My 2010 Political Platform

Maybe I'm just tootin' my own horn here, but I think I would make for either a great candidate that everyone can find at least one thing they like about, or a horrible candidate who pisses everyone off. I will go ahead and say that it would likely be the latter, as I have a tendency to please myself instead of others (and what true individualist *wouldn't* at least harbor such a thing as at least a guilty pleasure?) instead of tailoring my views to what the lumpenproletariat desire - such as bread & circuses and all the associated tripe.

Let's put them all in alphabetical order...

Abortion - Cut the crap about "woman's right to choose", "murdering babies", and all the other namby-pamby "everyone is special" horseshit. Abortion is the only thing keeping the West from being totally swamped by a dysgenic underclass of entitlement addicts. Think about it: the probability of an educated, employed, middle-class woman who doesn't bring home a new man every weekend having an unwanted pregnancy is statistically insignificant. The kind of women who ARE having abortions are the ones we DON'T want reproducing - high school dropouts, drug users, sexually-irresponsible, perpetually on welfare. Abortion has stemmed the tide of future Democratic Party supporters who would be interested solely in obtaining more government cheese for themselves and their future demon spawn, who will go on to repeat this process. While I am not too keen on federal funding of ANYTHING, I believe that federal funding of abortions is important to keep, if for nothing else than human pest control.

Bailouts: I don't care how critical a particular industry is to our nation's success or failure - bad decisions must never be subsidized, and certainly not with other peoples' money. The failure of these companies can largely be attributed to government "regulation", and allowing the perpetrators of instability to then lord over the industries they ruined by way of favored-industry policy or financial blackmail is unthinkable.

Campaign Finance: I am opposed to corporations being able to donate. Funny how a majority of the people who disagreed with the recent SCOTUS decision and "corporate personhood" voted for Obama, who was carried into office on the backs of the majority of corporate donors...

Defense: Either we snap ourselves out of this half-assed approach that endangers our troops when our rules of engagement more or less encourage their deaths rather than the deaths of jihadists and start waging total war, or we pull up anchor and leave posthaste. There can be no gray area in regard to whether we are at war or not. I am also in favor of slashing our standing army in favor of a citizens' militia. We once had "a rifle behind every blade of grass", but we have become complacent and lazy, allowing others to shoulder the burden of defense while simultaneously disrespecting our armed forces with government-run healthcare and incompetent civilian leadership. According to the US Code, every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 is part of the irregular militia. I would be open to a policy of compulsory service of one weekend per month (to cut down on the riff-raff, service would be for those who have graduated high school with at least a C average) which would include courses in wilderness survival, orienteering, improvised munitions, marksmanship, field communication, fortification construction, and psychological warfare/counter-intel. Terror attacks in other nations should not be such a priority for us - if those nations cannot deal with terrorism on their own, that is their problem, not ours.

Energy Policy: Nuclear power is the only sensible and efficient long-term source of energy. While we should not limit ourselves to one or two sources, nuclear power is the safest, most cost-effective, and most infrastructurally-viable option. We have allowed the enviro-nuts to scare us with images of Chernobyl (crappy Soviet technology combined with human error) and Three Mile Island (crappy American technology combined with human error - and nobody even died!) while even France generates the vast majority of its electricity by way of modern nuclear reactors.

Guns (2nd Amendment): I support the repeal of ALL gun control laws - 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, 1986 Hughes Amendment, 922r import restrictions - as well as unconditional incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states. Posession of small arms that are on-par with those the military uses by civilians is the best way to secure liberty for all. Allowing governments to have a monopoly on the use of force has always resulted in tyranny and sometimes genocide. Gun control laws do nothing but punish the innocent due to the behavior of the guilty. They also restrict supply of certain types of firearms, allowing only the wealthy and well-connected to obtain such things as select-fire weapons and destructive devices. We accomplish nothing but the criminalization of self-defense when we pass laws that restrict or prohibit the use of firearms technology. Anyone who believes that there should be "reasonable restrictions" on the last line of defense that we have against tyranny is a willful accessory to tyranny. The 2nd Amendment lets us all know that we have the right to defend ourselves, our property, and our Constitution from any who would try to destroy or subvert them - essentially, it is the "fangs & claws" of our Constitution, which was meant to restrain the government and not the people.

Health Care: Many will say that the "free market has failed", when little do they know the free market was never in charge of health care in the first place! The American Medical Association is a monopoly whose preponderence in the industry incurs unnecessary costs. Insurance companies are not allowed to compete across state lines, nor are the trial lawyer unions ready to give up opportunities to suck hospitals and private practices dry with malpractice suits. Health care is NOT a right. The only "right" we have is to take care of ourselves. Rights are not something granted to us by a government, which is why the Constitution acts as a constraint on that government. Some will point to the "general welfare" clause, but the recent healthcare bill is quite specific in what aspects of "welfare" it covers. If someone else has to pay for it, it cannot, under any circumstances, be called a "right". Exercising one of the rights in our Bill of Rights incurs no expense on the part of another, a far cry from the massive costs imposed on the productive sector to finance "healthcare as a right".

Illegal Immigration: A fence is not a real solution, and neither are totally open borders. Minimum wage laws and a lack of enforcement of penalties for hiring illegals are what drives much of the illegal border crossings. Minimum wage laws coerce employers into looking to illegal immigrants to avoid high labor costs. This can significantly affect the prosperity and expansion potential of small businesses, as it is exponentially more difficult for them to absorb those costs than it is for large corporations.

