Let me see if I understand all this...

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, CREDIT CARDS, SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON AND IN MANY INSTANCES YOU CAN VOTE.

THIS JUST SHOULDN'T HAPPEN ITS TIME WE STOOD UP AND STOP THIS IN AMERICA...

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 11:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

A good friend of Beth's is the host of a great military group blog called A Soldiers Perspective. C.J. is an career soldier in the Army with years of combat experience in SO; as a result of his (some horrific, as any combat veteran can attest !) experiences, he suffers from PTSD (who WOULDN'T?)... The fact that he is dealing with this condition should be NOBODIES business but his own and his immediate family; if he discusses it with anyone else in the spirit of attempting to educate them about this condition; it should be lauded as an honorably unselfish act of educating that person above and beyond the call of duty.

The Army has come a long way of de-stigmatizing this condition in it's members, treating it as a reasonable and TREATABLE mental response to the extremely unreasonable and traumatizing events that occur on an almost daily in combat situations. HOWEVER, it seems that some segments of our society have become so pacifistic that they recoil in horror to think that anyone might have to cope with such a condition; imagining that people suffering from the condition are all open powder-kegs just waiting to be set off with the merest hint of anxiety.

Here are the basic facts:

1) The school district where C.J. sends his children go to school recently decided that they were going to institute a uniform dress policy in their district.

2) The authorities of the district held a Parents meeting to "get input from the parents on the new policy.

3) Said meeting, it turned out, was NOT to "gather input", but rather an authoritarian statement that:

A. the new policy would be instituted at the start of the next semester.

B. that the policy wasn't merely a set guideline policy, ( I.E. "students would be required to wear blue slacks and white shirts") but a policy that the students would be required to wear a school uniform only available at a certain supplier (at a cost of somewhere in the neighborhood of $300.00 per student for a couple of complete sets of uniforms).

Now C.J. is NOT adverse to the idea of a uniform policy, he wears his own uniform proudly every single working day of his life; what he objected to was being told that, with less than 40 days notice, he would be obligated to lay out $600 to $700 in clothing to equip all of his children with said uniforms to meet the new criteria. Believing the meeting to be a two way exchange of information; he spoke up, requesting that the implementation of the policy be delayed until the start of the next school year so as to allow the many military families with children attendant at the school the time to budget for the new expense. He was told that that "just wasn't feasible", and of course he wanted to know WHY that it wasn't -- loudly the second or third time he was rebuffed from being given an answer. His objections were supported by a large portion of the parents present and the meeting ended in somewhat of a tense atmosphere, to say the least...
If only that was the end of the story... the next day C.J.'s children were called out of class and questioned about "that man that had made such a fuss" and it was discovered that C.J. wrote for a blog; the officials read the blog and discovered that C.J. had been diagnosed with P.T.S.D., whereupon said officials grew mightily afraid, and have started proceedings to have C.J. legally barred from entering the school without having security escort him, and called his commanding officer to inform him that they consider him a "danger", possibly even to his own children...a great fuss to make because he reasonably objected to being dictated to by an unelected bunch of bureaucratic "education experts" issuing their DIKTATS to the unwashed minions over which they feel they have authority.

The fact that they contacted C.J.'s military commanders and informed them that "he has P.T.S.D. and therefore is unstable/dangerous" is just so far beyond the pale in intruding on C.J's privacy as to be in the stratosphere. To possibly try to threaten his career or even his parenting role over a school policy disagreement is out to the orbit of Saturn in it's ignorance and pettiness.

That, in this case, these ultra metro-sexual, "sheepdog" fearing, patchouli smelling, (presumably)Democrat voting assholes are members of the so-called "professional educators" cadre (who are presumably highly educated to know better) makes that attitude even more offensive to any correct thinking human being.

C.J. is contacting a lawyer to see what options he might have, but it's too bad he has to go to that extent, and I hope there are enough of us out there that, like me, will be willing to help support him in whatever manner we can in this tempest in a school teapot. The issues involved are a microcosm of what is wrong in our nation today; overreaching mini-tsars trying to dictate our freedom to dissent and our privacy...always "for our own good" of course, and in a "WE'RE the PROFESSIONALS, so we know what's best" manner.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 879 words, total size 5 kb.

