A Disturbing Glimpse Into the Mind of a Young Liberal

I had an occasion at work this past week to discuss politics with one of my fellow employees, and this in itself is very unusual because I make it a habit NEVER to discuss politics and religion at work. Well, I can't say "never" anymore because I found myself sucked into this particular discussion, and it went like this:

I went into the break room to update some safety material there when I overheard a young female employee say that she thought Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Before my common sense could kick in my head spun around and I said, "WHY?" in a voice that was louder than I wanted and loud enough to draw the attention - and the silence - of everyone else in the room.

Her reply, and the conversation that followed, gave me a very disturbing glimpse into this young liberal's mind. Here's how the conversation went:

Me: WHY?

Liberal: Because I think she'd make a good president.

Me: Again, WHY? What has she done to make you think that she'd be a good President?

Liberal: Because her husband was a good President.

Me: You mean Bill Clinton, one of only two US Presidents ever to be impeached? The one that lied under oath and committed a crime?

Liberal: Well, I don't think they should have impeached him.

Me: Why not? He committed a crime, he lied under oath. That's called 'perjury' and that's a crime.

Liberal: Well, I don't think they should have impeached him. They should have just fined him or something, but that's all.

Me: Serious question: you do understand the impeachment process, right?

Liberal: Yeah, I do.

Me: So you know that convening a grand jury and initiating the impeachment process are the same thing, only you have to use the impeachment process for a President, right?

Liberal: Yeah, but I don't think he did anything wrong so he shouldn't have been impeached.

Me: You know that perjury is a crime, right?

Liberal: Yeah, I know that.

Me: And you know that lying under oath is perjury, right?

Liberal: Yeah.

Me: Bill Clinton lied under oath! He committed a crime while President of the United States, so why shouldn't he be punished?

Liberal: Well, I just don't think he should have been impeached.

Me: If YOU lied under oath, if YOU committed perjury, don't you think you should be punished?

Liberal: Well, yeah...

Me: So why should the President not be punished for doing the same thing that you'd be punished for if you did it?

Liberal: I just don't think they should have impeached him.

Me: So why should the President not be punished for doing the same thing that you'd be punished for if you did it? What makes him any different than you?

Liberal: Because he was the President!

Me: My point exactly! Because he was the President only makes it worse!

Liberal: Well, I think he was a good President, but I think Obama's better!

Need I describe the look on my face when this young, clueless liberal uttered those words? (And have you guessed yet that this young lady was black?)

At this point I realized that I was engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed person, and I just shook my head and walked away.

This exchange exemplifies what I have always thought is the main difference between a liberal and a conservative. Most conservatives - note I said 'most' and not 'all' - are able to see both sides of the issue and are able to back up their side with facts. Most liberals, on the other hand, either cannot see or refuse to see any side of a discussion other than their own, and when asked to produce facts and/or accomplishments cannot do so, instead backing up their beliefs with baseless personal opinions founded on what they've been told by other liberals or by what they've read in or heard on the liberal news media. They cannot substantiate their views with anything other than, "Well, I think so!"

Which is why our country is in the mess it is. We have a socialist dictator wanna-be sitting in the Oval Office, and he's supported by legions of those mindless liberal sheep which I have just described. And the really bad thing is that the total disaster that the conservatives have been saying is coming for the past five years is actually going to have to happen in order for anything to change for the good, and it's going to be hell picking up the pieces.

Which the conservatives will be stuck with doing, by the way.

I just hope it's not as bad as I think it's gonna be. In the mean time, I think I'll stay out of the break room for a while...

IHC

One Year Later

One year ago today our beloved baby boy, Buster, crossed over Rainbow Bridge. Letting him go was the hardest decision I've ever had to make in my entire life, but knowing that he's happy, healthy, and can see again helps ease the pain.

But it still hurts, and I suspect it always will until the day comes when I walk across that bridge and can hold him in my arms once again.

I love you, Buster, and I miss you terribly.