I'll add other stuff later. Stay tuned.


I have found a way to solve the problem of affirmative action

There's been a great deal of furor over at the UC San Diego campus, as well as across some of the other UC campuses, regarding a non-sponsored "Compton Cookout" event that encouraged guests to dress up like stereotypical "ghetto blacks", with the do-rags, baggy clothes, and such, during Black History Month (February, in case you forgot).

Now, lots of other people unaffiliated with the UCSD student body are in an uproar, throwing all kinds of claims around, from "hateful" and "insensitive", to "institutionalized racism" and (I particularly love this one) that the UC is not creating a "safe space" for black students. There are actually people, blacks and guilty white progressives alike, making a huge scene about how black students are now "in fear for their lives". Because of what? A Klan rally? David Duke just moved into the neighborhood? No, a party lampooning stereotypes THAT ACTUALLY EXIST. Don't tell me the folks complaining have never seen "Boyz in the Hood", or have never been to an urban area where there is a significant black population. Or, if you really want stereotypes - Detroit, Oakland, or Atlanta.

How does this all tie into affirmative action? [Here] is the press release from the Black Student Union at UC San Diego, detailing their demands. Like I mentioned before, out of context, it would appear that something fairly serious was happening, like UC funding for an Aryan Nations speaker coming to make a presentation at their "Diversity Center" or whatever the hell they're calling it. [Side note: the word "diversity" simply means "more brown/black people with more or less the same political agenda"; is there anyone calling for more "diversity" at Historically Black Colleges?] No, there was nothing serious. No threats have been made. Nobody has been assaulted. There was a party, and a lot of hurt feelings because of that party, never mind that the people who are "morally outraged" never actually WENT to the party, nor have I seen one single shred of photographic evidence documenting the "hate" and "bigotry" that was allegedly present and described in great detail by people who only saw the event description on Facebook. Someone allegedly uttered the phrase "ungrateful niggers" in response to complaints about the party. Who knew a UC education would enable one to go to parties without actually going to parties, and to turn hearsay into truth! I guess I must've fallen asleep during that part.

Now we have the BSU demanding privileges which no other group on campus enjoys: funding for ALL events (the article says "traditional and non-traditional", which might mean off-campus events, possibly involving the purchase and consumption of alcohol), make the African-American Studies and Chicano Studies minors a "priority", "three permanent designated spaces for African-American inspired art to reflect the struggle and progress for students of color on this campus", a "resource center", free tutoring (but only to African-American students) and a university-wide Affirmative Action program to increase the number of blacks in student, administrator, instructor, PhD candidate, and staff positions.

The difficulty lies herein: WHO should be considered "black" or "African-American"? How "black" does one have to be to qualify for the tutoring, being able to make use of the permanent spaces for African-American art? Half-black? An "octoroon", like my friend Bill? Shall we simply bring back the "one drop rule" of the Jim Crow days, but instead apply it to receiving special treatment? What benefits should Boer immigrants receive? After all, they too are African-American.

I suggest we use the von Luschan scale: (click for full view)

Anyone lighter than '27' is not eligible for racially-oriented "safe spaces", tutors, inflated representation, nor may they use the proposed resource center.

There, solved. No more worrying about who is "black" and who is not, and what benefits they are or aren't eligible for. We can't use "African-Americans" because that might include white people whose family has lived in Africa for centuries. Allowing quadroons and octoroons are not allowed, as they may be too white.

And if you don't like it, you're a racist for disagreeing.

Что делать о проблемой представительства? What is to be done about the represenation problem? For starters, if there are simply not enough applicants "of color" (and of course, using our handy chart to see who is "colored enough" to qualify), perhaps we should simply bring in underrepresented minorities from the community at large by lowering standards because standards are racis'. They do not account for the legacy of post-colonialism set within a Hegelian dialectic, and they only reinforce institutional racism by forcing black students to adhere to white standards. It's all racis'. Racis', racis', racis'!

[moving away from satire...]

If the black community is offended by things like stereotyping, the solution is NOT to punish and excoriate and demean those who mock them, going on witch-hunts to stamp out imaginary "racism". The solution is not to break down those stereotypes by lecturing people who already know that stereotypes are not monolithic. Would it be right of my Southern friends to be "morally outraged" when a bunch of West Coast trust-fund babies have a "redneck party", where everyone dresses in plaid and overalls, the women are all barefoot & pregnant, everyone has given themselves false gap-teeth and a stalk of wheat hanging out of their mouth? That's also some "insensitive" stereotyping, but nobody actually considers it insensitive, for a few reasons.

#1: White people are *supposed* to be made fun of, as they are overall not part of any legally protected class. Sure beats the "kill whitey" attitudes that are often present in classrooms and parts of the student body in general.

#2: Everyone realizes these stereotypes exist in real life, and they ARE goofy and ridiculous and easy to make fun of.

Maybe the black community in places like Oakland and Detroit and Atlanta - where you will actually see a lot of black people dressed in baggy clothing and gold chains, where 'nappy hair' is common, and a great many blacks DO talk far more loudly than is really necessary - should focus on actually policing their own image. Stop putting this stuff in rap videos. Stop allowing these images to become part of "African-American" or "black" culture - playing rap videos on BET isn't helping your case one whit. Stop complaining about the speck in your neighbor's eye when there's a 2x4 sticking out of your own.

I'm reminded of one of Dalton's lines from the film 'Road House':

Steve: What if somebody calls my mama a 'whore'?
Dalton: Is she?