From the un-FRICKINbelievable file comes this story from the Loony Left coast...seems an apt manager has told all the residents of the complex that they must take down any flag that they may be displaying, including Old Glory, or face eviction.

Seems that Management is afraid that "someone might be offended" by the display of any flag, whether it's the American flag, a military branch flag, or even just a sports team; and the ban extends even to those flags or even decals of flags displayed on vehicles.

The person Leftist PC/Multiculturist Whiner responsible for making the decision refuses to make any comments on the matter to the press.

I don't know about you, but anyone telling me I have to remove the American and PGR flags proudly waving from the back of my motorcycle would best watch out lest they get run over by said motorcycle when I ride off ignoring their BullCrap.

Here are some of my fellow PGR riders...I would dare that PC Whining piece of crap masquerading as a human being tell us as a group to remove our flags from our bikes. In fact, I think it might be apropos for any PGR unit in the area to hold a military memorial service in front of the Oaks Apartment rental office in Albany, Oregon.

The sensory overload of that much patriotism in open view would surely cause severe apoplexy in said PCWPOC, and, for the record,I personally think that would be a GOOD thing.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 10:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 2 kb.

While perusing the local paper today, I came upon this interesting tidbit (August 29, 2009 in the archives)..seems that the oh-so-brilliant "professional educators" in the Brownsburg school district have decided that they will drastically cut back on the teaching of cursive writing in their grade schools. It isn't enough that the curriculum in the public schools systems has been "dumbed down" to the point where they are graduating functional illiterates so that little Johnny can't read, but they don't think Johnny really needs to be able to write, either. They will teach him to be able to write his name with a pen, but for the most part, they decided to concentrate on his being able to type instead.

I remember how much difficulty I had in learning cursive when I was in the second and third grade (sorry for being such a trial, Mrs. Biddle!), and I still have handwriting more worthy of a doctor's prescription pad than any sort of calligraphy in anyone's estimation; it was still a project worthy of the attempt, for the discipline it imposed if nothing else. This is just the latest example of the declining quality of a public school education ever since the Federal government became involved with public education with the founding of the Department of Education in 1980.

The DoE currently has 4,200 full time employees and an annual budget of $68.6 billion. I believe we as taxpayers have been totally remiss in demanding a decent return on our investment. Turning over our children's educations to the tender mercies of the NEA and other professional Teachers Unions has been an unmitigated disaster by any reasonable measure you could propose.

The NEA would have you believe it's because we aren't spending enough, yet expenditures have risen every year since the DoE was founded, and the end results have grown more dismal with every passing year. Those districts that spend the most, on the whole, tend to have the worst results by every accepted standard.

WE the PEOPLE need to get more involved with the process and DEMAND that REAL reforms be made, beginning with the abolishment of the National Department of Education. Control needs to be remanded back to the local level, where parents AND teachers can have more control over what is taught and how it is taught.

If the Brownsburg parents allow their school district to get away with not doing what they are paid to do, they are being remiss in their responsibilities to their children. IMHO They should fire the person(s) responsible for this idiotic decision and get people in those positions of power to actually effect real school reforms. They shouldn't have to fear the threat of a loss of federal funds because they refuse to follow the dictates of the latest fad in educational theory.

The old truism is that "them that pay get to make the rules" and the Federal government should never have gained the power to dictate to the local districts.
It's up to us to strip that power away and put it back in our own hands, where it belongs.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 07:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

Why is it that when protests are held by every Left wing America hating fringe group, the MSM media portrays them as being "freedom loving activists" but whenever a protest is held by those that merely want the Constitution to be held to that they are "out of touch" Rightwing wacko's ?

This pResident is proposing to nationalize one sixth of our GDP without so much as a question raised, and those questioning that trend are portrayed as "haters", "Racists", or worse.