Daddy

Random Thoughts on a Wednesday Morning

Got a lot running through my mind this morning, so rather than try to pin one down to talk about at length I'll just hit all of them. Ready or not, here we go!

So two new reports, one by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics and the other by the Pew Research Center, have both shown that murders and violent crimes involving handguns have dropped as much as 49% in the past ten years. Gee, I wonder why that is? Of course, the liberals, Democrats, gun-grabbers and other such assorted morons will tell you that the drop is the result of stricter gun control laws, but that's not the truth. The truth is that there have been no new federal gun laws enacted during that time period; in actuality, the exact opposite is true. The "Brady Bill" was allowed to expire in 1994, one year after the start of the time period measured. Strange, isn't it, how violence with guns began to drop the year the "Brady Bill" expired? Imagine that. Also, there would have been no mass shootings in that time period as well, which means that since Colorado, Virginia Tech, and Newtown all happened during this time period the gun-grabbers are wrong. On the other hand, the pro-Second Amendment folks like myself will tell you that the drop in gun violence is because more people - more law-abiding citizens, that is - are armed now than they were before. Criminals prefer their victims unarmed, you know.

For all of you NObamabots out there, you'd better grab two great big handfulls of your own ass and hang on, because your idol and hero is about to get his own ass handed to him. The Benghazi hearings are about to begin, and I don't think it's going to turn out well for both the Buffoon In Chief and his former Secretary of State, "Billary" Clinton. Both of them sat on their asses and did nothing while Americans were killed, and then lied about it. Now the karma bus is about to make a stop, and it isn't gonna be pretty.

I see that a whole bunch of celebrities have made a video in which they proclaim, "Demand a plan." Of course, it's a gun control video, since you rarely hear any celebrity making a stand for the Second Amendment - that's just not good for their careers, you know, since Hollywood and TV Land are both run by liberal morons. But there's a second version of this video around, one that shows just what hypocritical whores these celebrities really are. The second video is interspersed with clips of these same celebrities shooting the crap out of people in the movies they've been in, all while "demanding a plan" on gun control. I see...it's okay for you to get rich using guns, but you'll still stand up and say how bad they are if someone pays you to do it. I got it. Here's a plan for you: shut the fuck up and act, okay? Just because you're a celebrity doesn't mean you're a genius.

After much thought, careful deliberation and detailed field study, I have come to the conclusion that people drive like my ass. It's gotten so bad on the major highways now that I hate having to drive any distance at all. That rectangular sign on the side of the road with the numbers on it is called a "speed limit" sign, and that's how fast you're supposed to go, okay? And here's a clue for you: if I'm in the process of passing a slower car and you come zipping up behind me like your ass is on fire and then tailgate me so close that I can't see your headlights, that is NOT gonna make me move over. I'm gonna do one of two things: I'm either gonna stay right where I am and make you go around me, or if I'm in just the right mood I'm gonna stomp on the brakes and see how good your reflexes are. Either way, tailgating me ain't the answer. Try it and find out.

Why is it that the Trayvon Martin case, where a Hispanic guy shoots a black guy who was attacking him, gets national media attention while six black people stomp a pregnant white girl nearly to death IN THE SAME TOWN and nobody hears anything about it? Can you say, "RACISM?" That knife cuts both ways, you know.

Oh, you didn't know that? Stupid liberal.

I still think the Grateful Dead is one of the most under-appreciated bands in the history of rock and roll.

Yeah, I know my yard is full of weeds, and as soon as it stops raining and the temperature warms up to where it's supposed to be in May I'll take care of it.

Three guys hold three girls hostage in their house for TEN YEARS and nobody notices, not even when one of the guys shows up with a kid that wasn't there before. How in the hell is that possible?

Last but not least, for all you current and former military cops out there, if you haven't heard about LEOSA - the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act - you need to read up on it. Congress has granted us the legal right to carry a concealed weapon NATION WIDE, and the DoD is putting the finishing touches on the regulations to accompany it. Good news indeed for all of us who put bad guys away and couldn't defend ourselves from them off-duty because the military doesn't let off-duty cops carry guns.