What's the point in being offended by stereotypes, if those stereotypes don't actually exist? Often, we simply pretend they don't exist, enabling us to blame the people who make fun of them as if they were the ones who concocted the imagery with malice aforethought.

The sooner I leave this hellhole of "progressive" fascism, the better.


...on an unrelated note...

Most folks like the idea of tax increases and wealth redistribution, granted that it's not their money being touched.

It's not his responsibility, morons!

Yahoo! News: Bush comments on Katrina sound sour in New Orleans

"Bush didn't give a damn what we got."

"To me, black folks weren't handled right, but we can't worry about it. We have to do the best we can."

Here, let me translate:

"Waaah waaaah waaaah! George Bush needs to stop running the country and help N'awlins out because he's white and we're black and the Democrats done tol' us fer 40 years that white people owe us stuff cuz mah great great gran-pappy were a slave! Now where mah gummint checks at so's ah can buy one o' them flat screen TVs?"

Before something is the responsibility of a county government - whether mundane or disastrous - it is the responsibility of the municipal government. Before it is the responsibility of the state government, it is the responsibility of the municipal and county governments. Before even CONSIDERING asking the federal government (the National Guard is governed by the federal government, by the way) for assistance, it is the responsibility of the local, county, and then the state government to put resources towards resolving the problem.

What do you mean, "black folks weren't handled right"? They weren't waited on hand and foot? They weren't scooped out of the New Orleans city limits on the wings of angels 5 minutes after Hurricane Katrina struck? They weren't given their reparations checks along with their rescue by the cavalry? The federal government bent over backwards to accomodate some mouth-breathing troglodytes who CHOSE, out of all the regions in the Southern United States, to live in a COASTAL city that LIES BELOW SEA LEVEL. Do you know what happened to other communities in the South that were hit by the hurricane? They dealt with it just fine, like any other hurricane they have experienced: communities of people, along with their municipal and county leadership, made sure everyone was properly secure. There was minimal loss of life, even if a good deal of property was destroyed.

Now, contrast this with the persecution complex adopted by Mayor Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin and the weeping and pleading offered by Governor Kathleen Blanco, and you start to realize that New Orleans truly is a "different" kind of city. It is a Democrat stronghold, and we all know what THAT means - lots of stupid people with a "society owes me" mentality, an easily angered populace who can't understand that solutions to their problems don't come by FedEx Overnight, and a host of other social ills directly related to the ever-increasing size of the welfare state and federal involvement in more aspects of daily life.

"Black folks" were not only "handled right", the federal government went above and beyond to help them. Well, as much as they could when the whole damn city was 20 feet under water and rescuers were being shot at! The other communities affected not only by Hurricane Katrina but other hurricanes before and after have experienced a miniscule fraction of the looting, rape, murder, and all other forms of iniquity (I'm talking Louisiana Superdome-style mayhem) because the people in other places are of a different mindset.

Individuals in those communities are more or less independent - they have emergency supplies, a good rapport with their neighbors, and they survive and thrive despite that there's rarely a government agency around to hold their hand as they weather a natural phenomenon. Individuals in New Orleans are different. They are dependent, being taught that they are helpless and thus need government help every step of the way since birth. They don't know their neighbors, stock no emergency supplies (outside of perhaps a cheap handgun and some malt liquor), and are ready to take advantage of other people at the drop of a hat.

This has nothing to do with a lot of Southern communities being "white" while New Orleans is "black" (excuse me, "chocolate"), and thus one is somehow deserving of more federal resources than the other. It has everything to do with a community mindset. Are you a sheepdog or are you a sheep? Are you prepared and ready for danger, or are you just going to stand around with a dumb look on your face and let everyone else figure it out for you?

President Bush is absolutely correct when he said "[T]he systems are in place to continue the reconstruction in New Orleans." They're called the local and state governments, which should have been the "first responders".

The morning of September 11th, 2001 could have been much worse for the people on the ground had there not been competent leadership at a more local level. New York was led by Rudy Giuliani, who refused to be a victim and allow chaos to ensue. He worked with emergency responders, instead of looking to them to do his job. He didn't blame some federal agency for "not doing enough". I obviously can't get inside Mr. Giuliani's head, but I probably wouldn't be far off if I said that the foremost thought going through his head during that day and the days following was something to the degree of "What needs to be done and how can I help things along?" That's it. The buck stopped there. Ray Nagin was more concerned with "Who can I blame because I didn't do my job?" than with being a good example to the people in his city. Giuliani and anyone else who decided that they would do everything they could to help others and not worry about blame were the MEN of the hour. Nagin is an unmanly simp who would likely respond to his keys getting locked in the car by revoking the business license of the local locksmith if he wasn't there to assist in a "timely manner".

Hundreds of school buses sat underwater rotting away. Those buses could have saved thousands of people, but that would have required Nagin to do his job. Remember kids, when a black person is in need, it is the responsibility of all white federal officials to rush aid to them. When a black person says "jump", all whites who heard the command are to respond "how high?" This is the legacy of the modern Democratic Party. They are the same kind of Democratic Party of the antebellum South, but they now engage in intellectual and moral enslavement of minorities. They have made them wards of the state again. The benevolent white plantation boss is ultimately responsible for their well-being and prosperity yet again.

New Orleans is corrupt as corrupt can be, so it wasn't much of a surprise that Nagin was more worried about his job and his image.

As for Kathleen Blanco, she had the nerve to point the finger at the federal response despite not doing her job, either:

"President Bush is totally wrong about the federal response... It was absolutely too slow in those early, critical days."

