Dear Mr. Gregory,
I'm writing to you concerning the December 23rd broadcast of "Meet The Press" on which you conducted an "interview" with Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. I use the quotation marks around the word 'interview' because what you actually conducted was more akin to an interrogation than an actual interview.
If the goal of your show was to give your guest a chance to express their point of view, you failed miserably. If the goal of your show was to examine both sides of an issue in a bipartisan and fair manner, you failed even more miserably. Your show was nothing more than a platform for you to express your liberal, anti-gun agenda and to do your best to portray anyone with a differing opinion, specifically Mr. LaPierre, as some kind of radical lunatic. I found your approach to the whole interview to be biased, unreasonable, and unprofessional, and as a "professional" journalist you should be ashamed of yourself for the manner in which you conducted yourself.
I will, however, congratulate and thank you for unknowingly making the main point that Mr. LaPierre was trying to express, that point being that gun laws simply don't work because criminals don't obey the law. You did this by holding up for all the world to see a "high-capacity" magazine which, by your own admission, was capable of holding "thirty bullets." (They're called 'rounds,' by the way; a 'bullet' is the actual projectile. Looks like someone on your staff failed to do their research.) And the last time I looked, the gun laws in the District of Columbia where your show is filmed has outlawed the possession of "high-capacity" magazines - the kind you held up on your show.
That makes what you did illegal, and that, Mr. Gregory, makes you a criminal. And as Mr. LaPierre stated, criminals don't obey laws, do they? You certainly didn't, even after the producers of your show contacted the DC Police and told them what they wanted to do, and were denied permission by the police to break the law and use the magazine on the show. This is a prime example of how gun laws don't work because criminals don't obey them.
So you say you're not a criminal?
Let's see...you knew the law, asked the police about the law, were denied permission to break the law, and did it anyway. Yep, that makes you a criminal by any standard.
So now I ask you this, Mr. Gregory: When can we expect for you to turn yourself in to the DC Police so you can be charged and prosecuted for knowingly and willingly breaking an existing gun law?
I won't hold my breath.
Sincerely,
IHC
Friday, December 28, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The Liberal's Gun Control Agenda
The liberals in our nation have an agenda for gun control, and no matter what you say or do you will be unable to sway them from their efforts to accomplish that agenda. And if you ever needed proof positive of this, then you were given that proof yesterday by Demoncratic Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey. (New Jersey, by the way, is one of the most gun-restrictive states in the nation, so we shouldn't be too surprised.)
For those of you who may be unaware, the libtard agenda of which I speak is that which bans the production, possession, sale, or use of any kind of firearm by any private citizen of the United States of America. They want a total and complete ban on all privately-owned weapons throughout the entire nation. Of course, in order to do this they're going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment - good luck with that - but they're dead-set on getting their way in this, and yesteday's comments by Lautenberg proves that.
After keeping silent for a full week out of respect for the families of the dead, the Nation Rifle Association yesterday made a statement concerning the shooting and laid out a plan for what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. That plan is simple, and I agree with it 100%. The plan is for every school in our nation to have either a trained, armed security guard or, better yet, a police officer on duty in every school everywhere. When you stop and think about it, this makes perfect sense - just the deterrent alone would be worth it, but if someone was foolish enough to come onto school grounds and start shooting, the reaction time of an armed response would be as long as it would take for the officer to run the length of the building or drive across the campus instead of the 5-10 minutes it would take a patrol car to get there.
Simple, effective, and sheer brilliance in its conception, right? I mean, our kid's lives are worth it, right?
Frank Lautenberg doesn't thing so. He said that this idea, presented by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, was "reckless."
I guess disarming the public and taking away our means to protect ourselves and our kids isn't reckless, then? Someone is confused, and it ain't me.
Here's what Frankie Boy said, as quoted by Fox News:
"It is beyond belief that following the Newtown tragedy, the National Rifle Association's leaders want to fill our communities with guns and arm more Americans," he said.
To me, the only thing that is beyond belief is that anyone with an ounce or a shred of common sense and intelligence would think that you have any other logical response to violence except to meet it on its own terms.
Besides, that's not what LaPierre said, but Frankie Boy is hoping you won't notice that. What LaPierre said was that the schools should be protected by "trained, armed security officers" or "police officers." He didn't say to hand every soccer mom in the neighborhood a rifle and post her at the school. Sorry, Frankie Boy, but some of us aren't as stupid as you hope we are.
In my humble opinion, only a fool or a complete moron would think that you can end gun violence by taking away every law-abiding citizen's gun. And passing more laws to add to the 20,000 gun control laws already in effect is like spitting into the wind - the criminals aren't obeying those laws as it is, so what kind of fool would expect them to follow one or two more?
But then, I've come to realize that the libtards and the Demoncrats are fully aware of that. They know that more gun control laws won't work, and it's all a part of their plan to accomplish their agenda.
Now, I'm anything but a conspiracy theory kinda person, but to me I think there's something else afoot. I've been thinking about the lunacy of passing more laws that statistics and facts have proven won't work, and why the libtards and Demoncrats are continually pushing for more gun control laws. And suddenly, a few days ago, it hit me - that's exactly what they want. They want to pass more laws only to have them fail, and then that would enable them to go to their next "logical" step in their agenda - the repeal of the Second Amendment.
I can see Nancy Pelosi standing in front of Congress now: "And since we've tried everything we could, passed all these new laws to protect the public, only to watch helplessly as the violence continues, our only reasonable alternative now is to repeal the Second Amendment and ban all guns entirely. That will effectively remove guns from our streets and make all of us safe!"
When you stop and think about it, it all seems to make sense, doesn't it? If ever there was one thing that I hoped to be wrong about, this is it - and I most certainly hope I am wrong. Time will tell, but with NObama appointing Joe Biden as the head of a committee to "research" gun violence in America, I can't help but get a sinking feeling about all of this.
I've long said that NOBama would launch his attack on the Second Amendment if he won re-election, and unfortunately the shootings in Connecticut have given him the absolute perfect opportunity to launch that attack without it looking like what it really is - his personal agenda to repeal the Second Amendment.
Stand by, friends and neighbors, because it's all about to get very interesting.
IHC
For those of you who may be unaware, the libtard agenda of which I speak is that which bans the production, possession, sale, or use of any kind of firearm by any private citizen of the United States of America. They want a total and complete ban on all privately-owned weapons throughout the entire nation. Of course, in order to do this they're going to have to repeal the 2nd Amendment - good luck with that - but they're dead-set on getting their way in this, and yesteday's comments by Lautenberg proves that.
After keeping silent for a full week out of respect for the families of the dead, the Nation Rifle Association yesterday made a statement concerning the shooting and laid out a plan for what needs to be done to prevent it from happening again. That plan is simple, and I agree with it 100%. The plan is for every school in our nation to have either a trained, armed security guard or, better yet, a police officer on duty in every school everywhere. When you stop and think about it, this makes perfect sense - just the deterrent alone would be worth it, but if someone was foolish enough to come onto school grounds and start shooting, the reaction time of an armed response would be as long as it would take for the officer to run the length of the building or drive across the campus instead of the 5-10 minutes it would take a patrol car to get there.
Simple, effective, and sheer brilliance in its conception, right? I mean, our kid's lives are worth it, right?
Frank Lautenberg doesn't thing so. He said that this idea, presented by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, was "reckless."
I guess disarming the public and taking away our means to protect ourselves and our kids isn't reckless, then? Someone is confused, and it ain't me.
Here's what Frankie Boy said, as quoted by Fox News:
"It is beyond belief that following the Newtown tragedy, the National Rifle Association's leaders want to fill our communities with guns and arm more Americans," he said.
To me, the only thing that is beyond belief is that anyone with an ounce or a shred of common sense and intelligence would think that you have any other logical response to violence except to meet it on its own terms.
Besides, that's not what LaPierre said, but Frankie Boy is hoping you won't notice that. What LaPierre said was that the schools should be protected by "trained, armed security officers" or "police officers." He didn't say to hand every soccer mom in the neighborhood a rifle and post her at the school. Sorry, Frankie Boy, but some of us aren't as stupid as you hope we are.
In my humble opinion, only a fool or a complete moron would think that you can end gun violence by taking away every law-abiding citizen's gun. And passing more laws to add to the 20,000 gun control laws already in effect is like spitting into the wind - the criminals aren't obeying those laws as it is, so what kind of fool would expect them to follow one or two more?
But then, I've come to realize that the libtards and the Demoncrats are fully aware of that. They know that more gun control laws won't work, and it's all a part of their plan to accomplish their agenda.
Now, I'm anything but a conspiracy theory kinda person, but to me I think there's something else afoot. I've been thinking about the lunacy of passing more laws that statistics and facts have proven won't work, and why the libtards and Demoncrats are continually pushing for more gun control laws. And suddenly, a few days ago, it hit me - that's exactly what they want. They want to pass more laws only to have them fail, and then that would enable them to go to their next "logical" step in their agenda - the repeal of the Second Amendment.
I can see Nancy Pelosi standing in front of Congress now: "And since we've tried everything we could, passed all these new laws to protect the public, only to watch helplessly as the violence continues, our only reasonable alternative now is to repeal the Second Amendment and ban all guns entirely. That will effectively remove guns from our streets and make all of us safe!"
When you stop and think about it, it all seems to make sense, doesn't it? If ever there was one thing that I hoped to be wrong about, this is it - and I most certainly hope I am wrong. Time will tell, but with NObama appointing Joe Biden as the head of a committee to "research" gun violence in America, I can't help but get a sinking feeling about all of this.
I've long said that NOBama would launch his attack on the Second Amendment if he won re-election, and unfortunately the shootings in Connecticut have given him the absolute perfect opportunity to launch that attack without it looking like what it really is - his personal agenda to repeal the Second Amendment.
Stand by, friends and neighbors, because it's all about to get very interesting.
IHC
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
We Have a Much Bigger Problem than Gun Control
Been thinking about the shootings in Connecticut this week, and I've come to the obvious conclusion that we as a nation have a much bigger problem on our hands than gun control. This problem has been building for generations, and in recent years it has manifested itself in the most horrendous, vile, and horrible ways possible - the deaths of innocents, especially children.
The problem isn't gun control or the lack thereof, people - it's much, much bigger than that.
The problem is the breakdown of society and the moral fabric of our nation that would make anyone of any kind of mindset even consider walking into a school and shooting 26 innocent people. This breakdown of society has been going on for generations, and we as a nation for various reasons have either allowed or forced this to happen, depending on which side of the political fence you're sitting. (And I'm going to make it a point NOT to make this a political statement of any kind, a first for me.)
Sixty, fifty, even forty years ago acts of random violence like this were absolutely unheard of. Parents taught their children to respect their elders, their community, the law, other people, and their nation. Sure, there were those miscreants who defied authority and disrespected everyone and everything, but they were the exception rather than the rule. And even then, they didn't pick up an automatic rifle or a pistol and walk into a daycare center blasting at anything that moved - they ended up in prison where they weren't a threat to anyone except other convicts.
But then, slowly but surely, things began to change. Somewhere along the line a generation of parents felt it wasn't important to teach all of the things about respecting others to their children that their parents taught them, so they left out a few key things. And when those children grew up and had children of their own, they left out a few of the things they'd been taught - and so on, and so on, until we now have a society where people think it's their right to say or do anything they want, regardless of how it affects other people.
We as a nation have lost respect for each other, for our laws, for our nation as a whole, and for humanity. It is the loss of this respect which allows the miscreants of our society to carry out acts such as mass murder; it is the uncaring nature of our society which allows those with mental illnesses to go untreated until they finally go over the edge and take 20 innocent children with them. It is the "devil may care, do what you want" attitude of our society which allows someone to walk into a college classroom and start shooting because he "was picked on as a child."
The problem, friends and neighbors, is that we have allowed our society to degenerate into a society where repercussions are unheard of and not expected, and accountability and responsibility are explained away. We are more concerned with not "offending" someone's delicate sensitivities than we are with protecting our children from the madness and evil in the world, and ensuring that those who perpetrate such evil are held accountable and justly punished. We have allowed our society to become one in which the accused has more rights than the victim.
And we must stop this - NOW.
The first step, in my humble opinion, is for our nation as a whole to take off the political/ideological/religious blinders that we have placed on ourselves and look at the problem with an unbiased, honest view. Yeah, that's gonna be tough, but I don't think it's anything we can't do. And once we get the blinders off and everyone finally sees what the real problem is, then and only then can we work together towards a solution.
And again, in my humble opinion, that solution is realizing that we must start teaching our children what is right and responsible, we much teach our children - and each other - that everyone deserves respect, and to be respectful of others as you would have them be respectful of you. We have to once again make our society one in which the individual is held responsible for his/her actions, and punish the perpetrator and not the bystander or the victim.
In short, we have to restore morality, dignity, and respect to the people of our nation.
And we need to do it now.
IHC
The problem isn't gun control or the lack thereof, people - it's much, much bigger than that.
The problem is the breakdown of society and the moral fabric of our nation that would make anyone of any kind of mindset even consider walking into a school and shooting 26 innocent people. This breakdown of society has been going on for generations, and we as a nation for various reasons have either allowed or forced this to happen, depending on which side of the political fence you're sitting. (And I'm going to make it a point NOT to make this a political statement of any kind, a first for me.)
Sixty, fifty, even forty years ago acts of random violence like this were absolutely unheard of. Parents taught their children to respect their elders, their community, the law, other people, and their nation. Sure, there were those miscreants who defied authority and disrespected everyone and everything, but they were the exception rather than the rule. And even then, they didn't pick up an automatic rifle or a pistol and walk into a daycare center blasting at anything that moved - they ended up in prison where they weren't a threat to anyone except other convicts.
But then, slowly but surely, things began to change. Somewhere along the line a generation of parents felt it wasn't important to teach all of the things about respecting others to their children that their parents taught them, so they left out a few key things. And when those children grew up and had children of their own, they left out a few of the things they'd been taught - and so on, and so on, until we now have a society where people think it's their right to say or do anything they want, regardless of how it affects other people.
We as a nation have lost respect for each other, for our laws, for our nation as a whole, and for humanity. It is the loss of this respect which allows the miscreants of our society to carry out acts such as mass murder; it is the uncaring nature of our society which allows those with mental illnesses to go untreated until they finally go over the edge and take 20 innocent children with them. It is the "devil may care, do what you want" attitude of our society which allows someone to walk into a college classroom and start shooting because he "was picked on as a child."
The problem, friends and neighbors, is that we have allowed our society to degenerate into a society where repercussions are unheard of and not expected, and accountability and responsibility are explained away. We are more concerned with not "offending" someone's delicate sensitivities than we are with protecting our children from the madness and evil in the world, and ensuring that those who perpetrate such evil are held accountable and justly punished. We have allowed our society to become one in which the accused has more rights than the victim.
And we must stop this - NOW.
The first step, in my humble opinion, is for our nation as a whole to take off the political/ideological/religious blinders that we have placed on ourselves and look at the problem with an unbiased, honest view. Yeah, that's gonna be tough, but I don't think it's anything we can't do. And once we get the blinders off and everyone finally sees what the real problem is, then and only then can we work together towards a solution.
And again, in my humble opinion, that solution is realizing that we must start teaching our children what is right and responsible, we much teach our children - and each other - that everyone deserves respect, and to be respectful of others as you would have them be respectful of you. We have to once again make our society one in which the individual is held responsible for his/her actions, and punish the perpetrator and not the bystander or the victim.
In short, we have to restore morality, dignity, and respect to the people of our nation.
And we need to do it now.
IHC
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Senator Dianne Feinstein Is A Total and Complete Idiot
Yes, that's right, Demoncratic Senator Dianne Feinstein is a total and complete idiot. And for the record, so is Demoncratic Mayor Michael "Big Gulp" Bloomberg of New York City and Demoncratic Senator Charles "Chuckles" Schumer of New York state.
For that matter, ANYONE who truly believes that the answer to the nation's gun violence problem is yet MORE laws is a total and complete idiot.
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat: I think the shootings in Connecticut are a total and complete tragedy, and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in this unspeakable act of violence and mayhem. The absolute last section of our society that should ever be exposed to something like this is our children, and I hope the bastard who did this rots in Hell. I simply cannot imagine the pain the parents of the dead kids are going through; I know if I'd gotten news like that when my kids were little, it would have completely destroyed me. God only knows how the parents are able to handle this, buy my heart goes out to them.