Question the pResident? Unpatriotic! Dangerous! Un-American!

Yet look back over the last eight years and I challenge you to find a day where President Bush wasn't vilified by protesters, or worse, members of the MSM itself.

Remember this?

This is one of the signs that President Bush was greeted with by hostile protesters on a fund raising trip to Portland, Oregon, in August 2002. Patriotic? Mild?, Americanism at it's finest? I dun't theenk so, Lucy!

Those afflicted with a bad case of BDS are STILL blaming President Bush for everything under the sun from the economy to the heartbreak of psoriasis, six months after he's been out of power.

Accuse me of ODS if you will, at least I can point to FACTS WHY I detest the actions of the current occupant of the Oval Office, not some amorphous accusations that he's evil incarnate.

At least the anti-ObamaCare crowd isn't being paid to appear!

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 08:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

"Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation."

Oh REALLY ?!? Tell me that if it had been a gang of WHITE teenagers attacking a BLACK family that it wouldn't be plastered across NATIONAL headlines as a "hate crime", instead of just a puff piece in the local rag with the Police doing the usual "not enough information at this time to say" shuffle.

I do not subscribe to the "hate crime" law mentality, and this is one of the reasons why, such legislation always seems to end up giving minority (whether racial, cultural or sexually orientated) segments of the population preferential treatment under the law, to the detriment of everyone else. Having said that, just tell me in the name of all that is just could an incident where one racial group attacks another racial group, while SAYING in essence that is was motivated by the other groups race (this is OUR/a black world?) that it could NOT be a hate crime under any sane equally applied definition ?

All the race pimping organizations will no doubt defend the youts by spouting out the same old tired rhetoric as "merely being frustrated by being treated as a second class citizen by a white power structure" and calling for "more understanding and tolerance of the Black mans condition/place in our society"..

I say call a spade a spade and treat these punks as just what they are, racist hoodlums and gangsta wannabes. Charge them with assault resulting in serious bodily injury and sentence them accordingly if found guilty, and tack on the extra time assigned to "hate crimes" to boot to demonstrate the message that we ARE all equal under the law and that racially motivated crimes will be punished more severely. As I said, I don't subscribe to "hate crime" legislation, but as long as that legislation is on the books, apply it equally for all races/cultures/orientations.

H/T to my friend Eddie H.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

You're an 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley , 11-14-1965, LZ X-ray, Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in.

You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you're not getting out. Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.

Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see an un-armed Huey, but it doesn't seem real, because no Medi-Vac markings are on it.

Ed Freeman is coming for you. He's not Medi-Vac, so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come.

He's coming anyway.

And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board.
Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the Doctors and Nurses.
And, he kept coming back.... 13 more times..... And took about 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out.

Medal of Honor Recipient, Ed Freeman, died last Wednesday at the age of 80, in Boise, ID ......May God rest his soul.....
I bet you didn't hear about this hero's passing, but we sure were told a whole
bunch about some Hip-Hop Coward beating the crap out of his "girlfriend"


Medal of Honor Winner
Ed Freeman

Shame on the American Media. Heroes are forgotten, but goats are beatified.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

SHAME......Shame is exactly what I felt when I heard of the travesty that is occurring in my Birth land.

With the Appellate Courts' recent decision from Den Hague against Geert Wilders last Wednesday, freedom of speech is officially dead in the Netherlands. (And as Den Hague is in reality really the U.N. "World Court"; by extension, there is no longer truly free speech in the rest of Europe either.)

When a duly and freely elected member of a government can no longer be free to speak his mind; what chance is there for any of the rest of us? Mr. Wilders is now headed to stand trial for "inciting hate speech" for his film "Fitna".

Misha has a link to Fitna on LiveLeak over at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. I would have posted it here as well, but it seems LiveLeak doesn't like my formatting (besides, Misha deserves the heads up on this one, that darned Dane.)