And that's it for now. Works beckons, damn it.

Molon Labe!

IHC

"Man, that song really takes me back!" Part 2

In early 2009 I did a post entitled, "Man, that song really takes me back!" in which I talked about some of the songs that always took me back to a certain time or place in my life. Looking back at that post there were only three songs listed, and I've come to realize that they were the three most important songs in my life because they're tied into three of the most important times of my life.

But here lately I've been having the same thought train that I had in 2009, and I've realized that there were a lot more songs that take me back than I had originally thought. Maybe that's because lately, through the magic of the Internet and Youtube, I've been exploring some of the music of my youth that played an important role in the history of the nation (but not specifically to me because I was too young), and I've realized that there were many more songs than just three that will take me back to another time and place in my life.

So let's climb into the Wayback Machine one more time and take a little trip into my early life, shall we? And the first stop is the late '60s, courtesy of...

"Daydream Believer" by the Monkees This song always takes me back to the 9th grade when I was playing the cornet in the Highland Springs High School Marching Band, and the summer that I experienced my first kiss. Both me and my sisters were Monkees fans, although my sisters were MUCH more fanatical about it than I was for the obvious reasons, and they had a complete collection of every album The Monkees released. I used to listen to these albums whenever my sisters weren't home because the stereo was located in their bedroom, and I never went in there while they were there. One of my favorite Monkees songs was "Daydream Believer," and I remember that a friend of mine from the band who also played the cornet, Robert Culbertson, and I used to stand out in my back yard next to the house and play a duet of that song. Every time we'd do that we'd always draw a small crowd of neighborhood kids, and it was a good feeling.

But that's not what you're waiting to hear about, is it? Nah, you're waiting to hear about that first kiss, I know you are! Well, it's like this: I was in my sister's bedroom listening to a Monkees album when my sister Cindy came home with a friend of hers, Lenora Bell. Somehow Cindy wound up in one room of the house and Lenora wound up in the same room with me listening to the album. I was sitting on the floor next to the bed and she was sitting on the bed, and while we were talking I looked up to talk to her and she bent down and kissed me. The kiss was soft, warm, and gentle, and it was the best thing I'd ever experienced in my life to that point. (I think I was twelve at best.) Lenora was a redhead, and to this day I've had a "thing" for redheads. This is the only thing I can think of that could have caused that, and I ain't complaining.

"Crocodile Rock" by Elton John This one takes me back to my tenth grade year of high school, the first year at Millbrook High School after having moved to North Carolina in 1972. Elton John was huge in those days, and this song was always playing on the radio no matter where you were. The tenth grade was a significant year for me because I was struggling to find my place and "fit in" at my new school, and it was proving very difficult. Every time this song would come on it seemed that I was always doing something I enjoyed with people I liked, and all of the problems at school and my being homesick for Highland Springs vanished for just a little while.

"Annie's Song" by John Denver I heard this song for the first time in 1974 when my girlfriend, Gail, and I were driving home from Crabtree Valley Mall in Raleigh. As soon as the song came on she got a big smile on her face, shushed me and asked me to listen to the song, and then turned it up loud. I pulled the car over and we sat and listened to the song, and as I listened to the words - really listened to them - I looked over at her. She was smiling at me, the love for me plain in her eyes, and they started to tear up. When the song was over she told me, "That's how I feel about you!" and then she kissed me. To this day I think of her and that special summer we had together every time I hear that song. After Gail and I broke up in 1976 it was easily ten years before I could bring myself to listen to the song again, and the first time I did I cried.

"Right Here, Waiting" by Richard Marx This is the song that my first wife, Mary, played for me a few days before I left for my second remote tour in Korea. Richard Marx and this song was very popular then, and every time I heard it over in Korea I'd always think of her, waiting for me back in the States, and it always made me feel so far away from her and the ones I loved. It still does.