The day this happened I got a text message from a good friend of mine asking me if I'd heard about it; I had, but I was driving at the time and couldn't reply. And by the time I got to where I was going I was so upset about the whole thing that I really didn't feel like talking about it. (Sorry for ignoring you, Clay, but that's the way it was.) Anyhow, Clay said something to the effect of, "Now the left-wing gun control nutjobs will come out of the walls!" and I knew that he was 100% right. And so he was, with Feinstein proclaiming today that she plans to introduce legislation in both the House and the Senate for more gun control laws. She also said that she is fully supportive of re-implementing the "Brady Bill" because "we have to get these weapons of war off the streets!"
I'll save the most obvious for last and address that last statement instead.
I guess Dianne isn't keeping up on current events, because the weapons used in the shootings in Connecticut were two 9mm pistols, specifically a Glock and a Sig-Sauer. Neither of these can be accurately described as a "weapon of war" in the context in which Dianne chooses to use it. The third weapon that was found on the scene but has not been confirmed to have been used was an "AR-15 style" rifle. That can most certainly be classified as a "weapon of war" since the design is specifically taken from the AR-15 issued to our own troops, but it's a poor, lame, and feeble excuse to classify all three weapons as "weapons of war." So in this instance, Dianne my dear, you're only 1/3 right and 2/3 wrong - as usual.
So now let's get to the obvious of which I spoke, that being the fact that more gun laws won't work. This should be fun!
For openers, once again the investigation has shown that the weapons used to commit the murders were legally purchased, just as in Aurora, Colorado, Tuscon, Arizona, and Virginia Tech in Virginia. The gun laws in place were followed 100%, yet the tragedy still took place - but not being committed by the person who legally purchased the weapons. The murders were committed by someone who stole the weapons from the lawful owner - which, by the way, is shown in FBI statistics to be the case most of the time. So those particular gun laws failed to protect anyone from being murdered. That's important, so keep that in mind.
Prior to the shooting at the school, the murderer first killed his own mother; then he stole the three weapons, stole her truck, transported the three stolen weapons onto school property, broke into the school, and then killed 26 people.
All told, the killer broke a whopping total of 41 laws!
Now, would someone please explain to me how passing even more laws will do any good, considering that criminals aren't following the laws already in place?
And THAT, friends and neighbors, is exactly why I say that anyone who thinks gun control laws are the answer is a total and complete idiot. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW! That's why they call them "criminals!"
Guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less. If you place a pistol on a table, it will sit there and harm no one until a human being picks it up and uses it. The manner in which that human being uses it is the issue, not the tool being used.
Did you hear about the mass murder in China that took place the same day as the Connecticut shootings? Seems that a teenager in Beijing killed eight innocent people after having an argument with his girlfriend - but he didn't use a gun. No, the Chinese people don't have the same rights as we do, and personal ownership of firearms is banned by the Chinese government. So what did he use?
He used a knife. Just like the guy in Great Britain did last month, too.
Funny, I don't hear any of the Libtards and Demoncrats calling for a ban on knives, do you? Yet the murders DID take place, both of them in countries where private ownership of firearms is ILLEGAL.
Kinda tells you something, don't it? Unless you're a total and complete idiot, that is.
"Gun Free Zones" don't protect people, because the only person in the zone that will have a gun will be the killer. (The theater in Aurora was a "gun free zone," by the way, and we see how good that worked, don't we?) Gun control laws don't protect people, because criminals don't obey the laws. Gun registration and purchase laws don't protect people, because most of the time the criminal doing the killing is using a stolen gun. A total ban on firearms won't protect anyone, either, because if someone is intent on killing a whole bunch of people they'll find a way. Just ask the families of the eight dead people in China.
The ONLY thing that will protect us is a gun; that, and the Second Amendment that guarantees us the right to own that gun. That fact has been proven time and time again, and there's just no denying it - unless you're a total and complete idiot, that is.
Kinda like Dianne, Chuck, and Mike.
So let me ask you non-believers a question: if you're walking home one dark night and a man steps out from behind a car and pulls a knife on you, which would you rather have - a cell phone or a gun? Which is going to make the bad guy think twice and leave you alone, and which is going to ensure that the police know where to send the meat wagon to pick up your dead body? IF the bad guy gives you enough time to dial '911' that is. Which is doubtful at best.
I know which I'd rather have - and do have, 99% of the time. (The other 1% of the time is when I'm at work because my company won't allow firearms on the premises. Don't get me started...)
Guns aren't evil. Man is evil, and he uses guns for evil deeds. Whether you Libtards and Demoncrats out there want to admit it or not, there is evil in the world and it does reach out and touch us every day of the year. And I'm one of those people who knows of the evil, recognizes it for what it is, and take active steps to be prepared to counter it whenever and wherever I encounter it.
I'm a Sheepdog, and I'm damned proud of it.
Please say a silent prayer for those killed in Connecticut, and for the families and loved ones they left behind.
IHC
For that matter, ANYONE who truly believes that the answer to the nation's gun violence problem is yet MORE laws is a total and complete idiot.
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat: I think the shootings in Connecticut are a total and complete tragedy, and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in this unspeakable act of violence and mayhem. The absolute last section of our society that should ever be exposed to something like this is our children, and I hope the bastard who did this rots in Hell. I simply cannot imagine the pain the parents of the dead kids are going through; I know if I'd gotten news like that when my kids were little, it would have completely destroyed me. God only knows how the parents are able to handle this, buy my heart goes out to them.
The day this happened I got a text message from a good friend of mine asking me if I'd heard about it; I had, but I was driving at the time and couldn't reply. And by the time I got to where I was going I was so upset about the whole thing that I really didn't feel like talking about it. (Sorry for ignoring you, Clay, but that's the way it was.) Anyhow, Clay said something to the effect of, "Now the left-wing gun control nutjobs will come out of the walls!" and I knew that he was 100% right. And so he was, with Feinstein proclaiming today that she plans to introduce legislation in both the House and the Senate for more gun control laws. She also said that she is fully supportive of re-implementing the "Brady Bill" because "we have to get these weapons of war off the streets!"
I'll save the most obvious for last and address that last statement instead.
I guess Dianne isn't keeping up on current events, because the weapons used in the shootings in Connecticut were two 9mm pistols, specifically a Glock and a Sig-Sauer. Neither of these can be accurately described as a "weapon of war" in the context in which Dianne chooses to use it. The third weapon that was found on the scene but has not been confirmed to have been used was an "AR-15 style" rifle. That can most certainly be classified as a "weapon of war" since the design is specifically taken from the AR-15 issued to our own troops, but it's a poor, lame, and feeble excuse to classify all three weapons as "weapons of war." So in this instance, Dianne my dear, you're only 1/3 right and 2/3 wrong - as usual.
So now let's get to the obvious of which I spoke, that being the fact that more gun laws won't work. This should be fun!
For openers, once again the investigation has shown that the weapons used to commit the murders were legally purchased, just as in Aurora, Colorado, Tuscon, Arizona, and Virginia Tech in Virginia. The gun laws in place were followed 100%, yet the tragedy still took place - but not being committed by the person who legally purchased the weapons. The murders were committed by someone who stole the weapons from the lawful owner - which, by the way, is shown in FBI statistics to be the case most of the time. So those particular gun laws failed to protect anyone from being murdered. That's important, so keep that in mind.
Prior to the shooting at the school, the murderer first killed his own mother; then he stole the three weapons, stole her truck, transported the three stolen weapons onto school property, broke into the school, and then killed 26 people.
All told, the killer broke a whopping total of 41 laws!
Now, would someone please explain to me how passing even more laws will do any good, considering that criminals aren't following the laws already in place?
And THAT, friends and neighbors, is exactly why I say that anyone who thinks gun control laws are the answer is a total and complete idiot. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW! That's why they call them "criminals!"
Guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less. If you place a pistol on a table, it will sit there and harm no one until a human being picks it up and uses it. The manner in which that human being uses it is the issue, not the tool being used.
Did you hear about the mass murder in China that took place the same day as the Connecticut shootings? Seems that a teenager in Beijing killed eight innocent people after having an argument with his girlfriend - but he didn't use a gun. No, the Chinese people don't have the same rights as we do, and personal ownership of firearms is banned by the Chinese government. So what did he use?
He used a knife. Just like the guy in Great Britain did last month, too.
Funny, I don't hear any of the Libtards and Demoncrats calling for a ban on knives, do you? Yet the murders DID take place, both of them in countries where private ownership of firearms is ILLEGAL.
Kinda tells you something, don't it? Unless you're a total and complete idiot, that is.
"Gun Free Zones" don't protect people, because the only person in the zone that will have a gun will be the killer. (The theater in Aurora was a "gun free zone," by the way, and we see how good that worked, don't we?) Gun control laws don't protect people, because criminals don't obey the laws. Gun registration and purchase laws don't protect people, because most of the time the criminal doing the killing is using a stolen gun. A total ban on firearms won't protect anyone, either, because if someone is intent on killing a whole bunch of people they'll find a way. Just ask the families of the eight dead people in China.
The ONLY thing that will protect us is a gun; that, and the Second Amendment that guarantees us the right to own that gun. That fact has been proven time and time again, and there's just no denying it - unless you're a total and complete idiot, that is.
Kinda like Dianne, Chuck, and Mike.
So let me ask you non-believers a question: if you're walking home one dark night and a man steps out from behind a car and pulls a knife on you, which would you rather have - a cell phone or a gun? Which is going to make the bad guy think twice and leave you alone, and which is going to ensure that the police know where to send the meat wagon to pick up your dead body? IF the bad guy gives you enough time to dial '911' that is. Which is doubtful at best.
I know which I'd rather have - and do have, 99% of the time. (The other 1% of the time is when I'm at work because my company won't allow firearms on the premises. Don't get me started...)
Guns aren't evil. Man is evil, and he uses guns for evil deeds. Whether you Libtards and Demoncrats out there want to admit it or not, there is evil in the world and it does reach out and touch us every day of the year. And I'm one of those people who knows of the evil, recognizes it for what it is, and take active steps to be prepared to counter it whenever and wherever I encounter it.
I'm a Sheepdog, and I'm damned proud of it.
Please say a silent prayer for those killed in Connecticut, and for the families and loved ones they left behind.
IHC
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Undeclared War in Our Country
There's an undeclared war going on in our country.
Anyone who has been reading the newspapers, reading the online news web sites, or watching the news on TV knows about it. Something concerning this undeclared war finds its way into the news nearly every week, sometimes as often as every day. Everyone reads about it, some of us shake our heads in disbelief that something like this could be going on in our country, but the vast majority of us read the article and promptly dismiss it, concerned more with which professional athlete got traded or with which celebrity is going to jail or getting divorced next. And the undeclared war continues, with new battles popping up all over our country on a regular basis.
The war of which I'm speaking, friends and neighbors, is the War On Religion - or, more accurately, the War On Christianity.
Stop and think for a minute just how many news stories you've heard of recently that have something to do with some group somewhere in our nation, or some person somewhere in our nation who is backed by some group like this, who have jumped up and cried, "I'm offended!" or who have filed a complaint and/or a lawsuit over the display of a cross, a Nativity, or even a Christmas tree. Seriously, stop for a moment and think about it.
Never realized there were that many, did you? And the funny thing is, the only religion you see being attacked - and I use that word intentionally - in such a manner is Christianity. The latest attack has taken place in New York City, where an atheist group purchased a billboard in which they said it's okay to keep Santa Claus and the "merry" in Christmas, but you should "drop the myth!" with these words being portrayed over a picture of Christ on the cross, wearing a crown of thorns.
I got news for these people - as the old saying goes, "JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON," not some fat old guy in a red suit giving out presents. But I digress...
Let me say a couple of things right up front. First and foremost, yes, I'm a Christian and believe in God and Jesus Christ. As any one of you who've been following my blog for the past few years knows I have a bit of a problem with the Old Testament, but I still believe in God and Jesus and therefore consider myself a Christian.
Second, I have ZERO problem with someone whose beliefs are different from mine. If you don't believe in God or any kind of religious diety, fine; if you believe in Buddha, fine; if you believe in Zen, that's fine, too. If you believe in Bucky the Dancing Mule, that's also fine with me. As long as it works for you, I really don't have a problem with that.
But when someone starts telling me that my belief is wrong, that it's "a myth," and that I can't display the symbols of my religion because it "offends" them or it's "unconstitutional," then THAT is the point at which it most certainly is NOT fine with me! I have a HUGE problem with that, and I think it's about time that the people of this nation who believe in God or Buddha or Zen or Bucky all stood up and told the atheists and other naysayers and nonbelievers out there to shut the hell up!
I find it very hard to believe that anyone could truly be "offended" by the display of a cross on a hilltop that has been placed there to honor the Christians who have given their lives in the service of our country. Actually, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be offended by the display of a cross anywhere unless you're a friggin' vampire. THEN I could understand it, but now...nope, that just don't work for me. I'm no fan of Islam, but I don't get "offended" when I ride by a mosque and see the crescent moon on top of the spire. I don't like it, considering all of the death and destruction that's been done lately in the name of Allah and Islam, but "offended?" Nope, not one bit. I think that tired old line of "I'm offended!" is being used by people who live to be offended and will jump at any chance to be offended. These people spend most of their lives wanting things that they are too lazy to work for and have found that suing someone over the display of a Christian symbol because it "offends" them is a quick and easy way to a payday they don't deserve; either that, or they're envious of the success that others have had and want to get some of the riches for themselves and/or destroy some of that much-envied success along the way.
It's like this, people: if the sight of a cross or a Nativity scene offends you, then don't look at it!
As for the "unconstitutional" crap that comes up whenever a Nativity scene or a cross is displayed on property owned by some form of government, well, it's like this: that so-called "separation of church and state as defined by the Constitution" is the REAL myth. In the first place, it's the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution; in the second place, the First Amendment doesn't actually say that. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Nowhere in there do you see ANYTHING mentioning in ANY WAY the separation of church and state. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business. ("Allabouthistory.com, separation of church and state.") But as anyone can plainly see, the First Amendment does not mention it at all.
So how did this myth of "separation of church and state" get started? Well, my educated guess is that some liberal bleeding-heart judge came to this ill-advised and misguided conclusion when he was hearing what was most likely the very first lawsuit to use this claim as to why the religious symbol should be removed. In any event, he/she was wrong then, it's wrong now, and it will continue to be wrong until some conservative judge issues a judgement stating just that.
But I ain't holding my breath.
In the mean time, the atheists and non-believers out there all need to realize a few things. They need to realize that this country was founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution, and what they're doing now in this day and age is just that - religious persecution. Those of us who believe in Christ and choose to display our symbols are being attacked and persecuted for our beliefs, and that's wrong.
They also need to realize that, while our nation's religious beliefs have evolved and broadened due to the Constitutionally-protected right of religious freedom, whether they like it or not our entire country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles. To collectively turn our backs as a nation on one of the founding principles of our country, that of religious freedom, is the first step on the road to self-destruction. And from the looks of things, we're well along that road.
The other thing the atheists and non-believers need to realize is that we have just as much right to believe and display our symbols as they have NOT to believe and NOT display any symbols. (Then again, if you don't believe in any religion you don't have anything to display...maybe a necklace with a big "0" on it?) But the fact is that to tell a Christian that he can't display a cross, to tell a Jew that he can't display a menorah, to tell a Buddhist that he can't display a statue is just plain WRONG, and NO ONE has the right to tell us otherwise.
I, for one, am damned sick and tired of the atheists and non-believers telling me what I can and can't do concerning my religion. I think it's well past time for those of us who have religious beliefs, especially Christians, to stop turning the other cheek and tell the atheists and non-believers to go pound sand up their asses and leave those of us who DO believe the hell alone.
But that's just me. And I'm damned proud of it.
IHC
Anyone who has been reading the newspapers, reading the online news web sites, or watching the news on TV knows about it. Something concerning this undeclared war finds its way into the news nearly every week, sometimes as often as every day. Everyone reads about it, some of us shake our heads in disbelief that something like this could be going on in our country, but the vast majority of us read the article and promptly dismiss it, concerned more with which professional athlete got traded or with which celebrity is going to jail or getting divorced next. And the undeclared war continues, with new battles popping up all over our country on a regular basis.
The war of which I'm speaking, friends and neighbors, is the War On Religion - or, more accurately, the War On Christianity.
Stop and think for a minute just how many news stories you've heard of recently that have something to do with some group somewhere in our nation, or some person somewhere in our nation who is backed by some group like this, who have jumped up and cried, "I'm offended!" or who have filed a complaint and/or a lawsuit over the display of a cross, a Nativity, or even a Christmas tree. Seriously, stop for a moment and think about it.