Go and watch the movie....note that Geert only has two (of his own lines) in the entire film, and they amount to "fight extremism before it overwhelms us". Really hateful huh?!? The entire film is merely excerpts from the Quran and PUBLIC speeches of spiritual(!?) leaders of Islam. If anyone was hateful and inciting of violence it was the Imams and Muslim heads of state, not Mr. Wilders.

If you feel as I do, please, Please, PLEASE, sign the International Petition to halt this travesty at: http://www.petitiononline.com/wilders/petition.html ( H/T to HoosierArmyMom)

This is one time I hope a lot of Democrats participate -- vote often and use fake names/the dead to raise the count, if need be, to win the day.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:56 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

The next time you hear someone talking about how "brutal" the Israelis are in their actions in Gaza, watch this:

Ask yourself : WHAT would I do if I knew that at any given moment any member of my family would only have 15 SECONDS to find cover before being blown apart from a missile mindlessly directed in their direction?

Would YOU try to "analyze the background circumstances" or "just show patience" towards the perpetrators of such an act? Or would you expect someone to go kick ass and take names later?

REMEMBER, the perpetrators of these heinous acts AREN'T soldiers that fight in units against other soldiers; they are cowards that operate from the middle of civilian areas to provide protection from retaliation for themselves; preferring to hide behind innocent women and children rather than fighting against an enemy face to face. "Collateral damage" is inevitable in such circumstances, but should be placed at the feet of the cowards using civilians as cover, not the soldiers doing the best they can to eliminate a deadly threat from the center of those civilians.

To paraphrase Golda Meier: "There will be no peace in Israel until the Muslims love their children more than they hate the Jews."

Remember when reading stories from most of the MSM; no matter what they or the Dictator-loving Bastards "Diplomats" of the U.(seless) N.(itwits) say; Israel did NOT start the hostilities. In MHO they should be allowed to end them in the only true way possible; TOTAL defeat of the enemy. War in never pretty and that should never be forgotten, but there are worse things than war, and in this situation, it is the ONLY way to achieve a lasting peace.

Israel has tried giving land for peace.
She has tried to give an autonomous state to those seeking to destroy her.
She has made cease-fire after cease fire,peace pact after peace pact; only to be attacked by the other side before the ink has dried.

Enough! Cry havoc and release the dogs of war to do their brutal business.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 03:24 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 3 kb.

If you want to know how we got to where we are in the current economic crises just watch this:

And note that one of the main culprits in this fiasco is Mr. Raines, who is now 'TEH ONE'S' main economic advisor....Be Afraid, be VERY Afraid.

Here is an even better breakdown of the whole mess:

And here is a PPS that shows how "creative financing" has caused this mess. (you'll have to hit "download original file" to get the graphics)

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 02:00 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

Nicholas Provenzo writes at World of Reason:
"A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others."

I have known quite a few parents of "special needs" children, NONE of them wealthy by any objective standard, and I have yet to see any of them taking any undue assistance to help care for those children.

I am glad to see this type of blather out in the open however, as it does raise some good points of discussion...by following Mr. Provenzo's standards, taken to their logical conclusions; we should do away with all social aid, because, after all; those with mental disabilities, or on welfare,Medicaid for poor children,Social Security, SS Disability ( YIKES, THAT includes ME!!), or on any number of other programs are "undue burdens on the social body" and ergo should be (at least in the case of the unborn) aborted. I suppose I should look for the nearest euthanasia center and turn myself in? And of course, since in Mr. Provenzo's view, I made a "profoundly selfish choice" by having children, and since I'll no longer be around to care for them (having done the socially responsible thing and terminating myself); they'll need to be given the old heave-ho too, all in the interest of the avoiding any needless cost to society, of course.

"After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent's personal desire to create new life."

Too bad Mr. Provenzo's mother was so damned selfish, or we wouldn't have to try to comprehend such idiocy as he spouts.