Whose responsibility were those levees? Could it have been the state government's responsibility? Here in California, we make sure that we are more or less prepared for the aftermath of a significant earthquake. We're not going to point fingers at FEMA because they were "absolutely too slow" in trying to help us, at least not after local and state resources are exhausted. We make sure to maintain earthquake standards for buildings and design our skyscrapers with all sorts of cutting-edge technology to make them more stable. The southern part of our state suffers from large brush fires every year, yet 9 times out of 10 our state and local fire departments and forest services tackle the blazes. We don't have to wait for George Bush to send a federal fire department to our aid because our governor and local officials wasted time making a "People I'm Going to Blame For This" list.

Since 2005, the Bush Administration and Congress have set aside $126 billion (with a 'B') for hurricane relief. Despite this massive influx of funds, not much has been done. Typical of governmental response to everything - just throw money at it until it goes away.

"Melanie Ehrlich, a resident and frequent critic of the state-run Road Home program, said that residents, not goverment at any level, have rebuilt the city."

I guess people in New Orleans are waking up from their nanny-state dream and starting to take their future in their own hands. They learned their lesson correctly - the federal government has no responsibility to dole out aid for individuals. That is the responsibility of local governments. If the local government doesn't help, that is not the responsibility of the federal government. They weren't the ones who elected an egomaniacal malingerer for mayor or a bumbling nincompoop for governor.

Cities rise and fall. Governments are instituted and they dissolve. No matter how many times human society goes through the cycles of civilization, we are ultimately responsible for ourselves. Self-reliance is a biological imperative, but some people are just more "progressive" and have concealed that imperative better than others through the help of massive and ineffective bureaucracies with their "feel-good" social welfare policies that only serve to hobble ingenuity and human advancement.


Screw the UAW!

It's time to get 2009 kicked off properly - by bashing socialism and proclaiming the virtue of manly qualities like perseverance, taking responsibility for one's own actions, honoring agreements, and living within one's means.

The UAW, along with a lot of other unions, do none of that. Thus, the UAW is unmanly, and unmanliness is not tolerated here. After the most recent $17.3 billion bail-out (it has always been a 'bail-out' and not a 'stimulus package'), it has come to my attention that these funds were not to bail out the companies, but to save the unions who have a stranglehold on them. Such a relationship as what the UAW has with the Big Three is any organized labor fan's wet dream: dictate to a company its hiring/firing policies, dictate non-market wages, be able to "negotiate" paid vacations for workers on disciplinary leave, bleed the company dry, and then get rescued by the government (unions donate heavily to Democratic candidates, who they know will shore up their positions) when their disastrous relationship nearly sinks the company.

The Obama administration's soft spot for organized labor will ensure more handouts if any other large unionized industries start to go belly-up. Sympathy for habitual screw-ups is the favored tone for the Democratic party.

One thing I discovered about the UAW is that they built a posh resort and golf course in northern Michigan (top part of the 'mitten'), of course using union dues to pay for the whole thing. The website is HERE. Your average factory worker probably couldn't/wouldn't cough up the $55 for 18 holes on the off-season, unless they went twice a year and didn't bring anyone else. A decent cable subscription, a few 6-packs and some large pizzas will be easier on the wallet than trying to take 8 blue-collar guys to a swank golf resort at $55 per head. To compound the sarcasm, there's a nice little "Public Always Welcome", even though union members get preferential tee times. The resort, in actuality, is pretty far out in the hinterlands, relative to your average rich-snob country club, thus making it perfect for the fat cats of the UAW to live very well off of factory workers and taxpayers.

Sadly (trying to keep a straight face here, folks) the resort is losing money, to the tune of a cool $23 million over the last 5 years. It's estimated that the whole thing was worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $33 million earlier in 2008. This is where some of that bailout money is likely going.

People were livid about the Big 3 leadership flying to the Congressional hearings by private jet, but not a peep out of those same detractors regarding the patrician lifestyles of the UAW leadership.

Here's a nice article written by an ex-supervisor at a GM plant, who pulls no punches in her descriptions of the rampant corruption and ineptitude that the UAW encouraged: HERE

"To put it bluntly, the UAW takes the hard earned money of the best workers and spends it defending the very worst workers while tying up the industry with thousands of pages of work rules that make it impossible to be competitive. And the spineless management often makes short sighted decisions to satisfy the union and maximize immediate benefits over long term sustainability."

In other words, organized labor is protecting those who cannot do their manual labor jobs properly in order to score points with neo-socialists (who will be running our country come January 20th), squandering union dues on multi-million dollar country clubs, and then shifting the blame to the management who would never stand up to a political and economic force like the UAW.

"The strength of the union and the weakness of management made it impossible to conduct business properly at any level. For instance, I had an employee who punched in his time card and then disappeared. The rules were such that I had to spend hours documenting that this man was not in his three foot by three foot work area. I needed witnesses, timed reports, calls over the intercom and a plant wide search all documented in detail. After this absurdity I decided to go my own route; I called the corner bar and paged him and he came to the phone. I gave him a 30 day unpaid disciplinary lay off because he was a “repeat offender”. When he returned he thanked me for the PAID vacation. I scoffed, until he explained: (1) He had tried to get the lay-off because it was fishing season; (2) The UAW negotiated with GM Labor Relations Department to give him the time WITH PAY."