Never realized there were that many, did you? And the funny thing is, the only religion you see being attacked - and I use that word intentionally - in such a manner is Christianity. The latest attack has taken place in New York City, where an atheist group purchased a billboard in which they said it's okay to keep Santa Claus and the "merry" in Christmas, but you should "drop the myth!" with these words being portrayed over a picture of Christ on the cross, wearing a crown of thorns.
I got news for these people - as the old saying goes, "JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON," not some fat old guy in a red suit giving out presents. But I digress...
Let me say a couple of things right up front. First and foremost, yes, I'm a Christian and believe in God and Jesus Christ. As any one of you who've been following my blog for the past few years knows I have a bit of a problem with the Old Testament, but I still believe in God and Jesus and therefore consider myself a Christian.
Second, I have ZERO problem with someone whose beliefs are different from mine. If you don't believe in God or any kind of religious diety, fine; if you believe in Buddha, fine; if you believe in Zen, that's fine, too. If you believe in Bucky the Dancing Mule, that's also fine with me. As long as it works for you, I really don't have a problem with that.
But when someone starts telling me that my belief is wrong, that it's "a myth," and that I can't display the symbols of my religion because it "offends" them or it's "unconstitutional," then THAT is the point at which it most certainly is NOT fine with me! I have a HUGE problem with that, and I think it's about time that the people of this nation who believe in God or Buddha or Zen or Bucky all stood up and told the atheists and other naysayers and nonbelievers out there to shut the hell up!
I find it very hard to believe that anyone could truly be "offended" by the display of a cross on a hilltop that has been placed there to honor the Christians who have given their lives in the service of our country. Actually, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could be offended by the display of a cross anywhere unless you're a friggin' vampire. THEN I could understand it, but now...nope, that just don't work for me. I'm no fan of Islam, but I don't get "offended" when I ride by a mosque and see the crescent moon on top of the spire. I don't like it, considering all of the death and destruction that's been done lately in the name of Allah and Islam, but "offended?" Nope, not one bit. I think that tired old line of "I'm offended!" is being used by people who live to be offended and will jump at any chance to be offended. These people spend most of their lives wanting things that they are too lazy to work for and have found that suing someone over the display of a Christian symbol because it "offends" them is a quick and easy way to a payday they don't deserve; either that, or they're envious of the success that others have had and want to get some of the riches for themselves and/or destroy some of that much-envied success along the way.
It's like this, people: if the sight of a cross or a Nativity scene offends you, then don't look at it!
As for the "unconstitutional" crap that comes up whenever a Nativity scene or a cross is displayed on property owned by some form of government, well, it's like this: that so-called "separation of church and state as defined by the Constitution" is the REAL myth. In the first place, it's the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution; in the second place, the First Amendment doesn't actually say that. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Nowhere in there do you see ANYTHING mentioning in ANY WAY the separation of church and state. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business. ("Allabouthistory.com, separation of church and state.") But as anyone can plainly see, the First Amendment does not mention it at all.
So how did this myth of "separation of church and state" get started? Well, my educated guess is that some liberal bleeding-heart judge came to this ill-advised and misguided conclusion when he was hearing what was most likely the very first lawsuit to use this claim as to why the religious symbol should be removed. In any event, he/she was wrong then, it's wrong now, and it will continue to be wrong until some conservative judge issues a judgement stating just that.
But I ain't holding my breath.
In the mean time, the atheists and non-believers out there all need to realize a few things. They need to realize that this country was founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution, and what they're doing now in this day and age is just that - religious persecution. Those of us who believe in Christ and choose to display our symbols are being attacked and persecuted for our beliefs, and that's wrong.
They also need to realize that, while our nation's religious beliefs have evolved and broadened due to the Constitutionally-protected right of religious freedom, whether they like it or not our entire country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles. To collectively turn our backs as a nation on one of the founding principles of our country, that of religious freedom, is the first step on the road to self-destruction. And from the looks of things, we're well along that road.
The other thing the atheists and non-believers need to realize is that we have just as much right to believe and display our symbols as they have NOT to believe and NOT display any symbols. (Then again, if you don't believe in any religion you don't have anything to display...maybe a necklace with a big "0" on it?) But the fact is that to tell a Christian that he can't display a cross, to tell a Jew that he can't display a menorah, to tell a Buddhist that he can't display a statue is just plain WRONG, and NO ONE has the right to tell us otherwise.
I, for one, am damned sick and tired of the atheists and non-believers telling me what I can and can't do concerning my religion. I think it's well past time for those of us who have religious beliefs, especially Christians, to stop turning the other cheek and tell the atheists and non-believers to go pound sand up their asses and leave those of us who DO believe the hell alone.
But that's just me. And I'm damned proud of it.
IHC
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
An Open Letter to Bob Costas
Dear Mr. Costas,
I am writing this letter to you in regards to the comments you made last weekend during the broadcast of an NFL game in which you said that Jovan Belcher "would be alive today if he had not had a gun."
First and foremost, let me say that I absolutely respect your right to voice your opinion. This right is guaranteed to us in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and while I may disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Having said that, now let me say this: you're an idiot.
I say this for several reasons, the first being the obvious: you placed the blame for Jovan Belcher's death squarely on a tool, an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything unless someone picks it up and uses it. Jovan Belcher made the concious decision to pick up a tool - in this case a pistol - and use it to commit murder and then take his own life. Rather than place the blame on the man committing the act, as any reasonable and semi-educated man would do, you chose to blame the tool. What if that tool had been a knife instead of a gun? Would you have made the same statement? I think not.
You also chose to use your position and fame as a broadcaster for personal reasons, that being to broadcast your personal opinion on gun control. This is an insulting and abhorrent abuse of your position, and if I were the president of your broadcasting company you would have been unemployed before the game was over. You were on the air to narrate a football game, not give your personal, bigoted, and semi-informed opinions on gun control.
Your comment tells me that you're one of those folks who believe our nation would be better off without the Second Amendment, that we'd be better off if no one in this country had guns. On this point, Mr. Costas, you are either sadly misinformed or intentionally uneducated and ignorant. Our founding fathers were wise enough to list the rights that we all have simply by existing, and they drafted the Bill of Rights to protect those rights, not give them to us. They were also smart enough to arrange them in order of importance, with the right of free speech you exercised being first.
Immediately after that one is the right to defend it, that right being the right to "keep and bear arms." Our founding fathers knew that our right to free speech and all the other rights as listed in the Bill of Rights were meaningless unless we had - and exercised - the right to defend them and ourselves. That's why it's the Second Amendment and not the Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth. Take away our right to defend ourselves and our rights and freedoms, and we cease to be citizens and become subjects. And if you think this is hogwash, then all you have to do is look at what history tells us. Every dictator who ever lived and lives today all have done the same thing first, that being to outlaw private ownership of firearms and thereby take away the public's means to resist.
Whether you and the others of your opinion like to admit it or not, there is evil in the world. There are those out there who live to do us harm, to take advantage of us, to rob, maime, and kill us at their whim and leisure. They do it on the streets and they do it in our own homes. The police cannot stop them for the simple reason that they cannot be everywhere at once; there are also many more "bad guys" than there are police officers. Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that it is not the job of the police to act as our bodyguards, and that the responsibility of our defense lies with us and not the police.
Guns give us this defense. The old saying of "God created man, but Colonel Colt made them equal" is right on the mark. Guns give us the means to defend ourselves, to protect ourselves from the evil people in the world no matter what. Guns give the mother who is home alone with her infant child the means to protect herself and that child from the man who kicks in the door to her home with the intent of robbing, raping and killing all those inside. It gives the woman on the street the means to resist the rapist who assaults her without warning or cause. It gives the man walking out to his car in the parking garage late at night the means to protect his life when the robber steps out of the shadows in front of him brandishing a knife.
Simply put, guns give us the means to survive.
The time of blaming tools for the actions of others is long past. The time for holding people accountable for the acts they commit is upon us, and the sooner you and others of your opinion realize this the sooner we make this nation a safer place in which to live. Statistics have shown that in every state where concealed carry has been legalized, violent crime has dropped. The reason for this is simple: the bad guys don't want to die, either. Statistics have also shown that where private ownership of firearms has been banned, violent crimes have increased. Don't believe me? Just ask the citizens of England and Australia.
You most certainly have the right to your own opinion and beliefs, and I respect those rights. All that I and the others like me ask is that we be given the same respect.
Sincerely,
IHC
I am writing this letter to you in regards to the comments you made last weekend during the broadcast of an NFL game in which you said that Jovan Belcher "would be alive today if he had not had a gun."
First and foremost, let me say that I absolutely respect your right to voice your opinion. This right is guaranteed to us in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and while I may disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Having said that, now let me say this: you're an idiot.
I say this for several reasons, the first being the obvious: you placed the blame for Jovan Belcher's death squarely on a tool, an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything unless someone picks it up and uses it. Jovan Belcher made the concious decision to pick up a tool - in this case a pistol - and use it to commit murder and then take his own life. Rather than place the blame on the man committing the act, as any reasonable and semi-educated man would do, you chose to blame the tool. What if that tool had been a knife instead of a gun? Would you have made the same statement? I think not.
You also chose to use your position and fame as a broadcaster for personal reasons, that being to broadcast your personal opinion on gun control. This is an insulting and abhorrent abuse of your position, and if I were the president of your broadcasting company you would have been unemployed before the game was over. You were on the air to narrate a football game, not give your personal, bigoted, and semi-informed opinions on gun control.
Your comment tells me that you're one of those folks who believe our nation would be better off without the Second Amendment, that we'd be better off if no one in this country had guns. On this point, Mr. Costas, you are either sadly misinformed or intentionally uneducated and ignorant. Our founding fathers were wise enough to list the rights that we all have simply by existing, and they drafted the Bill of Rights to protect those rights, not give them to us. They were also smart enough to arrange them in order of importance, with the right of free speech you exercised being first.
Immediately after that one is the right to defend it, that right being the right to "keep and bear arms." Our founding fathers knew that our right to free speech and all the other rights as listed in the Bill of Rights were meaningless unless we had - and exercised - the right to defend them and ourselves. That's why it's the Second Amendment and not the Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth. Take away our right to defend ourselves and our rights and freedoms, and we cease to be citizens and become subjects. And if you think this is hogwash, then all you have to do is look at what history tells us. Every dictator who ever lived and lives today all have done the same thing first, that being to outlaw private ownership of firearms and thereby take away the public's means to resist.
Whether you and the others of your opinion like to admit it or not, there is evil in the world. There are those out there who live to do us harm, to take advantage of us, to rob, maime, and kill us at their whim and leisure. They do it on the streets and they do it in our own homes. The police cannot stop them for the simple reason that they cannot be everywhere at once; there are also many more "bad guys" than there are police officers. Additionally, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that it is not the job of the police to act as our bodyguards, and that the responsibility of our defense lies with us and not the police.
Guns give us this defense. The old saying of "God created man, but Colonel Colt made them equal" is right on the mark. Guns give us the means to defend ourselves, to protect ourselves from the evil people in the world no matter what. Guns give the mother who is home alone with her infant child the means to protect herself and that child from the man who kicks in the door to her home with the intent of robbing, raping and killing all those inside. It gives the woman on the street the means to resist the rapist who assaults her without warning or cause. It gives the man walking out to his car in the parking garage late at night the means to protect his life when the robber steps out of the shadows in front of him brandishing a knife.
Simply put, guns give us the means to survive.
The time of blaming tools for the actions of others is long past. The time for holding people accountable for the acts they commit is upon us, and the sooner you and others of your opinion realize this the sooner we make this nation a safer place in which to live. Statistics have shown that in every state where concealed carry has been legalized, violent crime has dropped. The reason for this is simple: the bad guys don't want to die, either. Statistics have also shown that where private ownership of firearms has been banned, violent crimes have increased. Don't believe me? Just ask the citizens of England and Australia.
You most certainly have the right to your own opinion and beliefs, and I respect those rights. All that I and the others like me ask is that we be given the same respect.
Sincerely,
IHC
Thursday, November 29, 2012
The Republicans in Congress Have It Wrong
If you've been paying any attention to the news at all, you can't help but know about the big to-do currently being waged on Capitol Hill regarding the probable nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice as the next Secretary of State. (Bye-bye, Billary Clinton, don't let the door hit you in your fat ass on the way out!) The Republicans have vowed to block the nomination due to the misleading/incorrect/false/whatever statements that Ambassador Rice gave on no less than five Sunday morning news shows concerning the attack on our embassy in Libya. These appearances took place the day after the attack, and during those appearances the Ambassador stated clearly and unequivocably that the attack was a "spontaneous demonstration" that took place as a result of an anti-Muslim film released a few days before, and absolutely was NOT a terrorist attack.
Of course, information released later proved not only that the attack was, in fact, a coordinated and pre-planned terrorist attack, but also that the White House - which means The Great Pretender - knew this before Ambassador Rice made her statements. And since the subsequent indications from NObama that he's going to nominate Rice as the next Secretary of State, the Republicans have pounced on her like a cat on a canary.
In short, they took the bait. They've been had, and they don't know it. They've allowed themselves to be duped by the oldest trick in the book, the trick that magicians use in their act every day. It's called "distraction," and in this case NObama is the magician.
This past week Ambassador Rice testified that she made her statements using information given to her by the CIA, and I gotta tell ya that I absolutely believe that. There's no doubt in my mind that when this whole thing broke she was given a fact sheet and told that the information in it had come from the CIA, that it was 100% reliable, and that she should use that fact sheet as the basis for her statements. And she did exactly what she was told. (One must wonder, though, how a woman of her intelligence who is smart enough to be appointed Ambassador to the United Nations could fail to realize that participants in a "spontaneous demonstration" don't usually show up with AK-47s and rocket launchers.)
Since then, of course, the news has broken that the contents of the document were edited, and that all references to a terrorist attack were removed and replaced with the "spontaneous demonstration" bullshit. This information comes from the CIA itself, and they say that the White House is responsible for the editing. And the White House, by the way, is where the Ambassador got the fact sheet from that she used as a basis for her statements.
This lays the blame and the fault for all of this squarley in the lap of the President of the United States, which is who the Republicans in Congress should be going after instead of Susan Rice.
Of course, NObama has come to the defense of Ambassador Rice, and the reason for this is simple: he has no choice. If he abandons Susan Rice and throws her to the Republican wolves as a human sacrifice to save his own skinny ass, he knows that she's not going to go down without a fight and will let loose with all kinds of secrets and make all kinds of damaging accusations on the way down. And that will turn the Republicans in the Congress loose on him, with the resulting furor in the press and the general public forcing the Demoncrats in Congress to go along with it.
Can you say, "IMPEACHMENT?"
So NObama has no choice; he has to defend Susan Rice lest he be left with defending himself - and both the college professor in him and his former lawyer wife both know that he'll have ZERO defense. His only hope is to continue the defense of his chosen scapegoat - and make no mistake about it, that's what Susan Rice is, a scapegoat - and weather the storm until it eventually dies down. Which it will, of course; with the looming budget crisis just over the horizon, it's only a matter of weeks before this whole thing is relegated to the back pages of the newspapers and the sub-sub-categories of news on FOXNEWS.com.
In my humble opinion, the Republicans in Congress need to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and pounce on NObama before it's too late. The facts as I see them tell me that Ambassado Rice is guilty of doing nothing other than what she was ordered to do by the White House, even though I think her common sense should have kicked in at some point. (Then again, if you can't trust the President of the United States, then who can you trust? My point exactly.) Factual information has also come to light that the Embassy in Libya had told the White House that they feared a terrorist attack, that they wouldn't be able to defend against it, and requested assistance. The Great Pretender sat on his ass and did nothing, and as a result the US Ambassador to Libya and two other people were killed. The White House had previous knowledge that this attack was coming, had been begged by the Embassy for help, and did nothing.
It just amazes me that the Republicans haven't seen this, and I'm afraid that they'll continue snapping at the carrot being dangled in front of them until the budget crises overshadows everything else, and once again NObama will escape responsibility for something that he's done.
So I gotta ask you again: What the hell were you people thinking?
IHC
Of course, information released later proved not only that the attack was, in fact, a coordinated and pre-planned terrorist attack, but also that the White House - which means The Great Pretender - knew this before Ambassador Rice made her statements. And since the subsequent indications from NObama that he's going to nominate Rice as the next Secretary of State, the Republicans have pounced on her like a cat on a canary.