I consider myself a small "l" Libertarian with Fiscal Conservative leanings; I do NOT believe in unlimited welfare just because a certain segment of the population at large is too damned lazy to get off their collectivist asses and provide for themselves, but I do believe that there is a certain social responsibility for the less fortunate, I just believe that it should be the provenance of mostly private charities and religious groups, with very little done by Government. For purposes of full disclosure, I myself depend on the largess of the Public Teat in the form of SSD...and I admit it is somewhat hypocritical of me to accept such aid and rail against the unfairness of it at the same time, and I accept that accusation of that hypocrisy as being all too true.
At the same time, the state of my physical condition precludes me from doing anything else. Should the Government aid end tomorrow; it would be a disaster for me personally, yet I would still hail it as a step forward for the Country at large.

Mr. Provenzo cares not one whit for the public good, he is only concerned with sustaining the selfishness of the pro-abortion crowd. Make no mistake, it is NOT 'pro-choice' - it's 'pro-abortion', as is more than proven by Mr. Provenzo's linking of the termination of Downs Syndrome babies to abortion of any fetus in general, at the whim of the mother.

It's interesting that the pro-abortion crowd is constantly claiming that social conservatives are always trying to 'force their morality' on them, yet it seems that they are in fact the ones trying to force their 'morality' on the body politic.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 10:21 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.

Seems that the U.S. isn't the only place with it's share of moon-bats, in this story out of Surrey, the U.K., a soldier was refused service in a hotel simply because he was a soldier.

Corporal Tomos Stringer, wounded in a convoy ambush in Afghanistan, was in Surrey to participate in a fallen comrade's' funeral when he was refused a room on the basis of his being a member of the Armed Services at the Metro Hotel in Woking, Surrey.

Guess Kipling was right when he wrote :

"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!"

Hope all the Brit Vets and Active Duty don't let this pass without comment; I also hope it to be a given that we here are grateful for the service of ALL the troops engaged in the WoT, no matter what their country of origin. People like Cpl. Stringer are much better than some of the people they defend deserve.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 06:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

I was forwarded this information from the NRA web site by another member of my 2nd Amendment group, and I think that any open-minded person that reviews these FACTS will realize that Barry HUSSEIN Obama is the last person we would want to consider as our President.

As the article states, don't listen to the empty rhetoric, look at the concrete ACTIONS Obama has taken in the past to get the measure of the man, and remember that character DOES matter.

Remember that even though the NRA collated the information, that information came from verifiable independent/public sources, so don't reject it out of hand as 'partisan gun propaganda'.

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.
But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. DonÂ’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

FACT: Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of 2 of the 5 Justices that affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. In the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored SB-1136, which would have amended Illinois licensing laws by increasing the requirements for the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification card. When asked about registration during the Nevada Democratic debate on January 17, 2008, Obama did not oppose it, but simply stated, “I don’t think that we can get that done.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15demdebate-transcript.html?pagewanted=all)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.

16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.

IF YOU NEED MORE PROOF OF OBAMA'S STANCE VIS A VIS THE 2ND AMENDMENT; HERE IT IS IN HIS OWN WORDS:

Concealed Carry

"...I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry," Obama said. Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

Ammunition Retrictions -- "micro-stamping"

"There was a discussion today about a law that has just passed in California that allows micro-tracing of bullets that have been discharged in a crime so that they can immediately be traced," he said. "This is something that California has passed over the strong objections of the NRAÂ…That's the kind of common sense gun law that gun owners as well as victims of gun violence can get behind." Barack Obama, Feb. 15, 2008 Baltimore Sun.com Feb. 15, 2008

Local Gun Bans

"I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun lawsÂ…The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C.," he said. Barack Obama, Feb. 15, 2008 Baltimore Sun.com

Licensing and Registering gun owners

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don't think that we can get that done.

2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 12:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1123 words, total size 8 kb.

As usual, the New York Slimes are in the wrong on an important issue.

The way I look at it, the subject of the story got 1.5 MILLION (!??) in medical care that he did NOT have any right to expect in the first place.

My regular readers know that I have intimate knowledge with expensive medical care -- My OWN, and I don't have any national news rag bemoaning that my insurance doesn't nearly cover all the costs. I just try to get my medical providers to take what I can afford to pay monthly on what I owe until the debt is settled; they usually go along with this, knowing full well that, with my income level, I will be dead before I get anywhere near to retiring the debt, the important thing being that I'm trying to repay.