This is the same kind of mindset that perpetuates our growing welfare state: subsidize poor performance, mollycoddle the immature and stupid, and then blame someone else when the whole three-ring circus goes down in flames. I cannot bring myself to even fathom the utter intellectual nebulosity that occurs inside the heads of those who consider centralized goverment involvement in industry and large bureacratic unions to be "good things", especially when they consider corporations with the same kind of bureaucracy and luxurious golf resorts to be "bad things".

As St. Milton (Friedman) once said, "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." What is so different about corporations and unions? The leadership of each have their own interests in mind - economic, and personal, respectively. If we also would like to look at government, the chief interest of a government is its institutions and positions of leadership, and not necessarily the ordinary people who compose it - yet Leftists will throw tantrums because there's "not enough" self-interested institutions and bureacracies with their involvement in our economy.

[aside: Leftists like to talk about "good" and "bad" in very concrete terms, yet they will dialectically invert themselves in the same breath and declare that one's value judgments are solely based on perspective, whether it be geographical, cultural, class/gender/race-based, or otherwise.]

Back to the article.

"I supervised a loading dock and 21 UAW workers who worked approximately five hours per day for eight hours pay. They could easily load one third more rail cars and still maintain their union negotiated break times, but when I tried to make them increase production ever so slightly they sabotaged my ability to make even the current production levels by hiding stock, calling in sick, feigning equipment problems, and even once, as a show of force, used a fork lift truck and pallets and racks to create a car part prison where they trapped me while I was conducting inventory. The reaction of upper management to my request to boost production was that I should 'not be naïve'."

They act like welfare leeches and dreadlocked trust-funded Community Studies majors - wanting to be given everything, but suddenly getting very defensive and even outright hostile when they are expected to actually work for what they're given.

Even with the $17 billion, the UAW has now refused to make any concessions, despite its statements prior to the bailout money being awarded.

Screw the UAW. It's too bad the Bush administration won't be around much longer to rescind the loans, because I have a feeling that Zero is going to want to appease union fat cats by letting them keep their change, so they can fix up their golf courses, pay incompetent workers full benefits, and give the finger to the American taxpayers.

If capitalism and market forces were allowed to take their course, we wouldn't be having this problem. It's not simply about "deregulation" or "overregulation" - it's about who's doing the "regulation": the market, the government, or unions? Markets are self-correcting. They do not lend themselves to the rapid increases or decreases that result from government involvement. Letting go of useless baggage like workers who mouth off and harass the management is a manly thing. Excusing and rewarding that kind of behavior is UNmanly.

Enough With That Peace Bullshit, Give Capitalism A Chance!


Dear Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)

I realize you have voted for all previous so-called 'assault weapons' bans, so I am probably wasting my time in writing this, but as a believer in conducting reasoned discourse with those who disagree with me I will continue.

HR 6257 is a reiteration of the useless 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Unlike statements from other legislators and from the media, this ban along with the present proposed one targets mostly semiautomatic rifles, along with certain cosmetic features that have little, if anything, to do with the performance of the firearm. The phrase "military-style" is used frequently in the description of "assault weapons", which is merely a cosmetic feature again.

FBI and DoJ statistics place none of the weapons mentioned in the bill in their top 10 guns used in crimes, or top 10 guns stolen or traced.

The fact of the matter is that there is no clear definition of "assault weapon". A 1991 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of convicted felons found that less than 1% of those felons even carried an "assault weapon" during the commission of a crime.

AK-74s and WASR-10s and AR180s cannot be stuffed into the waistband of a street thug who is going to make a drug deal. Every other rifle on that list is not even remotely favored by criminals. Even if they were, do you think criminals would pay attention to HR 6257, which is just another law - similar to the laws against robbery, rape, murder, and drug possession that they already ignore? The same FBI information from the 1991 survey found that 80% of felons who used a firearm to commit a crime gained it through illegal means to begin with.

HR 6257 is just another piece of messy, redundant, and poorly-defined legislation. Stealing a firearm is a felony, along with possession by a felon. We do not need more legislation trying to define what is already defined. What is needed is enforcement against REAL criminals.

Let us use California as an example. Our state along with some of our cities have very tight firearms regulations, yet we experience a higher-than-average violent crime rate. Places like Washington, D.C. and Chicago with high crime rates also have stringent restrictions on firearms. This is what happens when law-abiding citizens are disarmed, leaving at the mercy of the police, or God forbid, the criminal.

Why are we criminalizing firearms on the basis of how they look? The Second Amendment doesn't specifically enumerate that US citizens are allowed to keep and bear "military-style rifles" as arms, but this analogy would be akin to stating that the First Amendment only protects written speech if a quill pen or printing press was used.

"Arms" are "arms", and the right of the people to keep and bear them shall not be infringed. Without them, the body politic of the US is effectively toothless and unable to defend itself against oligarchy, tyranny, and against each other.

I know many ordinary people with families, good jobs, and a clean criminal record who own these types of firearms.

Are you willing to be complicit in turning these people into quasi-criminals in the eyes of their government? With your high rating in Civil Liberties proudly displayed on your website, it frankly surprises me to see your distaste towards the ability and option for normal Americans like myself to be armed in order to protect ourselves and our loved ones against a tyrannical government and a common burglar alike.

I ask you to make the proper decision regarding HR 6257 - the Bill of Rights is one thing, but the ability for ordinary people to defend those rights is what is at stake. Take a REAL stand for liberty, instead of taking a step towards erasing the ability for self-defense and the last recourse of the people against an invader, whether foreign or domestic.

Feeling nostalgic...

