Everthing is better with Walken.
July 30, 2010
July 28, 2010
July 23, 2010
Another example of Dem Damn Dems.
A D.C. cab driver said he was stiffed by Congressman Jerald Nadler (D-NY), who he said walked off without paying his fare.
Nadler, 8th district in NY, is your typically Assshat Progressive Socialist Dem. He will tout that he is for the little guy but wont think twice about stiffing a cabbie.
Sorry I can't embed the video but here is the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6677406n&tag=mncol;lst;1
(What a dick!)
Nadler, 8th district in NY, is your typically Assshat Progressive Socialist Dem. He will tout that he is for the little guy but wont think twice about stiffing a cabbie.
Sorry I can't embed the video but here is the link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6677406n&tag=mncol;lst;1
(What a dick!)
July 21, 2010
Liberal Racism
Original story: Liberal Racism
This is a great piece by Allen West who is running for the as seat in Florida's 22nd Congressional district. It's renews my faith in my country to see men of strong moral character standing up and saying what needs to said. Buy the way, he doesnt look angry or ..... ra... never mind. I encourage supporting him.
Juicy Snippets:
"It is this duplicitous hypocrisy which allows me to state that the NAACP is shamefully now a liberal racist enabler. The upcoming mid-term elections have the Democrat party in certain peril. Therefore they have turned to their tactic of first and last resort, race baiting.
The resolution issued by the NAACP against the Tea Party is just a strategy to focus this coming election not against liberal progressive policies, which are anathema to our Republic. No, the NAACP, in conjunction with their masters, the Democrat party, seek to make this into an election based upon an insane charge of racial hatred."
"I find the Tea Party, to which I have spoken to several times, stands for fundamental principles and values consistent with that which has made America an exceptional Constitutional Republic.
Therefore, under the "leadership" of Al Sharpton, this counter group One Nation obviously stands for principles which are antithetical to our Republic."
"antithetical to our Republic" Mr. West is definitely polite. I would have used much stronger language. BTW: I like your shirt Allen!
Juicy Snippets:
"It is this duplicitous hypocrisy which allows me to state that the NAACP is shamefully now a liberal racist enabler. The upcoming mid-term elections have the Democrat party in certain peril. Therefore they have turned to their tactic of first and last resort, race baiting.
The resolution issued by the NAACP against the Tea Party is just a strategy to focus this coming election not against liberal progressive policies, which are anathema to our Republic. No, the NAACP, in conjunction with their masters, the Democrat party, seek to make this into an election based upon an insane charge of racial hatred."
"I find the Tea Party, to which I have spoken to several times, stands for fundamental principles and values consistent with that which has made America an exceptional Constitutional Republic.
Therefore, under the "leadership" of Al Sharpton, this counter group One Nation obviously stands for principles which are antithetical to our Republic."
"antithetical to our Republic" Mr. West is definitely polite. I would have used much stronger language. BTW: I like your shirt Allen!
July 19, 2010
Jobless in Cuba? Communism faces the unthinkable.
This story is brought to my attention by Kalishna Kitty.
"Without people feeling the need to work to make a living, sheltered by state regulations that are excessively paternalistic and irrational, we will never stimulate a love for work" -Is this a quote from Ayn Rand? Ronald Reagan? Thomas Jefferson? Nope, believe it or not it was actually said by Raul Castro!Other great snippets: It's a common sight in communist Cuba. Here, nearly everyone works for the state and official unemployment is minuscule, but pay is so low that Cubans like to joke that "the state pretends to pay us and we pretend to work."
With the government giving no details of its thinking, rumors have spread that as many as a fourth of all government workers in some industries could lose their jobs or be moved to farming or construction. But Labor Minister Margarita Gonzalez has promised that "Cuba will not employ massive firings in a manner similar to neoliberal cutbacks," using "neoliberal" as a description of free-market policies.
Neoliberal! Ha! I like that! (Can't say Capitalism outloud can you!)
July 10, 2010
July 8, 2010
Follow up to the previous post.
Just a quick follow up from the previous post. I saw this on Glenn Beck's show and the hair stood up on the back of my neck.
And in the Amrican Thinker is this ray of hope. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/my_black_dad_obama.html
And in the Amrican Thinker is this ray of hope. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/my_black_dad_obama.html
Things that are getting under my skin:
Just some thoughts.
Illegal is not a race. It is an action. The U.S. is, (or dare I say was?)
The Black Panther poll intimidation case. ( My emotions, mad, scared, disgusted, and very wary.)
Illegal is not a race. It is an action. The U.S. is, (or dare I say was?) a constitutional republic, based on the rule of law. And while I understand and welcome anyone who wants to live in our country, they must first obey the law.
Did ya hear the latest trial balloon? It's the transaction tax. A 1% on all transactions. Buy Starbucks, TAX, use a credit card,TAX, cash a check,TAX, transfer money, from checking to savings,TAX! pay your light bill, TAX.
The Black Panther poll intimidation case. ( My emotions, mad, scared, disgusted, and very wary.)
July 4, 2010
July 3, 2010
Independence Day Reflections
Happy Independence day. Mostly.... On this fourth of July weekend I would like to reflect on just what the declaration of independence meant, what it means today, and compare the first hundred and forty odd years years since the signing, and the years following. Our great nation was built on some very simple yet at the time, and even today, radical ideas.
Rights: First and foremost the declaration of independence affirmed that man has natural rights. Rights, not given to him by any worldly entity, but rights by simple reason of mans existence. Your natural and individual rights,"God given rights"are yours by virtue of your birth. No King, Government, nor any person gives you your rights. Ask yourself "Do I believe this?". If so are you willing to act accordingly?