In short, they took the bait. They've been had, and they don't know it. They've allowed themselves to be duped by the oldest trick in the book, the trick that magicians use in their act every day. It's called "distraction," and in this case NObama is the magician.
This past week Ambassador Rice testified that she made her statements using information given to her by the CIA, and I gotta tell ya that I absolutely believe that. There's no doubt in my mind that when this whole thing broke she was given a fact sheet and told that the information in it had come from the CIA, that it was 100% reliable, and that she should use that fact sheet as the basis for her statements. And she did exactly what she was told. (One must wonder, though, how a woman of her intelligence who is smart enough to be appointed Ambassador to the United Nations could fail to realize that participants in a "spontaneous demonstration" don't usually show up with AK-47s and rocket launchers.)
Since then, of course, the news has broken that the contents of the document were edited, and that all references to a terrorist attack were removed and replaced with the "spontaneous demonstration" bullshit. This information comes from the CIA itself, and they say that the White House is responsible for the editing. And the White House, by the way, is where the Ambassador got the fact sheet from that she used as a basis for her statements.
This lays the blame and the fault for all of this squarley in the lap of the President of the United States, which is who the Republicans in Congress should be going after instead of Susan Rice.
Of course, NObama has come to the defense of Ambassador Rice, and the reason for this is simple: he has no choice. If he abandons Susan Rice and throws her to the Republican wolves as a human sacrifice to save his own skinny ass, he knows that she's not going to go down without a fight and will let loose with all kinds of secrets and make all kinds of damaging accusations on the way down. And that will turn the Republicans in the Congress loose on him, with the resulting furor in the press and the general public forcing the Demoncrats in Congress to go along with it.
Can you say, "IMPEACHMENT?"
So NObama has no choice; he has to defend Susan Rice lest he be left with defending himself - and both the college professor in him and his former lawyer wife both know that he'll have ZERO defense. His only hope is to continue the defense of his chosen scapegoat - and make no mistake about it, that's what Susan Rice is, a scapegoat - and weather the storm until it eventually dies down. Which it will, of course; with the looming budget crisis just over the horizon, it's only a matter of weeks before this whole thing is relegated to the back pages of the newspapers and the sub-sub-categories of news on FOXNEWS.com.
In my humble opinion, the Republicans in Congress need to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and pounce on NObama before it's too late. The facts as I see them tell me that Ambassado Rice is guilty of doing nothing other than what she was ordered to do by the White House, even though I think her common sense should have kicked in at some point. (Then again, if you can't trust the President of the United States, then who can you trust? My point exactly.) Factual information has also come to light that the Embassy in Libya had told the White House that they feared a terrorist attack, that they wouldn't be able to defend against it, and requested assistance. The Great Pretender sat on his ass and did nothing, and as a result the US Ambassador to Libya and two other people were killed. The White House had previous knowledge that this attack was coming, had been begged by the Embassy for help, and did nothing.
It just amazes me that the Republicans haven't seen this, and I'm afraid that they'll continue snapping at the carrot being dangled in front of them until the budget crises overshadows everything else, and once again NObama will escape responsibility for something that he's done.
So I gotta ask you again: What the hell were you people thinking?
IHC
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I Seem To Have Touched a Nerve
Apparently I touched a nerve - a very raw and sensitive nerve - or two of one of my readers with the content of my last blog entry. I say that because when I checked the comments section of that post a few days ago, I found this comment waiting for me:
"Cocksucker. Obama supports an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment (not the militia-based right Democrats have chirped about) and has expressed an interest in limited restrictions of the high-cap mags and AR's that you and your Nazi retards prefer to wave around in your hateful parades. Get over yourself. I have a houseful of guns and I have no fear that Obama wants my guns. You NRA bomb-throwers are the real problem with your senseless rhetoric without basis in law. Anonymous"
Like I said, it appears that I touched a nerve.
Normally when I get comments made on my blog that either begin with or contain an unprovoked and unnecessary insult or two I just delete the comment and move on, especially if the poster chooses to post the comment as "Anonymous." But with this comment, well, there's just so much to have fun with that I just had to break my own rule and keep it. Not only did I decide to keep it, I wanted to have so much fun with it that I chose to make it the subject of an entry in and of itself.
So let's have some fun, shall we?
I'll save the obvious for last and address the only point out of the many I made in my last post that Anonymous chose to have a problem with, that being NObama's stand on gun control. One must wonder why, though, out of all the other topics I addressed, that Anonymous only has a problem with this one. In the many discussions I've had on the Internet and in person on topics such as this, it's been my experience that if no one complains about something you've said, then it means you're right - that you hit the nail right on the head, and there's nothing they can say in rebuttal because it'd be a lie and they know it. So unless Anonymous wants to address the many other topics I covered, I'll just take for granted that he/she agrees with me on all those points and move on.
As for what Anonymous said concerning NObama's stand on the Second Amendment, that one point is correct. NObama has said that he supports the 'individual interpretation' of the Second Amendment, meaning that the Second Amendment refers to the individual citizen and not the militia. (Considering that all of the other amendments do the same thing, this is kinda a no-brainer.) However, he also stated that he supported the DC gun ban, stating that while he felt the Second Amendment applied to the individual it did not restrict the government from putting limits on that right.
But it is also true that while in the Congress, NObama voted in favor of every anti-gun or gun-restrictive bill that crossed his desk; further, he has also stated in public that he is in favor of re-instating the Clinton-era gun ban, also known as "The Brady Bill," having most recently made that comment in the last Presidential debate. He has also said that he is in favor of international treaties to restrict firearms trade, and even sent his Secretary of State to the United Nations to vote in favor of the proposed treaty - which she did. (Thank God it failed.) Further, In 1996 State Senator Obama answered a questionnaire and stated that he supported a complete ban on assault weapons, supported mandatory waiting periods, supported background checks, and supported a complete ban on manufacture and sale of handguns. Claims by then-Senator Obama that a staffer filed out the form were debunked by media outlets. Those same objectives were supported by State Senator Obama in a 1998 political awareness test. During a 2004 debate for the US Senate seat, Barack Obama mocked his opponent for not supporting a ban on assault weapons which he said had only one purpose: to kill people.
Since becoming President, NObama has appointed a Supreme Court judge who had previously gone on the public record as being pro-gun control, stating that the Heller decision - the one that was used to overturn the DC gun ban - was "settled law," and later voiced this opinion again in her dissention of that case when it came to the Supreme Court.
And if you want to read these facts for yourself, then go here: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/The_Second_Amendment/, because that's where I got the information from.
So I think that pretty much backs up my prediction of the coming assault on the Second Amendment. Now, let's get to the fun part!
One of the many good things about the Internet is that it gives you unlimited access to all kinds of good information that is at your disposal 24/7; one of the bad things about it is that it allows people to become what is known in the online forums as "Keyboard Commandos." A "Keyboard Commando" is someone who hides behind the shield of anonymity provided by the use of a screen name and uses this anonymity to sling insults, degrade, and otherwise belittle people by saying things online that they wouldn't have the balls to say to the other person should that person be standing in front of them - in other words, where the other person could knock their teeth down their throat. No, they hide behind their keyboard and sling insults, bringing their innermost and unrealized fantasies of courage and bravado to life with the strokes on the keyboard, congratulating themselves later on their magnificent show of bravado, false though it may be.
Such is the case with Anonymous, a misinformed, uneducated, sad, pathetic little man who felt the need to make himself feel better by morphing into a "Keyboard Commando." (I'll refer to Anonymous as 'he' from this point out because the language used sounds like that of a man and not a woman. If I'm wrong, then sue me.)
The fastest way to get people to NOT take what you're saying seriously is to lace your comments with insults and profanity, and this is even more true when you start your comments with one - as in the case of Anonymous. A wise man once said that the use of vulgarity, profanity and insults is the sign of a weak and empty mind, and this comment by Anonymous sure proves that to be correct. I didn't take what he said seriously from the very first word, and it only got worse as I read the rest of the comment.
In this comment Anonymous shows just how ignorant he truly is on more than one point.
When was the last time that any kind of "Nazi" group in this country held a "parade" in which they "waved around" assault rifles - or rifles of any kind? For that matter, when was the last time any "Nazi" group even held a parade in this nation? I recall a couple of sparsely-attended rallies in the distant past, but a parade? I don't seem to recall any parade by any "Nazi" group since the late 1930s when the German-American Bund was popular. (Of course, WWII put an end to all that.)
And the part about "NRA bomb-throwers" and "senseless rhetoric without basis in law" is just so inanely stupid as to actually be funny. I guess Anonymous doesn't read "American Rifleman" much, huh?
The comments and the manner in which Anonymous chose to make them are, sadly, what I have come to expect from the liberals in our nation. I have come to expect immature and childish actions such as this because the liberals with whom I have had several discussions over the past year have taught me by their own actions that this is what I am to expect. Liberals don't care much for facts because facts have the nasty habit of destroying their self-styled ideas and ideals, and this just throws them all into a tizzy. And since they can't reply with facts of their own to dispute what has been said, they resort to what they feel is the best and only thing they have left: insults and name-calling. Their own twisted brand of "logic" justifies this in their own minds, and they sleep very well at night knowing that they really showed the "big, bad conservative a thing or two!"
If only that were true, and not the exact opposite.
So what happened, Anonymous? Did I touch a nerve by daring to have the audacity to talk bad about your personal hero and demigod, NObama? Did I ruffle your feathers and upset your delicate disposition by daring to talk bad about your idol? Or did I really piss you off by voicing the facts as YOU know them to be true about this buffoon? Does the truth hurt that much? Apparently so.
And I'm very glad for you that you're not afraid that NObama will take your guns. For the sake of our nation, I sincerely hope that you're right. As for me, I'd rather be safe than sorry, and considering all of the PROOF of his intentions that I presented at the beginning of this post, I'm going to operate under the belief that NObama will in fact try to take our guns. If I'm wrong, then great! No one loses anything, and we remain citizens instead of subjects. But what if I'm not wrong? Then what? Will you then turn on your hero, or will you hand over your guns and subject yourself to his tyrannical rule, giving up any means you have to resist and preserve your freedom?
If the "cocksucker" part was supposed to upset me, well, I hate to tell ya this, but it didn't work. I've been called much worse by much better men, and have laughed in their faces too - just as I'm laughing in yours now.
You amuse me, you really do. You hide behind the shield of anonymity, spout your insults freely, and then run away and hide like the immature and cowardly man you are. You lie in your bed at night, snug and safe in the knowledge that what you've done will not come back to haunt you because no one really knows who you are - but you sure showed them! Yessir, you sure showed them!
You showed them what a coward you truly are - a misinformed, bigoted, immature coward who doesn't have the balls to stand up and fight for what he believes in while using his own name to do it. You'd rather give all the credit to someone else, that miserable and pathetic cretin known as "Anonymous."
I pity you, I really do. I have the courage to voice my opinions and stand up for what I believe in and sign my name to it, and I'm proud of that. That's a kind of pride you and others of your sad and pathetic ilk will never know - not until you grow up and grow a pair. Until then, until that day happens - if it ever does, which I seriously doubt - you'll be nothing more than a coward, an unimportant and sad little excuse for a human being and a man, giving "Anonymous" credit for the things you don't have the courage or integrity to do.
I'm willing to make a bet with you. I'll bet that you don't have the balls to make another comment and post your name to it in such a way that anyone can verify the name you give, such as linking it to your Facebook account. I'm betting you'll continue to hide behind your keyboard like the true "Keyboard Commando" and coward you really are. And here's the stakes of the bet: post your name, your REAL, VERIFIABLE name, and I'll post your comments here for the world to see. But post them under "Anonymous" and I'll delete them, every one of them, and I'll never waste another second of my time with you.
So there it is. Do you have the balls? I'm betting you don't.
Prove me wrong, I dare ya.
IHC
"Cocksucker. Obama supports an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment (not the militia-based right Democrats have chirped about) and has expressed an interest in limited restrictions of the high-cap mags and AR's that you and your Nazi retards prefer to wave around in your hateful parades. Get over yourself. I have a houseful of guns and I have no fear that Obama wants my guns. You NRA bomb-throwers are the real problem with your senseless rhetoric without basis in law. Anonymous"
Like I said, it appears that I touched a nerve.
Normally when I get comments made on my blog that either begin with or contain an unprovoked and unnecessary insult or two I just delete the comment and move on, especially if the poster chooses to post the comment as "Anonymous." But with this comment, well, there's just so much to have fun with that I just had to break my own rule and keep it. Not only did I decide to keep it, I wanted to have so much fun with it that I chose to make it the subject of an entry in and of itself.
So let's have some fun, shall we?
I'll save the obvious for last and address the only point out of the many I made in my last post that Anonymous chose to have a problem with, that being NObama's stand on gun control. One must wonder why, though, out of all the other topics I addressed, that Anonymous only has a problem with this one. In the many discussions I've had on the Internet and in person on topics such as this, it's been my experience that if no one complains about something you've said, then it means you're right - that you hit the nail right on the head, and there's nothing they can say in rebuttal because it'd be a lie and they know it. So unless Anonymous wants to address the many other topics I covered, I'll just take for granted that he/she agrees with me on all those points and move on.
As for what Anonymous said concerning NObama's stand on the Second Amendment, that one point is correct. NObama has said that he supports the 'individual interpretation' of the Second Amendment, meaning that the Second Amendment refers to the individual citizen and not the militia. (Considering that all of the other amendments do the same thing, this is kinda a no-brainer.) However, he also stated that he supported the DC gun ban, stating that while he felt the Second Amendment applied to the individual it did not restrict the government from putting limits on that right.
But it is also true that while in the Congress, NObama voted in favor of every anti-gun or gun-restrictive bill that crossed his desk; further, he has also stated in public that he is in favor of re-instating the Clinton-era gun ban, also known as "The Brady Bill," having most recently made that comment in the last Presidential debate. He has also said that he is in favor of international treaties to restrict firearms trade, and even sent his Secretary of State to the United Nations to vote in favor of the proposed treaty - which she did. (Thank God it failed.) Further, In 1996 State Senator Obama answered a questionnaire and stated that he supported a complete ban on assault weapons, supported mandatory waiting periods, supported background checks, and supported a complete ban on manufacture and sale of handguns. Claims by then-Senator Obama that a staffer filed out the form were debunked by media outlets. Those same objectives were supported by State Senator Obama in a 1998 political awareness test. During a 2004 debate for the US Senate seat, Barack Obama mocked his opponent for not supporting a ban on assault weapons which he said had only one purpose: to kill people.
Since becoming President, NObama has appointed a Supreme Court judge who had previously gone on the public record as being pro-gun control, stating that the Heller decision - the one that was used to overturn the DC gun ban - was "settled law," and later voiced this opinion again in her dissention of that case when it came to the Supreme Court.
And if you want to read these facts for yourself, then go here: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/The_Second_Amendment/, because that's where I got the information from.
So I think that pretty much backs up my prediction of the coming assault on the Second Amendment. Now, let's get to the fun part!
One of the many good things about the Internet is that it gives you unlimited access to all kinds of good information that is at your disposal 24/7; one of the bad things about it is that it allows people to become what is known in the online forums as "Keyboard Commandos." A "Keyboard Commando" is someone who hides behind the shield of anonymity provided by the use of a screen name and uses this anonymity to sling insults, degrade, and otherwise belittle people by saying things online that they wouldn't have the balls to say to the other person should that person be standing in front of them - in other words, where the other person could knock their teeth down their throat. No, they hide behind their keyboard and sling insults, bringing their innermost and unrealized fantasies of courage and bravado to life with the strokes on the keyboard, congratulating themselves later on their magnificent show of bravado, false though it may be.
Such is the case with Anonymous, a misinformed, uneducated, sad, pathetic little man who felt the need to make himself feel better by morphing into a "Keyboard Commando." (I'll refer to Anonymous as 'he' from this point out because the language used sounds like that of a man and not a woman. If I'm wrong, then sue me.)
The fastest way to get people to NOT take what you're saying seriously is to lace your comments with insults and profanity, and this is even more true when you start your comments with one - as in the case of Anonymous. A wise man once said that the use of vulgarity, profanity and insults is the sign of a weak and empty mind, and this comment by Anonymous sure proves that to be correct. I didn't take what he said seriously from the very first word, and it only got worse as I read the rest of the comment.
In this comment Anonymous shows just how ignorant he truly is on more than one point.