Scrooge Mcduck And Money Disney cartoon short Part 1

Scrooge Mcduck And Money Disney cartoon short Part 2

It is truly a shame that media companies have never put out anything remotely educational like this for years. The sooner that kids learn how to handle money wisely, the less inclinations they will have to spend with reckless abandon. Instead, they learn useless stuff like "self-esteem" (wow, I didn't know I could only gain respect for myself through someone else telling me so!) or how everyone is all the same. All this watered-down namby-pamby utopian drivel is turning our kids into whiny, spineless wastes of carbon who are more concerned with not making others feel bad or how many minorities and handicapped people are in their group.

The biggest problem I see with the middle class is that everyone is obsessed with either spending or saving. How many of them are paying attention to mutual funds? How many of them do something as simple as looking at the stock tickers for the NASDAQ or the DJIA or the S&P 500 while they check the news or their email?

The recent financial upsets on the personal level are not because the economy's going to hell in a handbasket (a recession is defined as 2 consecutive quarters of NEGATIVE growth, and the last time I checked our economy still has POSITIVE growth - morons!), but rather that people are spending way outside their means. This is not necessarily something to pin on 'evil, predatory loan sharks', but simply a lack of self-control on the part of the middle class and poor. Sure, lots of people are "rich", with lots of cool stuff filling their junky and more-or-less-useless SUVs each time they come back from the mall. They present a glamorous front, but that glamour is purchased with borrowed money that they may not be able to repay if they keep buying and borrowing time and time again.

Again, this is a problem of individual self-control, not something to be pinned on media execs and corporate marketing divisions. I have noticed that increasing numbers of parents refuse to say 'no' to their children. As infrequently as I visit shopping malls (my social claustrophobia and avoidance complex has kept me away from what probably has been a wealth of study opportunities), I have seen this trend.

To quote Arnold Schwarzenegger's character, Detective John Kimball, in Kindergarten Cop: "You lack discipline!" Kids run around screaming in stores, talk back to their parents, and generally behave like little savages. Parents are not supposed to be your friend. Friends won't give you a well-deserved and sharp smack on the behind when you're out of line. Parents are supposed to teach good behavior to their children, not mollycoddle them and leave them unprepared to face a world that is, to wax Hobbesian, nasty and brutish at times.

When parents do not set limits for their children, this creates an expectation that often stays with them for a long time. We can see this with the 'Generation ME', with the people in their late 20s/early 30s who expected the ability to own a brand new car along with a high five-figure income right out of college. These are also the kinds of people who spend their money on superficial accessories for their cars, cheaply-made designer knockoff clothes, wear UGG boots, listen to Coldplay, and drink Bud Light, because nothing says "I'm classy" like mass-produced domestic piss-water.

These kinds of people do not spend within their means. They likely have more than three credit cards, have no money invested, and perhaps enough money saved to last them a month or two if they found themselves without a job.

There is also a big difference between being "rich" and being "wealthy". The former implies that someone either has lots of disposable income, lots of expensive stuff, or both. Wealth is gauged by the kind of financial capital that one has available, usually in the form of a business, property (houses/land, classic cars, and other things that appreciate in value). It also denotes that one has money invested in lieu of letting it essentially lay stagnant in savings.

If I had to explain investing to someone with no economic knowledge, I would put it this way:

Investing is more like spending than saving. You want to watch for good deals, and take a shrewd risk. The money you invest is no longer part of your disposable income for the time being, but it is being injected into the economy - also like spending moreso than saving. The best part is that the money you invested will grow, and you will have more than what you started with because the company or companies used the investments of people just like you to expand their production, conduct research, and become more profitable - if you made a good decision regarding which company or companies to invest in.

You're probably thinking, "who has time for all of this research and reading, Mr. Viking?"

I say to that "TURN OFF YOUR DAMN TELEVISION AND STOP DOING USELESS THINGS LIKE THAT." The Internet has made investing so much easier. You don't have to deal with a living, breathing stockbroker anymore. Companies like Scottrade and Ameritrade allow people all over the world to invest money and keep tabs on their stocks from nearly any computer with an Internet connection. Technology is a huge advantage that humans have, but we need to learn how to utilize it wisely.

Spend less.
Keep up with your savings.
Invest more.

The economy (and your wallet!) will thank you.


There's sure a lot of not-knowing going on.

Things that Barack Obama "didn't know" (or at least doesn't want others to know):

His aunt is an illegal immigrant [link]

His friend Rashid Khalidi has a soft spot for Hamas (but the LA Times won't release the video showing Khalidi and Obama at a party); Khalidi and Obama do have a history together, much like Bill Ayers, which the Obama campaign and major media outlets refuse to acknowledge. [link]

Bill Ayers still holds the violently radical ideas of overthrowing the U.S. government that he did when he co-authored the Weather Underground manifesto, Prairie Fire [link]

The Weather Underground bombings continued from the time Obama was eight years old until he was 20. Everyone knows who the Unabomber is, and he wasn't nearly as prolific or fear-inspiring as the WU. Obama, as politically-active as he describes himself during his college years, does not have an excuse for not knowing who these people are.

His black nationalist/separatist preacher was spewing racially divisive and hostile rhetoric from the pulpit for over 20 years of attendance.

Let's see what would happen if McCain were involved in the same kind of activities:

-Involved with a white nationalist church
-Friendship and/or professional relationships with Ted Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, or Terry Nichols
-Associates within the European neo-fascist community

He couldn't even run for municipal dogcatcher, let alone Senator or President. Now, we ake a mixed race man with a deep history of involvement in radical leftist politics, add in some messianic glorification by the MSM, fancy words and feel-good statements, and you have a candidate that few dare to question.


