The Second Amendment, for Dummies

From the Associated Press:

People who support closing the gun show loophole lie in on the lawn of the Capitol in Richmond, Va., Monday, Jan. 21, 2008. Families and friends of the Virginia Tech shooting victims packed a public hearing Monday to support legislation closing a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at gun shows without a background check. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

And:

Daniel Vann, who opposes the gun show bill, left, stands next to Virginia Tech shooting victim Colin Goddard, right, who is participating in a rally supporting a bill to close the gun show loophole at the Capitol in Richmond, Va., Monday, Jan. 21, 2008. The legislation is intended to remove a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at gun shows without a background check. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Hat Tip:  Don Surber.

Laura Ingraham  slams John McCain’s pro-life credentials, via Bryan, Hot Air:

The problem with McCain goes deeper than what he says about taxes and what he says today about immigration that contradicts what he said days or weeks ago. It’s about the battles McCain chooses to fight and the enemies he chooses to make. McCain consistently chooses the wrong battles and makes enemies out of the very people he now expects to carry him to the White House

McCain claims to be pro-life.   Yet McCain challenged Wisconsin Right to Life’sright to speak our in defense of our unborn.  McCain puts his personal vanity ahead of the lives of unborn human beings.  He dare call himsefl a conservative.

There appears to precious little McCain does undertand. ?

• Three honorable mentions in the OTB Caption Contest. A little unusual, to have three in one contest. Still, I suppose it’s a natural result of hitting Rodney with a handful of one liners every week.
• I see Ted Kennedy telling Bubba to shut up. I wonder about this. Of the two, Teddy is the one who really knows how to hurt a girl. Perhaps he ought to take his own advice. Hmmm…. At least she was quiet about it, I suppose.
• Castro has been on his way to a dirt nap for a long time, now. Cubans, apparently, held elections yesterday to see if they want to wait for it to happen before getting someone else in there. Of course it’ll end up being Raul, his brother, you watch. Which means of course the election means nothing whatever; the people really didn’t have much choice. Which means we’ll have several years more of people risking their lives in floating ’53 Chevvies on 90 miles of open ocean to escape the place.
• Speaking of the Communist vision, Crazy Uncle Hugo is threatening to seize farms of those who don’t sell locally. Of course, selling locally means they have no chance to make any money at all… because of the socialist policies of Chavez.  THe problem is thus demonstrated; eliminate one bastion of socialism and another rears it’s head.
• By the way, you do know Chavez does Coke, right? Remember the other day when we were talking about why such things are illegal here in the states? Remeber we talked about it affecting the culture in negative fashion? Look at the behavior of Chavez, and the result. ‘Nuff said.
• Ah, Good. You’ll recall last night I commented about the possible impending retirement of Tony Dungy. Word now is, he’s in for another season.  I have often wondered what it would be like to have the financial freedom to make such a choice. And I wonder if I had that kinda money, would I pursue another year of employment.
• The Democrats went at it in Vegas last night. Minus Dennis Kucinich. (Why isnt there more screaming about that, like the Paulbots do?) So much for the ‘Stays in Vegas” meme.  No, I didn’t bother watching because first off, I can skim the text faster… less waste of time. Moreover, these things always and invariably end up being a festival of promising voters, other people’s money. It’s how Democrats buy elections, anymore. This one was no different. Of the three, I’d have to say Obama won, mostly on personality issues. Edwards tried as usual to play the class warfare card, and it doesn’t work for him. He’s not managed to fake compassion, yet. Perhaps it’d help if he didn’t look like a multi- millionaire. Then again, he’d have to fake that too. Hillary meanwhile, keeps playing the race and gender cards, and while she plays them expertly, it must be said that her expertise comes of long practice…  and those tricks end up doing little more than annoying people. They got old on me a decade ago, and the rank and file Democrats are just catching on to the game, now. It’s not doing her any good. Her biggest weakness as I see it is that poeple are aware she’s a liar.  They know too much of her history NOT to. Thing is, she doesn’t know any other tricks she can play.. she has nothing but political machine to offer the American people.  And by the way, for all the chatter about ‘experience’ on the Democrat side, would I be gauche in pointing up the idea that not a one of the Democrats has any executive experience at all, whereas all the Republican front runners do?  Other than that, I’d agree with David that both in the instance David cites, and in total, Blitzer…and CNN was the loser.

Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker:

What can be said of a society that has reached such a ludicrous level of moral confusion that it cannot even make the simplest value judgment, cannot even distinguish between the value of a tree and the value of a newly conceived, perfectly innocent, unique human being formed in God’s own image?

A society adept at saving the trees and killing the children.
Can we rightly call this “enlightened”?

Call it what you will.  It is not progress.

Fred Thompson has dropped out,  Allah Pundit, Hot Air:

“Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.”

Expected, but still sad.

Mark Steyn:(PDF)

 As we know from 9/11, the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia use their oil wealth to spread their destructive ideology to every corner of the world. And so do the Canadians. Consider that in the last 40 years, fundamental American ideas have made no headway whatsoever in Canada, whereas fundamental Canadian ideas have made huge advances in America and the rest of the Western world. To take two big examples, multiculturalism and socialized health care-both pioneered in Canada-have made huge strides down here in the U.S., whereas American concepts-such as non-confiscatory taxation-remain as foreign as ever.

My colleague at National Review, John O’Sullivan, once observed that post-war Canadian history is summed up by the old Monty Python song that goes, “I’m a Lumberjack and I’m OK.” If you recall that song, it begins as a robust paean to the manly virtues of a rugged life in the north woods. But it ends with the lumberjack having gradually morphed into a kind of transvestite pickup who likes to wear high heels and dress in women’s clothing while hanging around in bars. Of course, John O’Sullivan isn’t saying that Canadian men are literally cross-dressers-certainly no more than 35-40 percent of us – but rather that a once manly nation has undergone a remarkable psychological makeover. If you go back to 1945, the Royal Canadian Navy had the world’s third largest surface fleet, the Royal Canadian Air Force was one of the world’s most effective air forces, and Canadian troops got the toughest beach on D-Day. But in the space of two generations, a bunch of tough hombres were transformed into a thoroughly feminized culture that prioritizes all the secondary impulses of society-welfare entitlements from cradle to grave-over all the primary ones. And in that, Canada is obviously not alone. If the O’Sullivan thesis is flawed, it’s only because the lumberjack song could stand as the post-war history of almost the entire developed world.

…

I imagine the comparison will annoy many Canadians.  Then again, so did Gordon Sinclair, back in the day. I know. I was there. I heard it. And no, I don’t know what Steyn would think of my comparison. But I think it a valid one because in the end, they’re both complaining about the very same thing.

Henke gets it almost right, but ignores the obvious:

The New York Times Editorial Board…

Philanthropic contributions in the United States – about $300 billion in 2006 – probably exceed those of any other country.

By contrast, America’s tax take is nearly the lowest in the industrial world.

Let me save you the trouble. They don’t appear to see a connection between lower tax rates and higher private giving. Instead, the New York Times editorial argues that the government should assert State control over philanthropy, even if that means reducing the level of charitable giving.

The most obvious example of what works to increase charity giving is Ronald Reagan.Apparently, they didn’t learn anything from Reagan, despite their denials. If they did they’d have noted charity giving going up in massive amounts under Reagan. Might that be due to lower taxation, by way of ‘supply side”?

If so, the liberals will never admit it. Nor, alas will a lot of others.

The basics apply here…the government taking my money and spending it on someone else… even someone who arguably needs it, does not constitute ‘Charity’. Then again, the left isn’t about charity, and actually helping people. They’re about government power. If there’s anything that exposes this clearly, it’s this business.

Why Henke would miss the obvious reference, I’m not sure, but if forced to guess, it may have something to do with his oft stated yet inexplicable lack of respect for supply side thinking…

As for the reason the Times is leaning left here, explain to me where they have not, of late, done so.

Fred Barnes:

John McCain has a problem. After winning South Carolina’s primary last Saturday, he should be the overwhelming favorite to capture the Republican presidential nomination. He’s not, at least not yet, and the reason is that he’s alienated so many conservatives over the past eight years.

Mr. McCain may become the Republican nominee anyway — in spite of thunderous opposition by conservatives including radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, former Sen. Rick Santorum, and American Conservative Union (ACU) head David Keene. Even then, to win the general election, he must find a way to reconcile with conservatives and unify the Republican Party.

Mr. McCain will have to take the initiative to repair the relationship, and he appears ready to do just that.