"Hotel California" by The Eagles Every hooker in every bar in South Korea LOVED this song, and you were guaranteed to hear it at least a dozen times every time you spent more than an hour in any of those bars. But it's still a great song, and I love it.

"God Bless The USA" by Lee Greenwood This one takes me back to the night I came home from the Gulf War, walking down the ramp from the airplane in the full dark, the flightline lit up like daytime and the sides of the ramp filled with screaming, cheering people. There were dozen of American flags being waved by the people in the crowd, and as I walked down the ramp this song was playing over the PA system. I got to the bottom of the ramp and handed my GAU rifle over to a Security Policeman, the first time that rifle had been out of my physical control for the first time in 212 days. It felt both weird and good at the same time. Then I shook hands with my best friend from the war, Lonnie Fulbright, who had come home two months earlier due to a family emergency, and then after shaking hands with the Base and Wing Commander I looked over at the crowd and right there, right smack dab in the middle of the crowd directly across from the ramp, was my mother and the rest of my family. My mom was jumping up and down, waving her arms and calling my name; she was surrounded by my father, my first wife and our three kids, and everyone in the group was crying. After hugging my mom and then my father, so was I. My mother told me later that during the entire war my father had never cried, always being strong for everyone else, and when he put his arms around me that night he cried for the first time.

Well, that's enough time travelling for now. I'm sure I'l make this trip again, although I don't think it's going to be another three years before that happens. At least I hope not.

Molon Labe!

IHC

What I Believe

Several times over the past year or so I've been in various discussions with various people, and I sometimes give an answer or voice an opinion that, given my background, sometimes surprises people. This is always followed with the question, "So just what DO you believe, anyway?" which I always answer.

So here's what I believe. The list may not be all-inclusive and what I believe today may not be what I believe tomorrow - after all, opinions do change from time to time - but for what it's worth, here's what I believe today.

I believe that everyone, no matter what their political or religious affiliation, believes in their hearts that what they're doing is best. If they didn't believe that, then they wouldn't be doing it.

I believe in the Constitution of the United States as it is written.

I believe that any "redefinition" of the Constitution is wrong, period.

I believe that the key to serenity and happiness is best found in the arms of a loved one or in the seat of a motorcycle.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the only one shooting in Dallas that day in November 1963. He may not have known about the other guy, but he sure wasn't the only one with a rifle.

I believe in God and Jesus Christ.

I believe in our country and the people in it. The government, not so much.

I believe homosexuality is wrong.

I believe that discriminating against someone because of their sexual preference is also wrong.

I believe that the term "racist" applies equally to blacks as much as it does to whites.

I believe that the Grateful Dead was one of the most misunderstood and unappreciated bands in the history of rock and roll.

I believe that the Rolling Stones is the most over-rated and under-talented band in the history of rock and roll.

I believe that conservatives have just as much right to voice their opinions as liberals do, and vice-versa.

I believe that anyone who tells me or anyone else under any circumstances that I can't fly or display the American Flag deserves a good old-fashioned country ass-whuppin'.

I believe in the old Southern values of honesty, truth, respect for others, and courtesy.

I believe in loyalty above all except honor.

I believe in the old saying, "My word is my bond."

I believe in the stopping power of a .45 caliber cartridge.

I believe that Islam is the biggest threat to world peace, followed closely by North Korea and its current delusional leader.

I believe that sometimes violence is the only answer.

I believe in justice and the American justice system. It may not be perfect, but it beats the crap out of anything else going.

I believe the Bill of Rights were put in that order for a reason.

I believe that there is evil in the world, and that I must be prepared at all times to meet it. That's why I'm a sheepdog.

I believe in karma. Sooner or later, everyone gets what they truly deserve one way or the other.

I believe in the men and women of our Armed Forces.

I believe that thinking someone is incapable of defending their country by serving in the Armed Forces because of their sexual preference is absurd at best.

I believe our country is headed for disaster under the current administration, and when that disaster happens the President will find a way to blame it on someone else.