I don't feel any responsibility whatsoever towards people that are breaking our laws by the simple fact of just being here. It's a slap in the face to everyone that took the time,trouble, and in some cases, the money, to come here legally.
We don't help in their health care any more than we do for any other citizen, so why ARE WE SO BLOODY DETERMINED TO GIVE THE STORE AWAY TO THOSE THAT COME HERE ILLEGALLY?
Sorry to yell, it just chaps my ass to even consider this subject...and to be talked down to by my "betters" at the NYS about it is just the frosting on the shit cake.

NO ONE is turned away in our hospitals when they need critical care; they may be saddled with a large debt load the rest of their lives, but even there, the key is merely showing a willingness to do what you reasonably can to repay.

I find it infuriating that medical costs are so high due in large part to (usually well meaning) governmental interference in medical care, and the insurance industry; meanwhile HOSPITALS are forced by economics to do what the government SHOULD be doing, ie; deporting illegals.

The health care system in their home country sucks? How is that OUR problem?!? Sometimes, it just sucks to be a furriner IMHO (one reason why I became a LEGAL citizen of the U.S.).

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 09:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

Here is yet another example of Britain going down the totalitarian tube. I have no doubts that such an event either already has, or soon will, occur here in the U.S.

That is the nature of Socialism; our "Betters" will always be on the lookout for ways to "protect" us from our own bad habits. Every little nanny type group wants to use the force of law to enforce their own agenda.

Even though the initial regulations may seem well meaning and/or reasonable at the outset, it doesn't take long for the extremist elements to take them to heights never dreamed of at the time of inception.

"FEELINGS" are never a good basis for laws. But ask a Liberal about any subject and he'll tell you his FEELINGS on the matter. Ask a conservative the same question, and he'll tell you his THOUGHTS about the matter. No matter how the Left tries to conflate the two; FEELINGS and THOUGHTS are two entirely different things.

Disgusting that the sheeple just fall right in line because of inculcated, meaningless mantras such as "it's for the Children" or "We need to be fair" , when in actual fact that those matters usually have no bearing on the proposal being debated. But by invoking the mantra, they can intimidate the Right by saying "see? - you don't care about the kids/fairness/ insert accusation here", thus ending any meaningful debate on the merits of a proposal and sending it into the realm of having to put up a defense against the accusations. In other words, if the facts aren't on your side, bedazzle the opposition with bullshit and make it about the accusation/opponent rather than the proposal itself.

In the interests of full disclosure: I was a two/three pack a day smoker for over 32 years. The ONLY reason I quit was having a Cardiologist AND my Surgeon telling me that just one cigarette could possibly be fatal to me after my SECOND bypass/heart valve surgery (I was a slow learner). I had my last cigarette on August 16, 2006 at 0630. It has been difficult to stop from having that next puff, even now, two years later. Like an Alcoholic, you are NEVER an EX-smoker, just a recovering one, one day ( and it sometimes seems one hour) at a time. It would be a little easier if there weren't so many damned anti-smoking PSA's on TV.
/rant

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:57 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 2 kb.

Obama Hopey-McChangetude promises CHANGE after he is elected...Democrats promised CHANGE when they gained control of the House and The senate in 2006, and for once,they DELIVERED on that promise...how is that working out for YOU?

Do you REALLY want more change like this?

Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/ 2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

Since voting in a Democratically controlled Congress in 2006 we have seen:

1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 $4.00 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $ 1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure .

America voted for 'change' in 2006, and we got it! Do we really need more of the same?

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 07:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems that Muslims haven't better things to do than be offended at anything and everything....now it's a PUPPY sitting in a policemans hat...in a PSA ad!

Here is the ad:

My suggestion to those shopkeepers that found that poster so offensive: boycott using that telephone number, or even better, that police force when trouble raises it's ugly head. Ululate on your prayer rug to your hearts content and then complain when the results aren't what you wish, at least then it will be obvious to even the most devoted diversity appeasement advocate just what an asshat you are.