When was the last time that any kind of "Nazi" group in this country held a "parade" in which they "waved around" assault rifles - or rifles of any kind? For that matter, when was the last time any "Nazi" group even held a parade in this nation? I recall a couple of sparsely-attended rallies in the distant past, but a parade? I don't seem to recall any parade by any "Nazi" group since the late 1930s when the German-American Bund was popular. (Of course, WWII put an end to all that.)
And the part about "NRA bomb-throwers" and "senseless rhetoric without basis in law" is just so inanely stupid as to actually be funny. I guess Anonymous doesn't read "American Rifleman" much, huh?
The comments and the manner in which Anonymous chose to make them are, sadly, what I have come to expect from the liberals in our nation. I have come to expect immature and childish actions such as this because the liberals with whom I have had several discussions over the past year have taught me by their own actions that this is what I am to expect. Liberals don't care much for facts because facts have the nasty habit of destroying their self-styled ideas and ideals, and this just throws them all into a tizzy. And since they can't reply with facts of their own to dispute what has been said, they resort to what they feel is the best and only thing they have left: insults and name-calling. Their own twisted brand of "logic" justifies this in their own minds, and they sleep very well at night knowing that they really showed the "big, bad conservative a thing or two!"
If only that were true, and not the exact opposite.
So what happened, Anonymous? Did I touch a nerve by daring to have the audacity to talk bad about your personal hero and demigod, NObama? Did I ruffle your feathers and upset your delicate disposition by daring to talk bad about your idol? Or did I really piss you off by voicing the facts as YOU know them to be true about this buffoon? Does the truth hurt that much? Apparently so.
And I'm very glad for you that you're not afraid that NObama will take your guns. For the sake of our nation, I sincerely hope that you're right. As for me, I'd rather be safe than sorry, and considering all of the PROOF of his intentions that I presented at the beginning of this post, I'm going to operate under the belief that NObama will in fact try to take our guns. If I'm wrong, then great! No one loses anything, and we remain citizens instead of subjects. But what if I'm not wrong? Then what? Will you then turn on your hero, or will you hand over your guns and subject yourself to his tyrannical rule, giving up any means you have to resist and preserve your freedom?
If the "cocksucker" part was supposed to upset me, well, I hate to tell ya this, but it didn't work. I've been called much worse by much better men, and have laughed in their faces too - just as I'm laughing in yours now.
You amuse me, you really do. You hide behind the shield of anonymity, spout your insults freely, and then run away and hide like the immature and cowardly man you are. You lie in your bed at night, snug and safe in the knowledge that what you've done will not come back to haunt you because no one really knows who you are - but you sure showed them! Yessir, you sure showed them!
You showed them what a coward you truly are - a misinformed, bigoted, immature coward who doesn't have the balls to stand up and fight for what he believes in while using his own name to do it. You'd rather give all the credit to someone else, that miserable and pathetic cretin known as "Anonymous."
I pity you, I really do. I have the courage to voice my opinions and stand up for what I believe in and sign my name to it, and I'm proud of that. That's a kind of pride you and others of your sad and pathetic ilk will never know - not until you grow up and grow a pair. Until then, until that day happens - if it ever does, which I seriously doubt - you'll be nothing more than a coward, an unimportant and sad little excuse for a human being and a man, giving "Anonymous" credit for the things you don't have the courage or integrity to do.
I'm willing to make a bet with you. I'll bet that you don't have the balls to make another comment and post your name to it in such a way that anyone can verify the name you give, such as linking it to your Facebook account. I'm betting you'll continue to hide behind your keyboard like the true "Keyboard Commando" and coward you really are. And here's the stakes of the bet: post your name, your REAL, VERIFIABLE name, and I'll post your comments here for the world to see. But post them under "Anonymous" and I'll delete them, every one of them, and I'll never waste another second of my time with you.
So there it is. Do you have the balls? I'm betting you don't.
Prove me wrong, I dare ya.
IHC
Sunday, November 11, 2012
What the Hell were You People Thinking??
I'm sorry to have to end my 4 month hiatus from posting on my blog in such a manner, but after the tragic and ridiculous re-election of the worst President in our history, I just have to ask those of you who voted for this clown one simple question:
What the hell were you people thinking??
Let's get the obvious out of the way first and foremost: NObama was re-elected for the same reason he was elected. He's black. Period, end of story. If the people who voted for him for this one reason had not voted, he wouldn't have been re-elected. No way, no how. But in the view from downrange - in other words, in my humble opinion - the main reason he was re-elected is because the vast majority of the 95% of the black voters in America put on their racist hats and voted skin color instead of proven abilities and record of accomplishments, both of which were decidedly lacking, by the way. And there's absolutely nothing anyone will ever say that will convince me otherwise.
My question is directed at those of you who voted for this asshat for reasons other than skin color. I'm not going to try to avoid offending anyone; those days are long over. If you can't handle my opinions stated in the manner in which I choose to state them, then I suggest you stop reading at this point, close out this page and go look at something else because I'm going to speak my mind and I honestly don't give a rat's ass who I offend or who doesn't like it. Those of you who truly know me and know how I think, act, and treat people will understand; those of you who don't know me won't understand, and I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to explain it to you. You either get it, or you don't.
For those of you who voted for this buffoon, let's take a close look at just who you voted for, shall we?
This President has spent more money in the shortest amount of time than any other President in history. On top of that, he lied to you during the campaign of 2008 when he said, "If I can't get this done (fix the economy) in three years, we're talking a one-term proposition!" Well, it's FOUR YEARS later, it still isnt' done, and instead of admitting his mistake he asked you for ANOTHER FOUR YEARS to do it.
And you gave it to him!
If he can't get it done in four, what makes you think he can get it done in eight? The balance in Congress didn't shift, neither party holds any additional advantage over the other, so things are pretty much the same now as they were 4 years ago. So just what in the hell makes you think he can get it done this time around? It's going to be more of the same - NObama failing to get things done and then blaming everyone else for his failures. Only now it's HIS economy that he inherited, but I'm quite sure he'll continue to blame Bush. Blaming other people for his failures has proven to be the only thing this asshat does well.
This President has usurped the Constitution - the document he swore an oath to protect and defend, by the way - by issuing more Executive Orders than the past two presidents in the entire 16 years of both President's terms combined. If he can't get what he wants past Congress, then all he does is sign an Executive Order, thus bypassing Congress and the Constitution to force what he wants down the throats of the American people.
So are you telling me by voting for him that you're okay with him treating the Constitution as a guideline rather than the rule of law? Really?
This President also lied to you about not raising your taxes. He slid this one in on you when he and the Demoncrats and Libtards in Congress shoved NObamacare down the throats of the American people. During his campaign of 2008 he swore not to raise taxes, but that's exactly what he did with NObamacare. In case you haven't been keeping up on current events, the money that the Feds will take from you should you fail to purchase health care (as NObamacare requires you to do - but more on that shortly) has been legally judged as a "tax" by no less than the Supreme Court of the United States.
So that pretty much ends that argument, no matter how much the Libtards try to spin it.
And as far as NObamacare goes, this is possibly the biggest lie that NObama has told to the American people - and if it's not a lie, then it's one hell of a big misdirection. He told us - and too many of you believed it - that he was going to institute "a health care program that will provide quality health care for every American," with emphasis being placed on "provide." This misdirection leads you to believe that the Feds are going to GIVE you FREE health care; actually, the truth is that NObamacare doesn't GIVE you a damned thing. It REQUIRES you to PURCHASE health care, and if you don't, then the IRS comes after you to collect that tax the SCOTUS was talking about. So if you're one of those welfare rats who voted skin color because you thought your savior and hero was going to GIVE you FREE healthcare, then you're in for a surprise.
You're also a racist idiot, but I'll save that for another post at another time.
As for foreign policy, well, let's put it this way: the obvious lack of leadership and dynamic foreign policy coupled with the lackadaisical liberal "it can never happen to us" attitude of NObama and his band of merry idiots has resulted in the ONLY successful terrorist attack on a US resource since 9/11. And the really tragic part about it is that the staff at the embassy in Libya told the administration that they feared a terrorist attack and did not have the resources to defend against it.
And the NObama administration sat on its collective ass and did nothing! As a result, the embassy was attacked, and the Ambassador and two others were killed. On top of that, there has been NO definitive actions of any kind to indicate any type of retaliatory action being taken against anyone - so our Ambassador and two other Americans are dead, and the NObama administration apparently could give a shit. Hell, NObama hasn't even admitted it was a terrorist attack, even though the CIA, the FBI, and his own Chief of Staff have done so!
And let's talk a bit about the billions of dollars of OUR tax money this moron has wasted, shall we?
Ever hear of a company called Solyndra? You know, that was the "clean energy" company that NObama praised during his campaign, the one that his staff shoved the loan approval through for after his election, the one NObama attended the ground breaking ceremony for - and the one that went BANKRUPT this past summer. Remember them? And since that time, yet another "clean energy" company that NObama gave millions of our tax dollars to has also failed, that company being the one that was going to provide the batteries for the Chevy Volt. Seems that the company went bust and closed its doors before they delivered even ONE battery to Chevy. More tax money down the crapper.
And how about all of that "stimulus" money he handed out to companies to "create jobs?" Was that a success? Well, in a word - NO. The unemployment rate stayed in excess of 8% for the first THREE AND A HALF YEARS of his first term, all this after he promised you that under his administration, the unemployment rate wouldn't get any higher than 8%. And when he first started talking about the "stimulus" program, his administration said that the program would create enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate to 6% or less. And, of course, none of that happened. The unemployment rate stayed above 8% for 43 STRAIGHT MONTHS.
Then there was all that talk about running "the most transparent administration" in the history of the nation - and the very first thing he did was take his band of merry idiots in Congress and go behind closed doors to "negotiate" the health care bill.
I could go on with more - much more, like "Fast and Furious," the Attorney General who has been held in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena, the extension of "executive privilege" to cover Holder's ass, the now-infamous "apology tour" he took overseas, the appointment of a person to the Supreme Court who has never sat on the bench in judgement of a trial a single day of her life, the incompetency of the Director of Homeland Security - but by now I think you get the point.
And if not, here it is in plain English: in 2008 America screwed up big time and elected a man President based on his skin color, and in doing so they elected the most unprepared, inexperienced, naive, and undeserving person in the history of the nation. And in 2012 the same people turned around and did it again, proving two things: racism is alive and well and IS NOT living in "white America," and some people just don't learn from their mistakes.
I have honestly tried to figure out why anyone who voted for this man for reasons other than his skin color did so, and for the life of me I can't figure it out. I've asked a couple of my friends who voted for him about this, and so far no one has even tried to give me an answer. Wonder why that is?
Out of this whole debacle of an election there is, after all, a silver lining to the dark cloud. It's not much, but it's something, and right about now people like me need something to hold on to, so here it is: the asshole can't run for a third term. When this upcoming term is over, that's it. He's out on his ass, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
But the really scary thing is this: now that he can't run again, he has nothing to lose. So now there's nothing stopping him from doing the things he wanted to do during the first term but didn't because he wanted a second term. Now there's nothing except the Republicans in Congress to stop him, but even they can't stop an Executive Order.
Stand by for an all-out assault on the Second Amendment, and it ain't gonna be pretty. He hinted at this during the Presidential debates, so you can bet he'll act on it during his second reign of terror.
And if I'm wrong about this, in January of 2017 I'll kiss your ass on Main Street and give you a week to draw a crowd.
IHC
What the hell were you people thinking??
Let's get the obvious out of the way first and foremost: NObama was re-elected for the same reason he was elected. He's black. Period, end of story. If the people who voted for him for this one reason had not voted, he wouldn't have been re-elected. No way, no how. But in the view from downrange - in other words, in my humble opinion - the main reason he was re-elected is because the vast majority of the 95% of the black voters in America put on their racist hats and voted skin color instead of proven abilities and record of accomplishments, both of which were decidedly lacking, by the way. And there's absolutely nothing anyone will ever say that will convince me otherwise.
My question is directed at those of you who voted for this asshat for reasons other than skin color. I'm not going to try to avoid offending anyone; those days are long over. If you can't handle my opinions stated in the manner in which I choose to state them, then I suggest you stop reading at this point, close out this page and go look at something else because I'm going to speak my mind and I honestly don't give a rat's ass who I offend or who doesn't like it. Those of you who truly know me and know how I think, act, and treat people will understand; those of you who don't know me won't understand, and I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to explain it to you. You either get it, or you don't.
For those of you who voted for this buffoon, let's take a close look at just who you voted for, shall we?
This President has spent more money in the shortest amount of time than any other President in history. On top of that, he lied to you during the campaign of 2008 when he said, "If I can't get this done (fix the economy) in three years, we're talking a one-term proposition!" Well, it's FOUR YEARS later, it still isnt' done, and instead of admitting his mistake he asked you for ANOTHER FOUR YEARS to do it.
And you gave it to him!
If he can't get it done in four, what makes you think he can get it done in eight? The balance in Congress didn't shift, neither party holds any additional advantage over the other, so things are pretty much the same now as they were 4 years ago. So just what in the hell makes you think he can get it done this time around? It's going to be more of the same - NObama failing to get things done and then blaming everyone else for his failures. Only now it's HIS economy that he inherited, but I'm quite sure he'll continue to blame Bush. Blaming other people for his failures has proven to be the only thing this asshat does well.
This President has usurped the Constitution - the document he swore an oath to protect and defend, by the way - by issuing more Executive Orders than the past two presidents in the entire 16 years of both President's terms combined. If he can't get what he wants past Congress, then all he does is sign an Executive Order, thus bypassing Congress and the Constitution to force what he wants down the throats of the American people.
So are you telling me by voting for him that you're okay with him treating the Constitution as a guideline rather than the rule of law? Really?
This President also lied to you about not raising your taxes. He slid this one in on you when he and the Demoncrats and Libtards in Congress shoved NObamacare down the throats of the American people. During his campaign of 2008 he swore not to raise taxes, but that's exactly what he did with NObamacare. In case you haven't been keeping up on current events, the money that the Feds will take from you should you fail to purchase health care (as NObamacare requires you to do - but more on that shortly) has been legally judged as a "tax" by no less than the Supreme Court of the United States.
So that pretty much ends that argument, no matter how much the Libtards try to spin it.
And as far as NObamacare goes, this is possibly the biggest lie that NObama has told to the American people - and if it's not a lie, then it's one hell of a big misdirection. He told us - and too many of you believed it - that he was going to institute "a health care program that will provide quality health care for every American," with emphasis being placed on "provide." This misdirection leads you to believe that the Feds are going to GIVE you FREE health care; actually, the truth is that NObamacare doesn't GIVE you a damned thing. It REQUIRES you to PURCHASE health care, and if you don't, then the IRS comes after you to collect that tax the SCOTUS was talking about. So if you're one of those welfare rats who voted skin color because you thought your savior and hero was going to GIVE you FREE healthcare, then you're in for a surprise.
You're also a racist idiot, but I'll save that for another post at another time.
As for foreign policy, well, let's put it this way: the obvious lack of leadership and dynamic foreign policy coupled with the lackadaisical liberal "it can never happen to us" attitude of NObama and his band of merry idiots has resulted in the ONLY successful terrorist attack on a US resource since 9/11. And the really tragic part about it is that the staff at the embassy in Libya told the administration that they feared a terrorist attack and did not have the resources to defend against it.
And the NObama administration sat on its collective ass and did nothing! As a result, the embassy was attacked, and the Ambassador and two others were killed. On top of that, there has been NO definitive actions of any kind to indicate any type of retaliatory action being taken against anyone - so our Ambassador and two other Americans are dead, and the NObama administration apparently could give a shit. Hell, NObama hasn't even admitted it was a terrorist attack, even though the CIA, the FBI, and his own Chief of Staff have done so!
And let's talk a bit about the billions of dollars of OUR tax money this moron has wasted, shall we?
Ever hear of a company called Solyndra? You know, that was the "clean energy" company that NObama praised during his campaign, the one that his staff shoved the loan approval through for after his election, the one NObama attended the ground breaking ceremony for - and the one that went BANKRUPT this past summer. Remember them? And since that time, yet another "clean energy" company that NObama gave millions of our tax dollars to has also failed, that company being the one that was going to provide the batteries for the Chevy Volt. Seems that the company went bust and closed its doors before they delivered even ONE battery to Chevy. More tax money down the crapper.