I believe it will be a long time before America elects another black president, and that's a shame because it has nothing to do with race.

I believe in cold beer, aged whiskey, and spiced rum. Especially the rum part.

I believe Sailor Jerry may just be the best spiced rum in the universe.

I believe it's just about time for lunch.

MOLON LABE!

IHC

Random Thoughts on a Friday Afternoon

There's so much crap going on in both our nation and the world right now that it's hard for me to choose just which one I want to rant about. I mean, I could go totally apeshit on more than a half-dozen topics, so instead of doing that and getting my blood pressure up I'll just snipe at all of them, hitting each with my main points of thought. And guess where I'm gonna start? (If you know me and have been paying attention, you already know!)

Ready? Okay, then, heeeeeeeere we go!

So Connecticut has passed the most comprehensive and restrictive gun laws in the nation, supposedly to "protect" themselves and "prevent" another shooting. The last time I looked, Adam Lanza broke a whopping total of 41 laws the day of his rampage. Only a total idiot and a complete fool would think that passing yet another law that a criminal will ignore will "protect" them. As Wayne LaPierre said, "The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

Anyone who thinks that "universal background checks" isn't the first step towards registration and then confiscation is a total idiot and living in a dream world. I've always been a law-abiding citizen my entire life, but the day they pass a law requiring me to register my guns is the day I become an outlaw.

Mag Pull, a major manufacturer of high-capacity rifle magazines, has announced that it will close its manufacturing facility in Colorado in response to the new anti-gun legislation just enacted by that state. That will put about 400 people out of work, result in the reduced revenue for the state, and cause a rise in unemployment. Way to go, Colorado.

And soon to follow: Beretta USA will be moving out of Maryland since that state has followed Colorado's example and passed gun control legislation that further infringes on our Constitutional rights. Again, way to go, Maryland.

If anyone doesn't think that the treaty passed by the Useless Nations to allow them to "regulate and control the international arms trade" won't have an effect on our Constitutional rights, think again. To those people I suggest you read the treaty and then tell me I have nothing to worry about. The Useless Nations has NO say in what MY rights are, and I just hope that my government will stand up ad protect them. But with the Buffoon In Chief that we currently have in office, I can't count on that.

Who died and make Mike Bloomberg God? Since when does this self-styled "nanny" think he knows what's best for people, and better yet, what in hell gives him the idea that he has the authority to do some of the stupid shit he's doing? My only question is, why are New Yorkers letting him get away with it? Are they all that fuckin' stupid, or are they all just stupid liberals? Either way...

Carolyn Kennedy as Ambassador to Japan. I wonder what Japan did to fall out of favor with the United States? Or is that just NObama giving lip service to the Kennedy clan?

So now there's still more bad news about NObamacare, specifically that the costs associated with it are now TRIPLE what The Great Pretender said they were going to be, the benefits are less, and more companies will be driven out of business because they can't afford to provide health care and can't afford to pay the fines. In the prophetic words of Dianne Feinstein, "We'll find out what's in it once we pass it." Well, you stupid bitch, you passed it, and now you're finding out what's in it - and it ain't good. Then again, why should you care? You, your beloved Buffoon In Chief, and the other members of Congress are all exempt from NObamacare, so why should you give a rat's ass about all of the bad things that are going to happen to us little people because of this bill you and your liberal, Democratic cronies shoved down the throats of the American people? Oh, that's right, you DON'T care...silly me, I forgot! You're far too busy trying to pass more bullshit gun control legislation to take away our rights to protect ourselves from you and the government to worry about anything else. Bitch.

With all of the crap coming out of North Korea, you have to wonder if the fat little bastard in charge ever read the Korean translation of "The Mouse That Roared." Why else would he be making all of this noise about attacking the United States, knowing that we can turn his entire country into a sheet of glass with only one aircraft and two men? (For those of you who never read the book, it's about a very small European country on the verge of financial collapse whose king decides that the only way to save his country is to declare war on the United States, get his ass kicked, and then let the United States rebuild his country and its finances.) In any event, I'm sure glad I'm not stationed in South Korea right now, and I pray for the safety of our men and women in uniform that are.