Thanks to Misha for the link

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:20 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, the Demoncrats are finally bold enough to show their true Socialistic heart. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) proposed that the oil companies and refineries be nationalized, Rep. Maxine Waters(D-CA) agrees.

Kim Du Toit has the right idea: ANY polititian that proposes nationalization of any sector of private companies should be immediately be stripped of office for breaking their Constitutional oath of office. I would go a step furthur and add that some form of legal consequences be added to that. The statement that "they have the freedom of speech to say what they wish" is a true strawman, they do have the right to SAY anything they wish, but when their proposed actions violate their oaths of office, all bets are off, and there ARE SHOULD be consequences to be faced. Free Speech is NOT a defense for malfeasance.

Incidentally, Maxine, "the People" DO own those companies already, they're called SHAREHOLDERS, maybe you should go back to school and LISTEN this time in Economics class.

Democrats are all about injecting government into all aspects of our lives; experience has shown any of the THINKING people still left out here that government is the WORST choice to run ANY sort of undertaking (Amtrak ring a bell?...public education?...Medicare?), and the bigger the goverment, the worse their performance.

If we don't start holding our elected officials responsible for their actions, we will soon get the tyrany that we will deserve by that inaction.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.

ItÂ’s time to unlock the treasure chest.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 02:17 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

The issue of border security is one of the most important issues facing us today, with an estimated 20 MILLION illegal aliens already here and thousands more crossing our border every day, it is imperative that we do everything that we possibly can to halt this influx as soon as possible if we are to continue existing as a sovereign nation. With this in mind, the President proposed building a fence on our Southern border to try to help accomplish this goal, and after over two years of factional wrangling, the Congress finally provided enough funding to start building it.

Now a group of fourteen Democrats, pressured by some activist groups as the Sierra Club and the Defenders of Wildlife, that seem to be more concerned over displacing a few animals than in protecting our borders from potential terrorists and the unchecked flow of illegal immigrants; are using those concerns in order to continue their political fight against the President in stopping the fence.

That this fight is led by the CHAIRMAN of the Congressional Homeland Security Committee, Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), makes it all the more obvious that this is a partisan attack on the Administration, not just a new found streak of political environmentalist fervor.
Remember Mr. Thompson, you were elected to protect your human constituents from all enemies, foreign and domestic; not to ensure totally perfect habitat for some obscure flora and fauna. You should resign from your Chairmanship if you can not keep that as your primary mission goal.

The point at issue is whether or not environmental waivers issued by the DHS are constitutional or not. The DHS was granted the power to issue these waivers by Congress in order to expedite the construction of the fence.

As noted in a press conference made by DHS in announcing these waivers the DHS spokesman noted that:

A substantial portion of the project areas addressed by these waivers have already undergone environmental reviews. In those areas where environmental reviews have not yet occurred, the department will conduct a review before any major construction begins. The department remains deeply committed to environmental responsibility, and will continue to work closely with the Department of Interior and other federal and state resources management agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized.

But that isn't good enough for the "perfect or nothing" environmentalists or their "put party before security" cronies in the Congress.

Here are the fourteen that put the fate of the Hog-snouted Mole and the Dengue Fever carrying Southern Desert Rat before YOUR security concerns:

Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Homeland Security Committee Chairman

John Conyers (D-MI), Judiciary Committee Chairman
John Dingell (D-MI), Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman
Bob Filner (D-CA), Veterans Affairs Chairman
George Miller (D-CA), Education and Labor Committee Chairman
James Oberstar (D-MN), Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), Intelligence Committee Chairman
Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Rules Committee Chairwoman

Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY)
Susan Davis (D-CA)
Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)

Remember these people in November, and let them know how you feel about their partisan maneuverings affecting our border security.

Here is our "security" as it is:

Here is our security as has been proposed:

YOU decide which is better at protecting you and your family, and act accordingly.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 01:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.