I can't believe this crap.

Check this out.

Pardon my French, but the Obama campaign can kiss my lily-white gun-owning ass. Pucker up, Santa Cruz, because your Obamessiah is cracking down on free speech. Then again, it's just the free speech of a bunch of gun-toting racist rednecks, so who really cares?

You lefties are always rarin' to defend whatever neo-Marxist nonsense the International Solidarity Movement or By Any Means Necessary (a Communist Party-backed group, if you haven't been doing your homework) are spewing at their latest pity party for Palestine or terrorists or cop-killers like Mumia Abu-Jamal. When it comes to the free speech of other groups that the Left disagrees with, they are more or less loath to defend it. The Washington Post makes all sorts of ridiculous excuses for Barack Obama's stance against the 2nd Amendment, along with ludicrous accusations that his statements were "taken out of context" or whatever else they want to come up with.

There is something in the link posted above that I find very curious - it's on page 9 of the PDF document under the 12/5/07 entry:

He admits that the collective takes precedence over the individual, so individuals should be punished by having their ownership rights constrained due to the actions of one individual. His stance is that individual ownership is to be restricted by the whims of the community. If you happen to live in a county or state headed by Democratic politicians, you can bid your right to own a "scary black rifle" au revoir simply based upon what the brainwashed masses who guzzle the "peace and tolerance" Kool-Aid want from their leaders.

My personal experience has led me to understand that 99% of everyone who is opposed to firearms or supports firearms restrictions has experienced them on a secondary basis - through someone else they know, or through the media. Overwhelmingly, they are also the same people who bitch and moan about restrictions on "civil liberties" in a time of war, but fail to grasp the concept that governmental monopoly on firepower has always resulted in genocide and tyranny.

Not only does the Obama campaign consider any statements regarding his inability to uphold the very right to defend the other 26 Amendments to be "lies", there are actually people who will jump at the chance to bring charges against anyone criticising Barack Obama: [LINK]

I seriously want to see if anyone who supports the Obama campaign is going to defend this "Ministry of Truth". Pardon my French yet again, but the St. Louis Circuit Attorneys can kiss my lily-white free-speech-loving ass. Like ProtestWarrior's Kfir asked the head of the NYCLU in their 'Liberty Rising' video, "Are you for protecting all forms of free speech, or just the free speech that you agree with?" This statement was made after some NYCLU members found some ProtestWarrior signs outside somewhere and called the police to have them removed, finding them "offensive" and "distasteful", as if the "Fuck Bush" and all the signs equating Israel to the Third Reich are just fine and dandy.

I know John J. Ray is much more scholarly (with his doctorate degrees and all) in his take on this, but fascism is Leftist at the core: collectivism, legislation is passed and policy objectives are put forth "for the benefit of the nation", a cult of personality is formed, the arms of private citizens are registered and then confiscated under the guise of "public safety", the central figure becomes immune to criticism through jackbooted thugs (who really don't have to wear literal jackboots after all) who unflinchingly enforce all of this.

On a related note, I was reading a few more blogs (Fjordman, La Yihad en Eurabia, Gates of Vienna, among others) about how the international "anti-fascist" group Antifa was outright assaulting elderly Jews - calling them "Nazi scum" and all other sorts of epithets - all while police stood by. This took place in Germany, if you can believe that. German "anti-fascists" viciously beating Jews who happened to be protesting the creeping plague of Islamism into Europe. If it weren't so, the Islamic supremacists wouldn't be referring to the Iberian peninsula as "al-Andalus", which is the name given to the realm of the Almoravid dynasty, wherein Jews and Christians lived as dhimmis, and revolts were violently crushed.

Ordinarily, I am not too keen on European ethnic nationalism as it often appears concurrently with the neo-fascist movement that seeks to replace one form of socialist authoritarianism (Islam) with another (neo-fascism), but it is times like these where I will openly ally myself with the basic aims of the European New Right - Europe must remain European. It must not become another launching station for the global Caliphate that so many would like to see the fruition of. The ideological and media war against Islamic supremacism has made for some odd bedfellows, but until more Europeans start to realize that their heritage and very way of life is under real attack by foreign invaders, the ethnic nationalists are the best we have. It might take another bombing, like the ones in London and Madrid, to get more Europeans on the same page. I am thankful that there are people like Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the late Pim Fortuyn to resist Islamism while rejecting neo-fascism.

Coming back to Obama's attacks on the 2nd Amendment...

No leftist who believes in individual liberties can ever side with the Democratic party. The vast majority of legislation and policy pushed by the Democratic party is so virulently antithetical to the concept. Leftists are quick to crucify the Denver police even after it was made plain that the Code Pink member egged on the officer, but their stance on the individual rights of others who disagree with them are always conditional, or they even outright oppose them.

It's somewhat of a bitter pill for me to swallow, but a President Obama will only embolden the "progressives" to come down hard on their political enemies. They are the original backstabbers and the architects of moral equivalence.


"You will not find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy..."

I want each and everyone one of you who reads this to take a long and careful look at THIS chart. Go on, it won't harm you (unless you are allergic to the ugly truth) one bit.

That's right, the now-defunct mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac funneled thousands of dollars worth of contributions to Senator Barack Obama - more so than even veteran Senator John Kerry, and more than any Republican Senator.