The "sequester" is in full swing, government services that directly affect the people are being cut or discontinued, yet the President and Vice President both go on vacation - the THIRD vacation for Biden THIS YEAR. (That's one vacation each month, people.) The White House says it discontinued White House tours because of the lack of funding for the Secret Service required, yet NObama can send his daughters to Mexico for Spring Break - with Secret Service protection, of course.

Have you liberals and Democrats figured out just who you really elected yet? If not, let me spell it out for you: you elected a self-centered socialist, a self-styled elitist who will ensure that he and his family never do without while depriving the citizens of our nation of the things we both need and deserve, a man who will do anything he can to ensure that he and he alone is in charge - and that includes ignoring and shredding the Constitution of the United States. I respect - or at least I try to respect - the opinions of others, but I gotta say this: to all of you who voted for this charlatan, kiss my ass. You screwed our country over BIG TIME.

And lastly, it is my humble opinion that history will not be kind to NObama. He'll be remembered for a lot of things, none of them good, and he will guarantee that it will be a very long time before another black man is elected president. And that's a shame, because what he's done has nothing to do with race.

Molon Labe!

IHC

American History 101: The Second Amendment

One of the things that impresses me about today's American society - and not in a good way - is the lack of knowledge we as a group have of our own country, its beginnings and history, and why things were set up the way there are. We have become so far removed from the actual events due to the passage of time that we are now attempting as a nation to second-guess the decisions made by the people who actually lived through the events which led up to the creation of our country. We now seem to think, in our infinite wisdom, that we know more than those who actually experienced the tyranny of the Crown, the occupation of colonial cities and towns by the Redcoats, the taxation without representation, the lack of voice in government, and the seizing of powder, shot, and musket by the same troops occupying the towns when things started to get really intense.

All of these events, plus many more, were the foundations of the ideas that led to the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You have to take into consideration that our Founding Fathers, the men who lived through the times and had the balls to stand up and do something about it, were all educated men, not simple farmers, and when they sat down and drafted the Bill of Rights they did it with a purpose. And it is my humble opinion that they listed the rights in a specific order, with the most important right - the one the Crown denied them the most - being listed first, the right to freedom of speech.

Right behind that, they listed the right to keep and bear arms because their experience had shown them that when the government chose to rescind that first right, the very next thing the government was going to do was take away your means to resist by seizing all of the populace's firearms.

And here's where we get into the part of American history that we Americans are sadly unaware of.

In colonial times there was no regular standing army or police force to protect the towns dotting the land, and until the unrest over the Crown's rule began there weren't very many British troops in the country to help protect the citizens. The countryside was still occupied by the folks that were here first as well, the American Indians, and some of them still weren't too happy about us being here at all. For those reasons the town relied upon the militia for protection, and many towns kept a common stock of gunpowder, lead shot, and muskets available for the militia's use. These items were kept in a building located in the center of town called an armory, and when the call went out for the militia to form all of the members would go to the armory and be issued a musket with enough powder and shot to put up a fight.

When the tensions really got high in the year prior to the start of the American Revolution and the people started to demonstrate against the British rule, the King issued two orders: arrest and lock away all of the ringleaders, and seize all muskets, powder, and shot from the armories.

In other words, silence the people and then take away the people's means to resist.

Therein lay the roots of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Before anyone starts using the tired old "militia" argument, I suggest that you look up the term for what it meant in 1787 when the Bill of Rights was drafted and then move on to something else because that's an argument you are going to lose.

So the simple, basic fact that the American people have forgotten and that our national leaders choose to ignore is this: the Second Amendment doesn't exist to protect our right to protect ourselves from muggers, thieves, and murderers, although this is how the Second Amendment is applied these days. Oh, no, it's much more than that, so much more!

The Second Amendment was written to protect our right to protect ourselves from our own government.