His victory speech in South Carolina marked a new step. Rather than dwell on the hardy perennials of his campaign message, national security and patriotism, Mr. McCain spoke more broadly about his conservative goals. “We want government to do its job, not your job,” he said, “and to do it with less of your money.” He praised “free markets, low taxes and small government.”

Yes, well the issue then becomes if his mouthing the right words can engender trust after so many years of running in exactly the opposite direction. In McCain we have someone who loves the ‘Maverick”” moniker more than he leans on the difference between right and wrong. In short, he seems lacking in principle, which is what the American voter is looking for.

Technorati Tags: McCain, principle, conservative

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Los Angles Times, has a survey which indicates that sixty three percent of Americans are ready for woman in the White House.   Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, throws some cold water on the LAT in general, and on Mrs. Clinton in particular:

I don’t want a female president either. She’d be whiny and annoying and the embodiment of identity politics (as I said, whiny and annoying) – if some of the pop culture examples are any indication. I’m surprised, frankly it is as high as it is. But people lie

Yes sixty three percent of us may be ready for a female president, provided she a Lady Thatcher and not a whiny and annoying Mrs. Clinton.

James at OTB:

Radio talk king Rush Limbaugh told his audience yesterday that he might not support the Republican nominee for president this year. Rob Port has the audio and the relevant transcript:

CALLER: Earlier you had mentioned that when the time comes, you’re going to announce or get behind somebody, and I’m just wondering, what’s your selection criteria for picking a candidate, and two, how do you decide when that time is that you’re going to announce? I’m more interested in how you pick a candidate. Because especially this year with-there’s really not a true conservative. How do you narrow it down?

RUSH: That’s an excellent point. I don’t have a time frame, just to address that first. I don’t have a time frame.

CALLER: All right.

RUSH: And I also, I can see possibly not supporting a Republican nominee.

CALLER: Hm-hm.

RUSH: And I never thought that I would say that in my life.

I explained yesterday, in my responses to Steve Bainbridge (Fred Thompson Loss Ends Republican Party and Does Losing Focus the Attention?) why this stance is self-defeating. In this particular case, though, I tend to agree with commenter Lestat, who quips, “Don’t worry, Rush won’t end up standing on principle, he never does. He will end up ‘carrying the water’ of whoever the Republican nominee is.”

I don’t know as I’d be quite that derisive, here. It still comes down to, as it always has, which action will cause the country the least damage. I grant, that as the Republican hopefuls have lunged left, choice has become ever narrower.

Addendum:  (David L)

Rush is getting the horse before the cart.  In order to vote republican, you first must have a republican for which to vote. John McCain does not qualify.

Conservatives have never let the MSM choose who speaks for them and who represents them.

Michelle Malkin.

The early returns from the Martin Luther King Day debate in South Carolina are in.   Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama attack each other with dead fish.    Wolf  Blitzer and John Edwards are also present, somewhere.

Partial transcript, via Ben Smith, Politico: 

CLINTON: Now, I just – I just want to be clear about this. In
an editorial board with the Reno newspaper, you said two different
things, because I have read the transcript. You talked about Ronald
Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his
name.

OBAMA: Your husband did.

CLINTON: Well, I’m here. He’s not. And…

OBAMA: OK. Well, I can’t tell who I’m running against
sometimes.

Video, via Byran, Hot Air :

[wp_youtube]Z9r6My21Ehg[/wp_youtube]

Under the ten point must system, I score the round 10-8 for Obama.   Byran seems to score the round for Edwards,  Under any scrong system, Blizter loses.

More, Memeorandum.

Bob Krum:

In the presidential straw poll at the 2006 Southern Republican Leadership Conference held in Memphis I cast a write-in vote for Fred Thompson. That might make me the first person in America to have voted for Fred for President. So you can imagine my disappointment Saturday when it became quite apparent that absent a chaotic convention where the nomination comes from the floor (still a remote possibility), Fred Thompson will not be the Republican standard bearer this year.

Actually, Bob… I think a chaotic convention is the path we’re on.  I simply don’t see a clear leader, in the race thusfar, and I note a growing concern from all corners of the Republican party about the people we’re being asked to nominate. Interestingly, the one person running that nobody has any serious objection to is Thompson. Under those conditions, it seems to me Thompson has a better chance than any of them of actually walking away with the nomination from a brokered convention.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, Republicans, primaries, brokered convention

Powered by ScribeFire.