You're probably thinking, "Okay Mr. Viking, so he got campaign contributions. What on earth does that prove about his connection to the shady practices leading to the massive taxpayer-funded bailout?"

HERE is a video segment from a CSPAN-2 newscast of Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus. Barack Obama is inducted into the Caucus in this presentation (the only present Senator in the CBC), after which Mudd gives a speech. How is this all connected? Though the Obama campaign staff features some of Fannie and Freddie's executive leadership, there's still one step missing to damn not only the Obama campaign in its own role in creating this mess, but the Democratic party at large.

I present to you the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, signed by President Carter, and then expanded by "the first black President" William J. Clinton. If you would like a better (albeit sanitized and PC) description of this Act, click HERE. You see, at the time, the GOP was accused of being discriminatory in its stance on loan policies. This was soon after the peak of the Civil Rights Era, and understandably lots of black people were really getting the shaft when they went to apply for home loans. The CRA was introduced to prevent discrimination in the lending practices of banks, but forced banks to lower their standards for loans. This, in turn, forced banks to lower their standards even more in order to stay competitive. People began taking on mortgages they ordinarily couldn't afford, at rates that would bankrupt them - and they did.

In regard to all this, the GOP can do no right: keeping strict lending standards is "discriminatory", but handing out loans left and right (to minorities and whites alike) is "predatory". This is a clear result of overregulation (there is such a thing, you leftist morons!) that allowed runaway loans, and now the Federal Reserve has to use OUR tax money to make up for the bad decisions of loan officers, bank executives, lawmakers, and the people who took on loans they knew they couldn't support but couldn't pass up the opportunity to have something NOW and decided they would worry about paying for it further down the road.

Instead of thinking what loosening the credit requirements for a home loan would do to the economy in the long run, the government talking heads decided to "go easy" on people who didn't have the qualifications that were once necessary for loans. They got infected with the politically-correct "everyone is special" virus that was a byproduct of the 1960s entitlement generation - the many wanting to reap the benefits of something supported on the backs of the few. So, in order to not appear racist (still today a vile epithet if you want to discredit someone completely), the standards come down, the money flows out of the banking system, and financial instability and decline are over the horizon. Nothing inevitable at this point, but the effects of such decisions are indeed being felt, and they will continue on.

The overregulation and support by the federal government gave banks the incentive to get sloppy and not pay attention. The possibility of real failure, the liquidation of the executives' personal assets to pay for bankruptcy, and even the shame of such an occurrence should be incentive enough to prevent such things, but not in today's era of nanny-state-ism and the government's societally-perceived role of savior. These bailouts say to banks "hey, you guys can pretty much do whatever you want, and the taxpayers will pick up the bill if you get in hot water".

How does the Congressional Black Caucus play into this whole matter? For starters, it is an openly discriminatory and racist organization - only blacks are eligible for membership. Missouri Representative William Clay, Jr. issued an official statement saying that "there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club'." The CBC was instrumental in pushing forward the Community Reinvestment Act, both in 1977 and its revision in the 1990s. The CBC's problem is solely with 'White America', constantly accusing it of racism, while rationalizing, minimizing, and ignoring any failures that 'Black America' creates on its own (the long-running persecution complex, accusations of racism where none exists, the crisis of black fatherhood, among others).

Instead of helping their own communities to be more financially secure through financial education (outside of "white people hate you and don't want you to make any money"/"Jewish conspiracy"/etc.), entrepreneurship, investment instead of spending, and other things that actually help the financial situation of the average person, they forced 'White America' to set the bar lower. This still places the black community as subservient to Whitey's good graces, and proves to other blacks that throwing a tantrum is a good way to get the nanny state to cave to one's demands. If the CBC and other black organizations were really about empowerment, they would instead encourage blacks to succeed in the same way with the same standards that whites, Hispanics, and Asians are faced with. Unfortunately for their constituency, the CBC and others really don't care about seeing their members succeed. They just want to perpetuate a victim complex and get some free stuff from guilty white liberals. Black organizations should be encouraging responsible behavior and financial wisdom on the part of blacks, not blaming 'White America' every time a black person makes a mistake. They should be taking care of their own, not forcing others to do it.

Right now, blacks are suffering with loans they can't afford because of the policies supported by the very organizations that claim to have their interests in mind. Barack Obama is knee-deep in this mess. His party espouses the persecution complex and continually pushes for more handouts to blacks, his wife is allied with the 'blame Whitey' movement, his ex-pastor preaches black separatism and superiority, a Freddie executive is his campaign financial advisor, and he has been in Fannie and Freddie's pockets even before he was elected to the US Senate. For someone with a history like this to even think about accusing McCain and the GOP for creating this problem just demonstrates what kind of society we live in and the kind of media we have - their utter refusal to accept anything bad about someone of a minority status. They are truly immune to criticism in the mainstream media, much like Islam and organizations like CAIR and MPAC.

I now give you all a statement made by Senator John McCain in 2005, supporting legislation that would restructure the way Fannie and Freddie are tied to the Fed:

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

McCain does not support the bailing out of companies whose executives made bad decisions by way of our money, but the Obama campaign, and by extension the Democratic party, would want you to think otherwise. The scary part is, it's working. People are not doing their research into the causes of recent events, and just taking orders blindly from their Democratic taskmasters, who are given orders from the Obamessiah Himself, Peace Be Upon His Most Hopey and Changey Soul.

The more people start reading past the headlines, the sooner they will realize that not only is Obama nothing more than an empty suit with a good ad agency, but that his policies past and present will ruin the United States if they are allowed to come to fruition.