And how about all of that "stimulus" money he handed out to companies to "create jobs?" Was that a success? Well, in a word - NO. The unemployment rate stayed in excess of 8% for the first THREE AND A HALF YEARS of his first term, all this after he promised you that under his administration, the unemployment rate wouldn't get any higher than 8%. And when he first started talking about the "stimulus" program, his administration said that the program would create enough jobs to lower the unemployment rate to 6% or less. And, of course, none of that happened. The unemployment rate stayed above 8% for 43 STRAIGHT MONTHS.
Then there was all that talk about running "the most transparent administration" in the history of the nation - and the very first thing he did was take his band of merry idiots in Congress and go behind closed doors to "negotiate" the health care bill.
I could go on with more - much more, like "Fast and Furious," the Attorney General who has been held in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena, the extension of "executive privilege" to cover Holder's ass, the now-infamous "apology tour" he took overseas, the appointment of a person to the Supreme Court who has never sat on the bench in judgement of a trial a single day of her life, the incompetency of the Director of Homeland Security - but by now I think you get the point.
And if not, here it is in plain English: in 2008 America screwed up big time and elected a man President based on his skin color, and in doing so they elected the most unprepared, inexperienced, naive, and undeserving person in the history of the nation. And in 2012 the same people turned around and did it again, proving two things: racism is alive and well and IS NOT living in "white America," and some people just don't learn from their mistakes.
I have honestly tried to figure out why anyone who voted for this man for reasons other than his skin color did so, and for the life of me I can't figure it out. I've asked a couple of my friends who voted for him about this, and so far no one has even tried to give me an answer. Wonder why that is?
Out of this whole debacle of an election there is, after all, a silver lining to the dark cloud. It's not much, but it's something, and right about now people like me need something to hold on to, so here it is: the asshole can't run for a third term. When this upcoming term is over, that's it. He's out on his ass, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.
But the really scary thing is this: now that he can't run again, he has nothing to lose. So now there's nothing stopping him from doing the things he wanted to do during the first term but didn't because he wanted a second term. Now there's nothing except the Republicans in Congress to stop him, but even they can't stop an Executive Order.
Stand by for an all-out assault on the Second Amendment, and it ain't gonna be pretty. He hinted at this during the Presidential debates, so you can bet he'll act on it during his second reign of terror.
And if I'm wrong about this, in January of 2017 I'll kiss your ass on Main Street and give you a week to draw a crowd.
IHC
Monday, July 23, 2012
Gun Control Laws Don't Work - EVER
First and foremost, let me say right up front that the recent shootings in Aurora, Colorado are a tragedy, and my heart and prayers go out to the victims and their families.
If this latest shooting spree proves anything, it proves once again that background checks simply don't work, and that the current system is a farce. All of the weapons and ammunition used in the shooting were bought legally, and there's nothing that anyone or any system of registration or background checking could have done to prevent the sale. The reason behind this is simple - you can't tell if someone is nuts unless they've been diagnosed, and in this case the shooter has had ZERO mental issues in his background. Therefore, the system set in place by the Libtards and the Demoncrats in the sixties has failed once again to do what they said it was going to do - protect the American people from nuts like this.
So now Feinstein and the other Libtards and Demoncrats in Congress are calling for yet more useless gun control laws. These supposedly educated people are either too stupid or simply unwilling to recognize the simple fact that laws of this type will only affect law-abiding citizens, and that criminals will totally and completely ignore them. That's why they're called "CRIMINALS."
While it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, some members of Congress still just don't get it.
But let's take a look at the concept of laws in another way, shall we?
The common misconception that people seem to be laboring under is that a law will "protect" the public in some fashion or another, that the mere existence of a law will prevent the bad people in our society from doing what the law says they shouldn't do. While this theory is a nice one, that's all it is - a nice theory. The reality of it is that no law in the world is designed to "protect" you, nor can it since criminals don't obey the law.
Every society in every part of the world has what is considered an acceptable way of life, things that society says are okay to do and things that are not okay to do. The enacting of a law simply puts down on paper the official notice that the act that the law covers is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated by the society which enacts it. Once this law is enacted, the government - whichever government that may be - now has the legal right to punish those who break the law, and the law also sets what the punishment can be.
In short, laws are not designed to protect; rather, they're designed to punish.
And that's what gun control laws do, but instead of punishing the criminal they punish the law-abiding citizen. There are currently more than 25,000 "gun control" laws in existence in the United States, and yet we still have mass shootings going on. I fail to see how anyone with even the smallest shred of intelligence can think for even a millisecond that the passage of yet another law will in any way change things. But here's an idea: instead of passing new laws, why not simply enforce the ones we have?
Wow, what a novel concept!
At this point, I'm sure there are some folks out there who are saying to themselves, "Well, then, if gun control laws don't work then let's just ban guns altogether! That will surely solve the problem!"
Yeah, sure it will - just like making cocaine, meth, and heroin have solved the drug problem.
But all of this talk about laws and gun control doesn't even begin to address the real issue, the real cause of tragedies such as we witnessed this week. The real cause of this is the gradual moral breakdown of American society and the failure of parents to teach their children right from wrong. I mean, really, think about it: in the 1930's anyone of any age could walk into any general store and buy a handgun, no questions asked. You could also buy a fully-automatic machine gun from the Sears mail order catalogue, again with no questions asked. Guns were far more accessible then than they are now, yet there were no school shootings, no shootings in movie theaters, no drive-by shootings, nothing of that type at all. "Gun violence" as it is being called today simply didn't exist.
The reason for that is because the moral standard in our society was so much higher and so much better than it is now, that people just didn't do things like that. It was wrong, they knew it was wrong, so they didn't do it. Simply put, they had been taught better by their parents.
The real answer to the "gun violence" problem is not to pass more laws. The real answer is twofold: first, enforce the laws we have, and second, teach your children right from wrong.
That, my friends, is the answer.
IHC
If this latest shooting spree proves anything, it proves once again that background checks simply don't work, and that the current system is a farce. All of the weapons and ammunition used in the shooting were bought legally, and there's nothing that anyone or any system of registration or background checking could have done to prevent the sale. The reason behind this is simple - you can't tell if someone is nuts unless they've been diagnosed, and in this case the shooter has had ZERO mental issues in his background. Therefore, the system set in place by the Libtards and the Demoncrats in the sixties has failed once again to do what they said it was going to do - protect the American people from nuts like this.
So now Feinstein and the other Libtards and Demoncrats in Congress are calling for yet more useless gun control laws. These supposedly educated people are either too stupid or simply unwilling to recognize the simple fact that laws of this type will only affect law-abiding citizens, and that criminals will totally and completely ignore them. That's why they're called "CRIMINALS."
While it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, some members of Congress still just don't get it.
But let's take a look at the concept of laws in another way, shall we?
The common misconception that people seem to be laboring under is that a law will "protect" the public in some fashion or another, that the mere existence of a law will prevent the bad people in our society from doing what the law says they shouldn't do. While this theory is a nice one, that's all it is - a nice theory. The reality of it is that no law in the world is designed to "protect" you, nor can it since criminals don't obey the law.
Every society in every part of the world has what is considered an acceptable way of life, things that society says are okay to do and things that are not okay to do. The enacting of a law simply puts down on paper the official notice that the act that the law covers is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated by the society which enacts it. Once this law is enacted, the government - whichever government that may be - now has the legal right to punish those who break the law, and the law also sets what the punishment can be.
In short, laws are not designed to protect; rather, they're designed to punish.
And that's what gun control laws do, but instead of punishing the criminal they punish the law-abiding citizen. There are currently more than 25,000 "gun control" laws in existence in the United States, and yet we still have mass shootings going on. I fail to see how anyone with even the smallest shred of intelligence can think for even a millisecond that the passage of yet another law will in any way change things. But here's an idea: instead of passing new laws, why not simply enforce the ones we have?
Wow, what a novel concept!
At this point, I'm sure there are some folks out there who are saying to themselves, "Well, then, if gun control laws don't work then let's just ban guns altogether! That will surely solve the problem!"
Yeah, sure it will - just like making cocaine, meth, and heroin have solved the drug problem.
But all of this talk about laws and gun control doesn't even begin to address the real issue, the real cause of tragedies such as we witnessed this week. The real cause of this is the gradual moral breakdown of American society and the failure of parents to teach their children right from wrong. I mean, really, think about it: in the 1930's anyone of any age could walk into any general store and buy a handgun, no questions asked. You could also buy a fully-automatic machine gun from the Sears mail order catalogue, again with no questions asked. Guns were far more accessible then than they are now, yet there were no school shootings, no shootings in movie theaters, no drive-by shootings, nothing of that type at all. "Gun violence" as it is being called today simply didn't exist.
The reason for that is because the moral standard in our society was so much higher and so much better than it is now, that people just didn't do things like that. It was wrong, they knew it was wrong, so they didn't do it. Simply put, they had been taught better by their parents.
The real answer to the "gun violence" problem is not to pass more laws. The real answer is twofold: first, enforce the laws we have, and second, teach your children right from wrong.
That, my friends, is the answer.
IHC
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Six Weeks Later
The day before Buster passed I was home for lunch and was doing my usual thing, carrying him down the stairs from the upstairs bedroom so he could go outside and do his thing. As I was walking down the stairs with him in my arms, I patted him on his side and said, "I don't know what I'm ever going to do without you, baby boy..."
And the next day he was gone.
Since that day I've been finding out just what I'd do without him, and I gotta tell ya that it's been a long, rough six weeks for both Gina and myself. The past two have been pretty good, but the first two were pure hell. It too me the better part of three weeks before I could talk about him and what happened without crying, and we won't even talk about the nights I cried myself to sleep. I know Gina was going through the same thing, feeling the same things I was, even though she wouldn't talk about it. That's just her way, to keep her feelings inside her and deal with it herself, but I knew she was hurting just as I was. We both loved Buster with all our hearts, and it broke both our hearts when he passed. We both knew it was inevitable and was a part of pet ownership, but we also knew that knowledge wouldn't make it any easier. And it didn't.
But a wise man once said that "all hurt heals," and this is no exception. Over the course of the past two or three weeks I've been thinking about all of the good times with Buster and all of the things he did that used to make me smile or laugh, and I've found myself thinking about those things more often that I found myself thinking about that last terrible, tragic morning. Buster brought a lot of joy and smiles into our lives, and he made us laugh more than I think we realized.
Even at 11 years old, Buster was still a puppy at heart. For no apparent reason he'd jump down off of the couch and roll around on the floor, paws in the air, snorting all the while, and then suddenly jump up to his feet and look around with those sightless eyes as if to say, "What just happened?" Then he'd jump back up on the couch and go back to sleep as if nothing happened.
He also made us laugh with how he knew our routine just by the sounds of the house and what we were saying, and with how quickly he'd trot up the stairs to get his treat when we were going out. We'd be downstairs in the living room, getting our stuff together and getting ready to leave, and as soon as he'd hear the anti-burglary arm on the sliding patio door come down he'd be off like a shot, and we'd hear "thump-thump-thump-thump-thump!" as he went trotting up the stairs! And that was if we heard him at all - there were plenty of times we'd look around and ask, "Where's Buster?" only to look up and see him at the top of the stairs, looking down as if to say, "Well, where's my treat? What's taking you so long?"
That dog was a character in more ways than one, and he left an indelible mark on both our hearts that will always be there.
Two weeks after he passed I went down to the local tattoo parlor and got a tattoo of him on my chest right over my heart; that way I can look at him every day for the rest of my life until I meet him at Rainbow Bridge. I talk to him all the time, especially at night when I walk over to where his urn and picture are and tell him goodnight. That's become a nightly ritual with me, one that I've only missed once since Gina brought him home, and I won't miss it again. Ever.
It's been a long six weeks without my baby boy, but both of us have adapted. We both know that the separation is just temporary in the physical sense, and that Buster is with us in spirit all the time no matter where we are. And I feel especially close to him now that his face is on my chest, and I take comfort in that.
I also knew within a few days of his passing that I needed to have a Boston Terrier in my life. Not to replace Buster, to be sure - no dog could ever replace him - but because I love the breed and just need one in my life. I also knew that it was going to be a long time before I was ready - or so I thought.
Last week Gina showed me a picture of a Boston Terrier puppy she'd located in Louisiana, and at first I thought this was going to be just another picture of yet another dog since hardly a day goes by that she doesn't show me a picture of another dog she "has to have!" And this was before Buster passed, too!
But this time it was different. This time, when I looked at the picture of the week-old male Boston Terrier puppy, something was different. This wasn't just another Boston - this one was different. I couldn't put my finger on just what it was and I still can't, but within moments I knew - I just knew.
This one, the one the breeder had named "Cage," was OURS. I knew it as soon as I looked at the picture, and it nearly took my breath away.
So in late August we'll be welcoming Cage into our house, and to be honest I don't know who's more excited about it, me or Gina. (Okay, she is, but not by much!) Both of us are ready for it, a lot sooner than we thought we would be, and we're both happy that Harley, our Puggle, will finally have another dog that she can go out into the back yard and play with. She always wanted to play with Buster but never could - first because he couldn't get overly-excited because of his cataract surgery and then because he was blind - and now that she'll finally have another dog to play with, we're both very happy about it.
I'm just happy and excited about having another Boston Terrier in my life. You see, there's been a hole there in my heart for the past six weeks, one that can never be filled, but one that will be quite a bit smaller once Cage gets here. There will always be a hole in my heart that was once occupied by Buster and no dog will ever be able to fill it, and I'm sure that my baby boy knows that. He knows how much I love and miss him, how much I wish I could have him back, and how much he touched my life. He also knows why I need another Boston in my life - because of him and the love he gave me. He's the reason, and he knows it.
As do I.
I also have a feeling that he's the one who sent Cage to me because he knew how much I needed another Boston. Call it silly, I don't care, but that's how I feel.
I love you, baby boy, and I miss you. Thank you for all the love you gave me, and for all the love I'm about to be given because of you.
IHC
And the next day he was gone.
Since that day I've been finding out just what I'd do without him, and I gotta tell ya that it's been a long, rough six weeks for both Gina and myself. The past two have been pretty good, but the first two were pure hell. It too me the better part of three weeks before I could talk about him and what happened without crying, and we won't even talk about the nights I cried myself to sleep. I know Gina was going through the same thing, feeling the same things I was, even though she wouldn't talk about it. That's just her way, to keep her feelings inside her and deal with it herself, but I knew she was hurting just as I was. We both loved Buster with all our hearts, and it broke both our hearts when he passed. We both knew it was inevitable and was a part of pet ownership, but we also knew that knowledge wouldn't make it any easier. And it didn't.
But a wise man once said that "all hurt heals," and this is no exception. Over the course of the past two or three weeks I've been thinking about all of the good times with Buster and all of the things he did that used to make me smile or laugh, and I've found myself thinking about those things more often that I found myself thinking about that last terrible, tragic morning. Buster brought a lot of joy and smiles into our lives, and he made us laugh more than I think we realized.
Even at 11 years old, Buster was still a puppy at heart. For no apparent reason he'd jump down off of the couch and roll around on the floor, paws in the air, snorting all the while, and then suddenly jump up to his feet and look around with those sightless eyes as if to say, "What just happened?" Then he'd jump back up on the couch and go back to sleep as if nothing happened.
He also made us laugh with how he knew our routine just by the sounds of the house and what we were saying, and with how quickly he'd trot up the stairs to get his treat when we were going out. We'd be downstairs in the living room, getting our stuff together and getting ready to leave, and as soon as he'd hear the anti-burglary arm on the sliding patio door come down he'd be off like a shot, and we'd hear "thump-thump-thump-thump-thump!" as he went trotting up the stairs! And that was if we heard him at all - there were plenty of times we'd look around and ask, "Where's Buster?" only to look up and see him at the top of the stairs, looking down as if to say, "Well, where's my treat? What's taking you so long?"
That dog was a character in more ways than one, and he left an indelible mark on both our hearts that will always be there.
Two weeks after he passed I went down to the local tattoo parlor and got a tattoo of him on my chest right over my heart; that way I can look at him every day for the rest of my life until I meet him at Rainbow Bridge. I talk to him all the time, especially at night when I walk over to where his urn and picture are and tell him goodnight. That's become a nightly ritual with me, one that I've only missed once since Gina brought him home, and I won't miss it again. Ever.
It's been a long six weeks without my baby boy, but both of us have adapted. We both know that the separation is just temporary in the physical sense, and that Buster is with us in spirit all the time no matter where we are. And I feel especially close to him now that his face is on my chest, and I take comfort in that.
