know that as long as Americans have the ability to defend their rights, their property and themselves, the left will not be able to impose their socialist regime upon us. The second amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to allow Americans to hunt, or defend themselves from criminals. It was intended to ensure that Americans would always have the ability to defend themselves from, and if necessary, overthrow, a tyrannical government. Remember, without guns, we'd still be subjects, not citizens.

Iggy Rodham Clinton Makes An Appearance In Boston

I was starting to think that I would need a government bailout for the blog, but boy did the Witless Wonder come through for us. During a discussion about Obama's plans to cap charitable deductions, someone posed the question as to why a good socialist like Obama did not care about charities. Iggy whined that his messiah was not a socialist, and asked "When did Obama ever declare himself a socialist?" He then went on to claim that the Chosen One's socialist label is all a vast right-wing conspiracy. Yes, he actually used those exact words.

Iggy, when did Stalin ever declare himself a mass-murderer? When did Jimmy Carter ever declare himself an incompetent fool? When did Keith Olbermann ever declare himself a gratuitous, partisan hack? You judge people by their actions, not by what they say, or by what they call themselves. Obama wants to force one group of people to give up more of what they earn so that it can be given to another group of people. That is socialism. Obama wants the government to provide health care for all Americans, whether they want it or not. That is socialism. Obama is instituting government subsidization and control of American private companies on an unprecedented scale. That is socialism. Obama is overseeing the largest expansion of government in American history. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, its a duck Iggy.

Getting back to the issue of capping charitable contributions, of course that will directly lead to a decrease in charitable contributions. The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world will still give their millions, and Iggyots will pounce on those news stories as proof that people are still donating to charities. However, it is the people who contribute the largest percentage of total contributions, the people who give $100 or $500 or $1,000 dollars at a time who will give less, but again, facts are irrelevant when you're talking to a liberal. Obama knows this to be true, and he does not care because this is part of the plan. He gains twofold with this new tax policy. First, he will get his hands on more taxpayer dollars to disperse as he see fits, allowing him to buy more votes and more support. Second, he will reduce the amount of money charities will get to perform their altruistic works, thus creating greater need that can only be resolved by what else? More government assistance! It's the classic approach behind the mob's protection rackets. Create a problem, solve the problem, and then be thanked for it by the suckers you screwed!

We were then treated to a series of Iggyot callers (Chach must have been in the bathroom). John said that he supports Obama because he thinks that the government should "regulate greed". Yes, he said that. He also said that there's a point when people make enough money. John, who the hell are you, Obama or anyone else to decide what is "enough" for some else? Aside from the fact that there is no constitutional authority to allow the government to do that, what is enough? One million? Ten million? One hundred million? Who gets to decide what that magic number is? What happens when that Lord Torquemada decides to set that number at say $50,000? Of course the Iggyot's response to that question is "oh that's just stupid, that will never happen". Says who? Two years ago, the idea of a sitting president firing the CEO of a private company would have been laughed at as insane! Once you start down the path of arbitrary adjudication, the perceived line that is not supposed to be crossed gets moved a little further down the road with every decision made.

We then got to listen to Mike say that we are neither currently a socialist country nor moving towards being one. Mike, Obama just fired the CEO of GM! Even before that, even before Obama, we were a socialist country. You can not start a business to produce goods or services without government interference, and hence control. The government tells you how you can make something, where you can do it, when you can do it, whom you have to hire to do it, and forces you to contribute to a ponzi scheme disguised as a government-managed (their word, not mine) retirement fund. On top of that, they will tax your business at a confiscatory rate, and then tax any of the remaining money again should you decide to distribute it to shareholders or the owners of the company. Sounds like socialism to me.

We were then treated to the insights of Everett from Brighton. His first gem was that we are in this current mess position because of people in power without ethics doing the wrong thing. For once, I actually agreed with him; that's a perfect description of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. He than went on to insult us all, saying that most people, given the chance to make a million dollars by putting ten people they did not know in "financial burden" would do it. Your lack of eloquence aside Everett, I think that this is less a reflection of Americans in general, and more a reflection of the people with whom you choose to associate. Insert birds of a feather axiom here.