• Spent some of today rebuilding a Palm Pilot E2 out of scrap parts.You may recall I had bought a junker to strip for parts for my own unit, but still needed a screen. So, I got another screen. Which left me with, aside from my working unit, another Palm which needed a screen. So I got another, older Palm, with a good screen, and stripped it to get the second E2 working, which will make my wife happy… she’s been using a Palm III.  Which in turn leaves me with an original E model in need of a screen. Oh, and  a III I’m not using. While I’ve done well, ad gotten us both up and running on very nice Palm units, I can’t help but think I’ve started a song that never ends, in terms of what’s in the hopper for repair. Maybe I’ll take the E unit, drop a screen in it and turn it to cover the original cost. What to do with the Palm III? Dunno yet.
• Wish me luck; I applied for a job recently, that’s a much better situation than I’m currently in.
• Isn’t it interesting that with all the turmoil going on in the Democrat party over the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, that so many focus mostly on ‘the end of the Republican party’?  It would be nice to say a lot of it is wishful thinking on the part of some liberals. And clearly the ‘centrists’ are driving a lot of this talk.  But it’s not all of it.
• Speaking of all of that, I note Campaign Carl Cameron suggesting that Fred hasn’t indicated yet which way he will go. Why Fred isn’t getting more of a following is something of a mystery to me, but you know, I think I may have nailed it a couple years ago when Reagan died, saying at the time that Ronald Reagan couldn’t have been elected in today’s political environment.  I hope I was wrong.
• The football season for me ended at the end of the Regular season. Such is the life of a Bills’ fan lately. That’s OK; It’ll take a while to catch fire again. We got spoiled in the 90’s.  But I must admit I was a little disappointed at who ended up in the Superbowl.  First, because as a Bills fan, I’m less than thrilled that another NFC East team is going. Further, I’m annoyed at ANY team that keeps Randy Moss on staff.  That said, I don’t think either the Chargers (Who I was actually pulling for, again as a Bills fan given Ted Cotrell) Or the Packers… Who again I actually wanted to go, given Favre won’t have many more chances to go) had a hope in hell of getting by New England. That said, another team I’m a little disappointed in is Indy… Dungee won’t have many more chances to go, either… indeed, he may have announced a retirement by the time you read this.  I’ll be watching the Superbowl, mostly out of idle curiosity, not because I’m really in the game. That’s not been true since the Bills were in it last.

Maybe it is something in the Arkansas water?   Mike Huckabee wants a free pass on the examination of his liberal record.  If you criticize the Huckster’s record, he calls it dirty politics.  Now the other dope from Hope, B.J. Clinton is trying to get a free pass on his chronc lying.

Howard Wolfson as quoted by Greg Sargent, TPM:

This is getting interesting. In an interview with me a couple of minutes ago, senior Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson claimed that Obama’s assertion this morning that Bill Clinton is fibbing about his campaign is a “right wing talking point.”

Wolfson was responding to my questions about Obama’s Good Morning America appearance this morning, in which Obama claimed that Bill has been dissembling badly about Obama campaign tactics. Obama also charged that Bill has been dissembling regularly about the Illinois Senator’s consistent opposition to the Iraq war and about Obama’s claim that the GOP has been the “party of ideas.”

Look who is not buying it, Matthew Yglesias, Atlantic:

This is pretty neat. According to Howard Wolfson, pointing out that Bill Clinton is lying is a “right-wing talking point” and thus all good liberals have a duty to grant Clinton a blanket license to fib. So when Clinton said he opposed the Iraq War, that must have been true, because I’m a liberal. And when Clinton said Barack Obama didn’t oppose the Iraq War, that must have been true too, because I’m a liberal.

Carpet Bagger Report:

As Wolfson’s argument goes, anytime anyone points out anything that the former president said that isn’t true, they’re necessarily using “right-wing talking points.” But that’s silly – by this logic, Bill Clinton could make up outrageous charges against Obama, and Obama couldn’t respond at all without sounding like a Republican hack. It sounds like an effort to silence critics, regardless of merit.

Most of the time, I really enjoy watching an exciting primary fight between three great candidates. But once in a while, I really understand why most Americans find politics frustrating.

The Clintons will not tell the truth, and it looks like even left isn’t going take it any longer.