I also knew within a few days of his passing that I needed to have a Boston Terrier in my life. Not to replace Buster, to be sure - no dog could ever replace him - but because I love the breed and just need one in my life. I also knew that it was going to be a long time before I was ready - or so I thought.
Last week Gina showed me a picture of a Boston Terrier puppy she'd located in Louisiana, and at first I thought this was going to be just another picture of yet another dog since hardly a day goes by that she doesn't show me a picture of another dog she "has to have!" And this was before Buster passed, too!
But this time it was different. This time, when I looked at the picture of the week-old male Boston Terrier puppy, something was different. This wasn't just another Boston - this one was different. I couldn't put my finger on just what it was and I still can't, but within moments I knew - I just knew.
This one, the one the breeder had named "Cage," was OURS. I knew it as soon as I looked at the picture, and it nearly took my breath away.
So in late August we'll be welcoming Cage into our house, and to be honest I don't know who's more excited about it, me or Gina. (Okay, she is, but not by much!) Both of us are ready for it, a lot sooner than we thought we would be, and we're both happy that Harley, our Puggle, will finally have another dog that she can go out into the back yard and play with. She always wanted to play with Buster but never could - first because he couldn't get overly-excited because of his cataract surgery and then because he was blind - and now that she'll finally have another dog to play with, we're both very happy about it.
I'm just happy and excited about having another Boston Terrier in my life. You see, there's been a hole there in my heart for the past six weeks, one that can never be filled, but one that will be quite a bit smaller once Cage gets here. There will always be a hole in my heart that was once occupied by Buster and no dog will ever be able to fill it, and I'm sure that my baby boy knows that. He knows how much I love and miss him, how much I wish I could have him back, and how much he touched my life. He also knows why I need another Boston in my life - because of him and the love he gave me. He's the reason, and he knows it.
As do I.
I also have a feeling that he's the one who sent Cage to me because he knew how much I needed another Boston. Call it silly, I don't care, but that's how I feel.
I love you, baby boy, and I miss you. Thank you for all the love you gave me, and for all the love I'm about to be given because of you.
IHC
Sunday, May 27, 2012
For The Love of Buster
When I retired from the Air Force and moved to New Jersey to be with the woman who would later become my wife, I did so knowing that she was a fanatical dog lover. And that was just fine with me, because I also had been a dog lover my whole life. We had them growing up and I had them during my first marriage, so when Gina told me that she was a dog lover too, well, it all just seemed to fit.
One day when I came home from work and went into the tiny kitchen of the equally tiny apartment we were living in, I saw an advertisement that Gina had cut out of a magazine and put up on the front of the refrigerator. The picture showed a Boston Terrier looking up at the camera, and Gina had made a cartoon balloon with "BUSTER" written in it and pasted it above the dog. From that point on, I knew that we were destined to one day get a Boston Terrier, and his name was going to be "Buster."
That day came two years later on June 8, 2001, two months after we moved out of the small apartment in Maywood, New Jersey and into a 3 bedroom house in Wantage, way up in the hills in Sussex County. My parents were visiting us at the time, and the day before they arrived Gina told me that she had found a Boston Terrier puppy, an AKC-registered purebred, at a breeder's in the next town over, and asked me if we could "please, please, please go get him tomorrow!" I agreed, and on the first day of my parent's visit we all drove down to the breeder's place in Butler, New Jersey and got our first look at the puppy. My father, who has always had a soft spot for dogs, was sold right away, and I have to admit that as soon as I held that warm bundle of fur in my arms and he looked up at me with those big, brown eyes, he had me hook, line, and sinker. We drove home a half-hour later with Buster sleeping in Gina's lap, and we spent the next two days of my parent's visit playing with our new puppy. And honestly, I don't know who enjoyed playing with him more, Gina or my father!
We knew that Buster was a special dog right from the start. Our first clue was that it only took a week for us to housebreak him. We didn't have a fence around the yard, but that proved not to be an issue because Buster never tried to run away - not once. We'd take him outside in the front yard - the back door was a patio door that led onto an elevated deck that was 9 feet off the ground - put him down in the grass, he'd do his thing and then come right back into the house. For the entire 5 year period that we lived in the house, all we ever had to do was open the door for him - he'd go right out, do his thing, and come right back in. And when it snowed, I'd shovel out a big clear space next to the house, and he'd go out into the clear space, do his business, and come right back in.
As much as I hated to do it, when Gina and I left for work each day we were forced to crate Buster because we didn't quite trust him not to go to the bathroom inside the house. I was always the first one home in the evening, and after about two weeks of noting that the bottom of the crate was clean and dry when I came home each day, one day when I left for work I left the crate door open. When I drove up to the house about ten hours later (I had an hour commute to and from work, as did Gina) there was Buster, sitting on the back of the couch in the living room, looking out of the bay window at me as I drove up. He'd gone all day without making a mess, and as soon as I let him out he did his thing and came right back in. And that was the last day he ever spent in the crate.
About a year after we got him Gina and I were playing with him in the living room one afternoon around five o'clock, when all of a sudden Buster jumped up and ran full-speed across the house, turned around, and ran full-speed back. He ran the length of the house over and over, full-speed, with Gina and I laughing our heads off at him. Gina looked at me and said, "What the hell is that all about?" and I replied, "I dunno, I guess it's just the 'Five O'Clock Buster!'" So from that point on, whenever he'd start running around the house, Gina and I would look at each other and laughingly say, "It's the Five O'Clock Buster!"
Buster became an integral part of our lives, and we quickly grew to love him more than either of us thought possible. He'd sleep in the bed with us at night, most of the time on Gina's pillow right next to her head, and I have more than one picture of them sleeping and touching faces as they slept, Buster sleeping on the pillow next to her head. When we'd go out onto the deck to relax he'd go out with us and plop down on the deck, sitting in the sun. That dog absolutely loved to sit in the sun! We had two 12"x12" skylights in the ceiling, and Buster would follow the sun spots across the floor, laying down in one and not moving until it moved; then he'd get up and reposition himself in it, promptly going back to sleep.
We also found out that he absolutely loved to ride in the car, as most dogs do. But he'd never hang his head out; he'd be content to sit in Gina's lap and snooze while I drove, and when we made the decision to move to South Carolina in 2006 this proved to be a godsend. We took him with us on the trip down to house-hunt, and he was absolutely the best dog ever during the trip! He sat in the middle of the bench seat of Gina's Dodge truck almost the entire time, content to just lay there and sleep. When he wasn't there he was laying in Gina's lap, but the main thing is that he gave us no trouble at all during the entire trip.
One of the things Buster never learned to do was walk down stairs, because he never needed to. He always went out front to use the bathroom, and since our back door led to an elevated deck we were always careful not to let him fall down the stairs. So he never learned to walk down stairs, even though he could walk up them with no problem. This bit us in the butt when we moved to South Carolina in 2006, because we bought a two-story house. This meant that every time Buster needed to go downstairs for whatever reason, one of us had to carry him. But considering all that Buster gave us, it was the least we could do in return. But I made sure that when we got our second dog a few months after we moved in, a Puggle we named "Harley," we taught her to go up AND down the stairs! She and Buster hit it off right away, much to our relief.
About a year before we moved to South Carolina we noticed that, true to his breed, Buster was developing cataracts. By the time the summer of 2007 rolled around his cataracts were so bad that he couldn't see anything directly in front of him, and could only see things using his peripheral vision. So Gina and I talked about it and decided that we loved our dog enough to want to give him his sight back, so we had his cataracts removed. I wanted to make sure that I was the first thing Buster saw when they brought him out of the recovery room, and when he came out with all of the fur shaved away from the area around his eyes and wearing that big plastic cone to keep him from pawing at his eyes, and with his eyes open wide and looking around actually seeing the things around him again, I was the first thing he saw. It brought tears to my eyes, and I cried as I carried him out to the car. Both Gina and I were so happy that he had his sight back, and as soon as the vet gave us the green light we turned him loose in the back yard to chase Harley around as they used to do, only this time Harley got a big surprise when she discovered that she couldn't lose him by making a sharp turn and passing in front of him. He was on her like white on rice, and we were laughing our heads off the whole time!
The blessing of cataract surgery is that your dog gets his sight back; the curse is that you run the risk of glaucoma developing and stealing away the gift of sight permanently. We had to put drops in Buster's eyes four times a day to maintain the pressure of the fluid in his eyes, but by that time I had a job where I was only 7 minutes away from the house so doing the drops was no problem. And Buster took it all in stride, sitting so nice and still while we did the drops four times a day. Like I said, he was a special dog right from the start, and he was like a puppy again now that he had his vision back.
But 18 months after the surgery and despite the drops we were putting in his eyes, Buster developed uncontrollable glaucoma in his left eye and lost the sight in it. Six months later the right eye followed, and our beloved "baby boy" as we called him went blind. When the vet broke the news to me I cried like a baby, but once again Buster proved to us just what a special dog he was. He amazed both of us with his uncanny ability to navigate around the house. The vet told us that dogs were capable of that but it would take some time, but with Buster it took all of about half an hour! He knew where everything in the house was, and he made his way all over the house with no trouble! He could jump off of the couch in the living room downstairs, go up the stairs, around the corner, and into the bedroom where Gina was and jump up on the bed without any assistance from us at all! He simply amazed us with his ability to get around! And trust me, he had no trouble finding the kitchen when one of us went in there to get something to eat!
For the next two years Buster continued to amaze us, finding his way around with hardly any trouble. Both of us were always afraid that he'd bump into something and hurt himself, and every now and then he'd bump into something a little too hard and let out a small yelp, but he was always okay. Still, I was concerned, and about two months ago I noticed that his "internal compass" as we called it seemed to be a little off as he was bumping into things more often. Gina noticed it too, but we both expected it since he was now 11 years old, so we did the only thing we could - we kept our eyes and ears open, and hoped that he'd be okay.
This past Friday, May 25th, I was still in bed while Gina was getting ready for work. It was around 5:15AM when Gina put Buster up on the bed and he came snorting up to me, licking my face before going under the covers to snooze a bit. About 25 minutes later I felt Buster come out from under the covers and walk around me to jump down from the bed, and that's when it happened. We're not sure what it was, but when he jumped down from the bed he ran face-first into something and hurt himself - bad. He hurt something in his neck that left him paralyzed from the neck down, and we took him to the vet as soon as the vet's office opened at 8AM. I held him in my lap the entire time we were waiting for the vet's office to open and during the drive to the office, and for that entire time he never tried to move at all. I had a sinking feeling in my stomach that the day I had been dreading was finally here, and after examining Buster the vet confirmed it.
Buster had ruptured at least one disk in his neck, and there was only a 20% chance that surgery would be able to correct it - IF Buster survived the surgery. His age and his heart murmur made his chances of surviving the surgery slim at best. I was sitting in a chair with my baby boy on my lap, holding him as I had been doing since the accident, and the tears were running down my face as Gina told me that Buster had been through enough, that we couldn't put him through anything else, and that we had to stop being selfish and do what was best for him. "We have to let him go, Ray," she said, and I knew she was right. So I bent down and kissed my baby boy on the head, telling him that I loved him and that we were going to send him to a place where he'd be able to see again, where he'd be able run and play and be happy - we were sending him to "Rainbow Bridge." (If you've never heard of that before, this would be a good time to Google it.)
I've always believed that no pet should ever leave this world in the arms of a stranger, and I'd long ago decided that if the day ever came where we'd have to put any of our pets to sleep that they'd pass with my arms around them. I also knew how much it was going to hurt, and I dreaded the day that I'd have to do that for Buster. But now the day had come, and for the love of Buster I had to keep my promise.
And I did. He passed quickly and painlessly in my arms, and it was the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my entire life.
I knew I'd done the only thing I could and that it was the best thing to do for Buster, but that didn't make it hurt any less. I didn't sleep much that night - neither of us did - but when I woke up the next morning Gina told me something that proved to me once again just what an amazing dog Buster was.
Buster had come to her in the night and given her a message for both of us. He came to her in a dream, and in the dream he was young again, looking as he did when we lived in New Jersey. He was running around the house we live in now, doing his "Five O'Clock Buster" just like he used to do when he was young, running up and down the stairs hell-bent for election. Gina tried to catch him but she couldn't, and when he finally stopped at the top of the stairs and she reached down for him, he changed into Harley, our Puggle. And that's when Gina woke up.
I immediately broke into tears, because I knew that the dream she'd had was a message, and I knew what the message was. Buster was telling us that he was fine, that he could see again and was happy, running around Rainbow Bridge like he was a puppy again, and that we had done the right thing. By changing into Harley he was telling us that we should stop worrying about him and take care of Harley, and love her as we had loved him.
I felt as if a tremendous weight had been lifted from my heart, and at that moment I stopped feeling sad that he was gone and started feeling happy that he was truly in a better place and was healthy again.
I won't say that the past three days haven't been hard on all of us - Harley feels the loss too - but I will say that the message from Buster has made it one hell of a lot easier than it was going to be. I miss him more than words can describe and it's going to take some getting used to him not being around, but I can do it knowing that he's happy, healthy and in a better place, waiting patiently for the day when Gina and I meet him at Rainbow Bridge. Buster was and still is an amazing dog, and with his help I know I can do this.
For the love of Buster, I can do anything.
IHC
One day when I came home from work and went into the tiny kitchen of the equally tiny apartment we were living in, I saw an advertisement that Gina had cut out of a magazine and put up on the front of the refrigerator. The picture showed a Boston Terrier looking up at the camera, and Gina had made a cartoon balloon with "BUSTER" written in it and pasted it above the dog. From that point on, I knew that we were destined to one day get a Boston Terrier, and his name was going to be "Buster."
That day came two years later on June 8, 2001, two months after we moved out of the small apartment in Maywood, New Jersey and into a 3 bedroom house in Wantage, way up in the hills in Sussex County. My parents were visiting us at the time, and the day before they arrived Gina told me that she had found a Boston Terrier puppy, an AKC-registered purebred, at a breeder's in the next town over, and asked me if we could "please, please, please go get him tomorrow!" I agreed, and on the first day of my parent's visit we all drove down to the breeder's place in Butler, New Jersey and got our first look at the puppy. My father, who has always had a soft spot for dogs, was sold right away, and I have to admit that as soon as I held that warm bundle of fur in my arms and he looked up at me with those big, brown eyes, he had me hook, line, and sinker. We drove home a half-hour later with Buster sleeping in Gina's lap, and we spent the next two days of my parent's visit playing with our new puppy. And honestly, I don't know who enjoyed playing with him more, Gina or my father!
We knew that Buster was a special dog right from the start. Our first clue was that it only took a week for us to housebreak him. We didn't have a fence around the yard, but that proved not to be an issue because Buster never tried to run away - not once. We'd take him outside in the front yard - the back door was a patio door that led onto an elevated deck that was 9 feet off the ground - put him down in the grass, he'd do his thing and then come right back into the house. For the entire 5 year period that we lived in the house, all we ever had to do was open the door for him - he'd go right out, do his thing, and come right back in. And when it snowed, I'd shovel out a big clear space next to the house, and he'd go out into the clear space, do his business, and come right back in.
As much as I hated to do it, when Gina and I left for work each day we were forced to crate Buster because we didn't quite trust him not to go to the bathroom inside the house. I was always the first one home in the evening, and after about two weeks of noting that the bottom of the crate was clean and dry when I came home each day, one day when I left for work I left the crate door open. When I drove up to the house about ten hours later (I had an hour commute to and from work, as did Gina) there was Buster, sitting on the back of the couch in the living room, looking out of the bay window at me as I drove up. He'd gone all day without making a mess, and as soon as I let him out he did his thing and came right back in. And that was the last day he ever spent in the crate.
About a year after we got him Gina and I were playing with him in the living room one afternoon around five o'clock, when all of a sudden Buster jumped up and ran full-speed across the house, turned around, and ran full-speed back. He ran the length of the house over and over, full-speed, with Gina and I laughing our heads off at him. Gina looked at me and said, "What the hell is that all about?" and I replied, "I dunno, I guess it's just the 'Five O'Clock Buster!'" So from that point on, whenever he'd start running around the house, Gina and I would look at each other and laughingly say, "It's the Five O'Clock Buster!"
Buster became an integral part of our lives, and we quickly grew to love him more than either of us thought possible. He'd sleep in the bed with us at night, most of the time on Gina's pillow right next to her head, and I have more than one picture of them sleeping and touching faces as they slept, Buster sleeping on the pillow next to her head. When we'd go out onto the deck to relax he'd go out with us and plop down on the deck, sitting in the sun. That dog absolutely loved to sit in the sun! We had two 12"x12" skylights in the ceiling, and Buster would follow the sun spots across the floor, laying down in one and not moving until it moved; then he'd get up and reposition himself in it, promptly going back to sleep.