Capitalism: The United States, from it's inception has grown and shortly led the world in Freedom, Prosperity, Wealth, Technology and Social Mobility for most of it's existence. Why? The answer is simple. Capitalism. Capitalism is the only means of wealth exchange that is moral and fair. (All others at some point wind up with the muzzle of a gun pointed at you) In the years prior to WWI , the American way of life could be defined as unfettered capitalism. Our nations growth was unmatched. Growth, and prosperity sored. The world looked at us with envy. What changed and why? Why do we not defend capitalism any more? Why do our "Conservatives" , politicians and laymen, dare not speak the word, much less defend it? True conservatism is to be a Capitalist, but many who call themselves conservatives, cite God, the Flag, Tradition and "Our Troops" but never speak of the true virtues of Capitalism. Why do "Conservatives" surrender this ground to the enemy unchallenged?
Freedom: Are we free today? Please discuss. Bueller?.......
Bueller?........
How about liberty?.....
Bueller?......................
Capitalism: The United States, from it's inception has grown and shortly led the world in Freedom, Prosperity, Wealth, Technology and Social Mobility for most of it's existence. Why? The answer is simple. Capitalism. Capitalism is the only means of wealth exchange that is moral and fair. (All others at some point wind up with the muzzle of a gun pointed at you) In the years prior to WWI , the American way of life could be defined as unfettered capitalism. Our nations growth was unmatched. Growth, and prosperity sored. The world looked at us with envy. What changed and why? Why do we not defend capitalism any more? Why do our "Conservatives" , politicians and laymen, dare not speak the word, much less defend it? True conservatism is to be a Capitalist, but many who call themselves conservatives, cite God, the Flag, Tradition and "Our Troops" but never speak of the true virtues of Capitalism. Why do "Conservatives" surrender this ground to the enemy unchallenged?
Freedom: Are we free today? Please discuss. Bueller?.......
How about liberty?.....
Bueller?......................
June 28, 2010
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide
Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide.
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 28, 2010; 10:46 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court already has said that most of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights serve as a check on state and local, as well as federal, laws.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 28, 2010; 10:46 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.
Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."
The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.
Two years ago, the court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess guns, at least for purposes of self-defense in the home.
That ruling applied only to federal laws. It struck down a ban on handguns and a trigger lock requirement for other guns in the District of Columbia, a federal city with a unique legal standing. At the same time, the court was careful not to cast doubt on other regulations of firearms here.
Gun rights proponents almost immediately filed a federal lawsuit challenging gun control laws in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill, where handguns have been banned for nearly 30 years. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says those laws appear to be the last two remaining outright bans.
Lower federal courts upheld the two laws, noting that judges on those benches were bound by Supreme Court precedent and that it would be up to the high court justices to ultimately rule on the true reach of the Second Amendment.
Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.
Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."
Your Right to Own a Gun. (FoxBusinessNetwork)
I was listening to Fox News on my XM radio the other day and happened to listen to John Stossel promoting this piece. What surprised me is during the promo interview John gave a quick background on himself. He stated that he is a former/recovering liberal who has developed libertarian view because he truly investigated issues and strives to be intellectually honest with himself and the world.
Related post: The gun is civilization
Related post: The gun is civilization
June 21, 2010
Time Traveler Essentials Shirt
Aurora Sentinel Archives Opinion Columnists Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises
Green is a life long liberal Democrat, and may just be one of the first examples of rats leaving the sinking ship.
June 18, 2010
The Gun is Civilization
My buddy the Red Bearded MeatHead sent me this. (Havent verified yet but is pretty good stuff) Now verified and propper credits given.
The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
by Marko Kloos
Original : The munchkin wrangler
Corrected by Larry in comments. (Thanks!)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat-- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
by Marko Kloos
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos
Original : The munchkin wrangler
Corrected by Larry in comments. (Thanks!)
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat-- it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
by Marko Kloos
June 15, 2010
Just a thought. An Ayn Rand quote.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand
June 11, 2010
Shhhh! Don't tell anyone.
Asked about affidavits that Obama's ID was assigned to Connecticut address Gibbs sidesteps deflects and plays the "Bither Card".
Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state. In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama's earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.
Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?
Never, It's against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued.
Related Story: Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number
At a minimum someone doctored his Selective Service registration.
Read this from back in 2008 by Debbie Schlussel. Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama’s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions
Pretty compelling.
I know you cant get student loans, work for the govt. and get security clearances without registering with the selective service. (Bet ya cant be a US Senator either!)
My open question to the world: Who vetted Barry for his US Senate run?
Thanks to cmblake6 for the heads up on this story!
June 7, 2010
"Well I'll be Wookie’s uncle........" says young Skywalker
I have been gently, and not so gently for that matter, reminded that it has been some time since my last posting here at The BruHa by several very close friends. I would like to say I am back, things are well. My biggest excuse for not posting is that a lot of my time has been trying to start my own business in a an economy that refuses to cooperate. There are other reasons as well, such as doubt that anyone reads this crap, my laziness and apathy, and traveling.
The first thing of many I have learned in taking some time off is that putting something up every day is hard work. My hat is off to all those out there that blog several good and entertaining posts every day. (Special thanks to cmblake6 and The LaSalamander for getting my ass in gear.)
Second is that people from all over the world will show up and visit your if you have a link to a naked girl naked woman or stripper. Links to guns and firearms are the next best. This Link: Naked Girl with gun is for thoes who search for such a things, an experiment to see how many people show up for this link, and just maybe someone will stick around read and comment. BTW, my most visited page is this: Activists protest Va. strip club's Obama banner and most likely just for the link to the stripper. I just love the Law Of Unintended Consequences! More than a few people have read this article and maybe an eye or two has been opened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