We also found out that he absolutely loved to ride in the car, as most dogs do. But he'd never hang his head out; he'd be content to sit in Gina's lap and snooze while I drove, and when we made the decision to move to South Carolina in 2006 this proved to be a godsend. We took him with us on the trip down to house-hunt, and he was absolutely the best dog ever during the trip! He sat in the middle of the bench seat of Gina's Dodge truck almost the entire time, content to just lay there and sleep. When he wasn't there he was laying in Gina's lap, but the main thing is that he gave us no trouble at all during the entire trip.
One of the things Buster never learned to do was walk down stairs, because he never needed to. He always went out front to use the bathroom, and since our back door led to an elevated deck we were always careful not to let him fall down the stairs. So he never learned to walk down stairs, even though he could walk up them with no problem. This bit us in the butt when we moved to South Carolina in 2006, because we bought a two-story house. This meant that every time Buster needed to go downstairs for whatever reason, one of us had to carry him. But considering all that Buster gave us, it was the least we could do in return. But I made sure that when we got our second dog a few months after we moved in, a Puggle we named "Harley," we taught her to go up AND down the stairs! She and Buster hit it off right away, much to our relief.
About a year before we moved to South Carolina we noticed that, true to his breed, Buster was developing cataracts. By the time the summer of 2007 rolled around his cataracts were so bad that he couldn't see anything directly in front of him, and could only see things using his peripheral vision. So Gina and I talked about it and decided that we loved our dog enough to want to give him his sight back, so we had his cataracts removed. I wanted to make sure that I was the first thing Buster saw when they brought him out of the recovery room, and when he came out with all of the fur shaved away from the area around his eyes and wearing that big plastic cone to keep him from pawing at his eyes, and with his eyes open wide and looking around actually seeing the things around him again, I was the first thing he saw. It brought tears to my eyes, and I cried as I carried him out to the car. Both Gina and I were so happy that he had his sight back, and as soon as the vet gave us the green light we turned him loose in the back yard to chase Harley around as they used to do, only this time Harley got a big surprise when she discovered that she couldn't lose him by making a sharp turn and passing in front of him. He was on her like white on rice, and we were laughing our heads off the whole time!
The blessing of cataract surgery is that your dog gets his sight back; the curse is that you run the risk of glaucoma developing and stealing away the gift of sight permanently. We had to put drops in Buster's eyes four times a day to maintain the pressure of the fluid in his eyes, but by that time I had a job where I was only 7 minutes away from the house so doing the drops was no problem. And Buster took it all in stride, sitting so nice and still while we did the drops four times a day. Like I said, he was a special dog right from the start, and he was like a puppy again now that he had his vision back.
But 18 months after the surgery and despite the drops we were putting in his eyes, Buster developed uncontrollable glaucoma in his left eye and lost the sight in it. Six months later the right eye followed, and our beloved "baby boy" as we called him went blind. When the vet broke the news to me I cried like a baby, but once again Buster proved to us just what a special dog he was. He amazed both of us with his uncanny ability to navigate around the house. The vet told us that dogs were capable of that but it would take some time, but with Buster it took all of about half an hour! He knew where everything in the house was, and he made his way all over the house with no trouble! He could jump off of the couch in the living room downstairs, go up the stairs, around the corner, and into the bedroom where Gina was and jump up on the bed without any assistance from us at all! He simply amazed us with his ability to get around! And trust me, he had no trouble finding the kitchen when one of us went in there to get something to eat!
For the next two years Buster continued to amaze us, finding his way around with hardly any trouble. Both of us were always afraid that he'd bump into something and hurt himself, and every now and then he'd bump into something a little too hard and let out a small yelp, but he was always okay. Still, I was concerned, and about two months ago I noticed that his "internal compass" as we called it seemed to be a little off as he was bumping into things more often. Gina noticed it too, but we both expected it since he was now 11 years old, so we did the only thing we could - we kept our eyes and ears open, and hoped that he'd be okay.
This past Friday, May 25th, I was still in bed while Gina was getting ready for work. It was around 5:15AM when Gina put Buster up on the bed and he came snorting up to me, licking my face before going under the covers to snooze a bit. About 25 minutes later I felt Buster come out from under the covers and walk around me to jump down from the bed, and that's when it happened. We're not sure what it was, but when he jumped down from the bed he ran face-first into something and hurt himself - bad. He hurt something in his neck that left him paralyzed from the neck down, and we took him to the vet as soon as the vet's office opened at 8AM. I held him in my lap the entire time we were waiting for the vet's office to open and during the drive to the office, and for that entire time he never tried to move at all. I had a sinking feeling in my stomach that the day I had been dreading was finally here, and after examining Buster the vet confirmed it.
Buster had ruptured at least one disk in his neck, and there was only a 20% chance that surgery would be able to correct it - IF Buster survived the surgery. His age and his heart murmur made his chances of surviving the surgery slim at best. I was sitting in a chair with my baby boy on my lap, holding him as I had been doing since the accident, and the tears were running down my face as Gina told me that Buster had been through enough, that we couldn't put him through anything else, and that we had to stop being selfish and do what was best for him. "We have to let him go, Ray," she said, and I knew she was right. So I bent down and kissed my baby boy on the head, telling him that I loved him and that we were going to send him to a place where he'd be able to see again, where he'd be able run and play and be happy - we were sending him to "Rainbow Bridge." (If you've never heard of that before, this would be a good time to Google it.)
I've always believed that no pet should ever leave this world in the arms of a stranger, and I'd long ago decided that if the day ever came where we'd have to put any of our pets to sleep that they'd pass with my arms around them. I also knew how much it was going to hurt, and I dreaded the day that I'd have to do that for Buster. But now the day had come, and for the love of Buster I had to keep my promise.
And I did. He passed quickly and painlessly in my arms, and it was the hardest thing I've ever had to do in my entire life.
I knew I'd done the only thing I could and that it was the best thing to do for Buster, but that didn't make it hurt any less. I didn't sleep much that night - neither of us did - but when I woke up the next morning Gina told me something that proved to me once again just what an amazing dog Buster was.
Buster had come to her in the night and given her a message for both of us. He came to her in a dream, and in the dream he was young again, looking as he did when we lived in New Jersey. He was running around the house we live in now, doing his "Five O'Clock Buster" just like he used to do when he was young, running up and down the stairs hell-bent for election. Gina tried to catch him but she couldn't, and when he finally stopped at the top of the stairs and she reached down for him, he changed into Harley, our Puggle. And that's when Gina woke up.
I immediately broke into tears, because I knew that the dream she'd had was a message, and I knew what the message was. Buster was telling us that he was fine, that he could see again and was happy, running around Rainbow Bridge like he was a puppy again, and that we had done the right thing. By changing into Harley he was telling us that we should stop worrying about him and take care of Harley, and love her as we had loved him.
I felt as if a tremendous weight had been lifted from my heart, and at that moment I stopped feeling sad that he was gone and started feeling happy that he was truly in a better place and was healthy again.
I won't say that the past three days haven't been hard on all of us - Harley feels the loss too - but I will say that the message from Buster has made it one hell of a lot easier than it was going to be. I miss him more than words can describe and it's going to take some getting used to him not being around, but I can do it knowing that he's happy, healthy and in a better place, waiting patiently for the day when Gina and I meet him at Rainbow Bridge. Buster was and still is an amazing dog, and with his help I know I can do this.
For the love of Buster, I can do anything.
IHC
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
A Post Worth Repeating
In light of our Fearful Leader and his astonishingly huge ego, which has led him to have a reference to himself inserted into the official history of every past President of the past 100 years (with the exception of Gerald Ford), I think the following is worth a re-posting. (As for the Gerald Ford thing, I guess NObama didn't want to be compared to someone who can't get out of his own way without tripping over his own feet - kinda like NObama can't.)
Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. He recently gave a closed speech to an audience of 25 people at the Center for the American Experiment. What follows is a first-hand account of what the doctor had to say. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.
Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.
The entire room was held spellbound during his talk.
I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said!
If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free.
Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. (Emphasis added in this reposting.)
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage.. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.
Do yourself a long term favor, send this to all who will listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!! Start with educating your friends and neighbors!
I first published that in my blog on March 3, 2010, and two years later I'm simply amazed at just how much of what this learned man said has been proven true by NObama's actions.
But the worst is yet to come...if this charlatan, this fraud, this egotistical, self-centered, power-mad narcissist is re-elected, it could very well be the beginning of the end for America as we know it as NObama will not be eligible for a third term and therefore will have nothing to lose.
We absolutely MUST vote him out of office before it's too late!
IHC
Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. He recently gave a closed speech to an audience of 25 people at the Center for the American Experiment. What follows is a first-hand account of what the doctor had to say. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.
Last Monday was a profound evening, Dr. Charles Krauthammer spoke to the Center for the American Experiment. He is a brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.
The entire room was held spellbound during his talk.
I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said!
If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free.
Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid!
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. (Emphasis added in this reposting.)
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage.. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.
Do yourself a long term favor, send this to all who will listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!! Start with educating your friends and neighbors!
I first published that in my blog on March 3, 2010, and two years later I'm simply amazed at just how much of what this learned man said has been proven true by NObama's actions.
But the worst is yet to come...if this charlatan, this fraud, this egotistical, self-centered, power-mad narcissist is re-elected, it could very well be the beginning of the end for America as we know it as NObama will not be eligible for a third term and therefore will have nothing to lose.
We absolutely MUST vote him out of office before it's too late!
IHC
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Some People Just Can't Handle the Truth
Through the marvel that is Facebook, I recently reconnected with someone that I served in the Air Force with and that I hadn't had any contact with since 1996 when he retired. That's the good thing about Facebook - it lets you reconnect with old friends when you least expect it, and when I made contact with this old friend of mine I was pretty happy about it. He and I had spent about four months patrolling the streets of Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Virginia in 1992, busting a whole bunch of drunks and generally raising hell among the evil-doers in the area. When I moved up and became Flight Chief he moved up to Senior Patrolman, and while we didn't bust as many drunks together since I was now the guy in charge of the flight, we still did our share. So all in all I was pretty happy with it when he found me on Facebook.
But time is a funny thing, and it has a funny way of changing people - and I'm no exception to that rule. One of the things I learned quite quickly about my old friend was that he absolutely despises NObama, and I mean he hates the man on a personal, individual level that makes my distaste for NObama seem like puppy love in comparison. I despise NObama as President, but as a man I don't have an opinion of him. My friend hates everything about him down to a very personal level, and this all became apparent very quickly.
It also became apparent just as quickly that my friend was a supporter of the "militia" crowd and their way of thinking, which means that he now sees a grand conspiracy by NObama to ruin America under every rock and bush. What's more, he is prone to posting the "news" items he finds on such credible sources as a personal blog by some bigoted idiot in North Carolina (whose blog I will not name because I won't give him the free publicity) and things like that.
Now, don't get me wrong, I fully believe and support the notion that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they absolutely have the right to voice their opinion in any form they want as long as it's legal. But I also believe, as my sister said to me once, that if you choose to voice your opinion in a public forum then you have to be prepared for the dissenting opinion that may be posted by others who read what you wrote. And you have to realize that they have the same right to their opinion and the voicing of it that you do.
So when my friend posted a few "news" items from various "reliable sources" over the past few days, I voiced my opinion on them in which I challenged the reliability and authenticity of these "news" items. One of the stories cited came from that bigoted idiot in North Carolina who claims that the NObama administration is planning a "manufactured insurgency" against America. He is also claiming that the administration is "using untracked campaign funds" to pay people to infiltrate various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. Lastly, and most unbelievably, his "source" - who he identifies only as "my source" - claims that Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, is on the CIA payroll and is tasked with coordinating the blacks and Muslims to prepare them for riots this summer, using "any means necessary." Of course, the writer gives no other type of identification or verification of the credibility of his source's information, leaving us to take his word for it that the information is good.
Right. I mean, really - the leader of the Nation of Islam on the CIA payroll? You're kidding me, right?
So when I read this "news" article I posted my dissenting opinion about the credibility of the source, and also pointed out that being on the CIA payroll and cooperating with the "infidels" flies right in the face of everything Islam teaches. I also stated that the author was asking us to take his word for the accuracy of the story, and that I hoped he - my friend - wasn't really taking all of this seriously.
That was this morning. When I went home for lunch and checked my FB page I noticed that my friend had deleted my post. So I made another one on the same story which simply said, "I see you deleted my dissenting post from this morning. Why?" And that was all - nothing else.
His reply was to delete me from his friend's list. When I checked my FB page just now, I noticed that all of his posts were gone from my timeline, and when I checked my friend's list his name isn't there.
So I guess his way of handling the truth is to run away from it, ignore it, and pretend it doesn't exist. The truth has a nasty habit of shattering conspiracy theories and preconceived notions, especially when held by those self-styled "patriots" who see a grand conspiracy by NObama to attack America under every rock and bush. These people are so paranoid that they'll believe anything posted by anybody as long as it supports their twisted ideals and beliefs, and they have little if any tolerance for those who don't share their warped ideas of patriotism. And, sadly in some cases, they run from the truth and sever friendships when confronted with reality.
In short, they just can't handle the truth.
And that ain't MY problem.
IHC
But time is a funny thing, and it has a funny way of changing people - and I'm no exception to that rule. One of the things I learned quite quickly about my old friend was that he absolutely despises NObama, and I mean he hates the man on a personal, individual level that makes my distaste for NObama seem like puppy love in comparison. I despise NObama as President, but as a man I don't have an opinion of him. My friend hates everything about him down to a very personal level, and this all became apparent very quickly.
It also became apparent just as quickly that my friend was a supporter of the "militia" crowd and their way of thinking, which means that he now sees a grand conspiracy by NObama to ruin America under every rock and bush. What's more, he is prone to posting the "news" items he finds on such credible sources as a personal blog by some bigoted idiot in North Carolina (whose blog I will not name because I won't give him the free publicity) and things like that.
Now, don't get me wrong, I fully believe and support the notion that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they absolutely have the right to voice their opinion in any form they want as long as it's legal. But I also believe, as my sister said to me once, that if you choose to voice your opinion in a public forum then you have to be prepared for the dissenting opinion that may be posted by others who read what you wrote. And you have to realize that they have the same right to their opinion and the voicing of it that you do.
So when my friend posted a few "news" items from various "reliable sources" over the past few days, I voiced my opinion on them in which I challenged the reliability and authenticity of these "news" items. One of the stories cited came from that bigoted idiot in North Carolina who claims that the NObama administration is planning a "manufactured insurgency" against America. He is also claiming that the administration is "using untracked campaign funds" to pay people to infiltrate various movements to cause physical destruction of property and disrupt commerce. Lastly, and most unbelievably, his "source" - who he identifies only as "my source" - claims that Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, is on the CIA payroll and is tasked with coordinating the blacks and Muslims to prepare them for riots this summer, using "any means necessary." Of course, the writer gives no other type of identification or verification of the credibility of his source's information, leaving us to take his word for it that the information is good.
Right. I mean, really - the leader of the Nation of Islam on the CIA payroll? You're kidding me, right?
So when I read this "news" article I posted my dissenting opinion about the credibility of the source, and also pointed out that being on the CIA payroll and cooperating with the "infidels" flies right in the face of everything Islam teaches. I also stated that the author was asking us to take his word for the accuracy of the story, and that I hoped he - my friend - wasn't really taking all of this seriously.
That was this morning. When I went home for lunch and checked my FB page I noticed that my friend had deleted my post. So I made another one on the same story which simply said, "I see you deleted my dissenting post from this morning. Why?" And that was all - nothing else.
His reply was to delete me from his friend's list. When I checked my FB page just now, I noticed that all of his posts were gone from my timeline, and when I checked my friend's list his name isn't there.
So I guess his way of handling the truth is to run away from it, ignore it, and pretend it doesn't exist. The truth has a nasty habit of shattering conspiracy theories and preconceived notions, especially when held by those self-styled "patriots" who see a grand conspiracy by NObama to attack America under every rock and bush. These people are so paranoid that they'll believe anything posted by anybody as long as it supports their twisted ideals and beliefs, and they have little if any tolerance for those who don't share their warped ideas of patriotism. And, sadly in some cases, they run from the truth and sever friendships when confronted with reality.
In short, they just can't handle the truth.
And that ain't MY problem.
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)