As much as I despise some of the liberals in our government, I will state that none of them are ignorant or stupid people. All of them are college graduates, a hell of a lot of them are lawyers, and you don't earn either of those titles by being the village idiot. So I must conclude that their interpretation of the Second Amendment and their drive to deprive us of the right to protect ourselves from them is driven by a much deeper, darker reason. Maybe they just like being in control and don't like being told 'no' by those they think they control; maybe they have this marvelous idea of a Utopian society where everything is rainbows and unicorns - hell, I don't know.

All I know is this: our Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights not to "give" us our rights, but to list those that we already have simply by existing and to state that no one, no person or no government, can take them away from us. And the Second Amendment is there to protect our right to defend ourselves from our own government should it choose to try and do just that.

In my opinion, anyone who takes an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and then mounts an offensive against my Constitutional rights is a traitor to that oath and an enemy of both my nation and the people.

I will fight that enemy with every fiber of my being, and I will fight until the day I die. I took that same oath for the first time in 1975 and repeated it every four years until 1998. I believed it then and I believe it now.

And I won't turn my back on my oath or my country. Ever.

MOLON LABE!

IHC

Things I Don't Understand

The title of my blog today pretty much says it all, so all I can say now is that I'll try to keep it short. With all that's going on in our country and the world today, this could be a whale of an entry but I'll try to avoid that.

I don't understand why Saudi Arabia, the nation that produced 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, has been allowed access to a "preferred travelers" program that basically allows anyone on the list to bypass the normal Customs and Border Clearance procedures when arriving in our country. All anyone on this list needs to do is show a passport and bingo! They're allowed in with NO SCRUTINY AT ALL. So basically, the NObama Administration via the Department of Homeland Security is allowing Saudi Arabia to tell us who we're supposed to let into OUR country. I don't understand that.

I don't understand why the Feds are cutting government funding to schools located on Native American Indian Reservations, causing teaching positions to be unfilled, classes to be overcrowded, and school academic years to be shortened, at the same time as they're created a job with a SIX FIGURE SALARY for ONE MAN to study how black students can best be served. I wonder if the fact that the man who got the job works for Chuck Rangel from New York has anything to do with it? So it's basically take the money from the Indians - who were here first, by the way - who are totally dependent upon federal funding for their schools, and give it to black students who already have a myriad of special assistance agencies and special funding set up for just that purpose. I don't understand that.

I don't understand why the Federal government is stopping funding for active duty service members and veterans in the name of the "sequester," but are increasing the amount of money they're giving to Syria for the education of its people. I don't recall seeing any Syrian troops fighting under the Stars and Stripes or protecting our freedoms, do you? I don't understand that.

I don't understand why the Federal government is shutting down services at our National Parks in the name of the "sequester" while the First Lady still maintains a personal assistance staff of 40 people. I don't understand that.

I don't understand why the military budget is being cut yet again in the name of the "sequester," but the TSA can place an order for $50 million worth of uniforms. I don't understand that.

I don't understand why NObama makes the decision to cancel tours of the White House - which belongs to THE PEOPLE and not to HIM - in the name of the "sequester," but the White House still maintains a staff of three caligraphers who make an annual average salary of $60,000.00+ per year. I don't understand that.

I don't understand why the majority of stuff being cut in the name of the "sequester" are things that have the most direct impact on the PEOPLE and not on the GOVERNMENT, where the cuts should be - need to be - made. I don't understand that.

Well, yes I do, actually. I understand that last one perfectly. The cuts are being made intentionally to inflict the most amount of pain on the people as possible, to make life an uncomfortable on the people as possible, all because our Buffoon In Chief didn't get his way. He's punishing the people like a parent would punish a recalcitrant child, throwing his own little temper tantrum in trying to prove a point.

What he doesn't realize is that all he's doing is making himself look like the penny-ante dictator he truly is, and that instead of punishing the people he's just pissing us off. And that, friends and neighbors, absolutely will come back to bite him in his skinny ass.

It's only a matter of time.

And for all of you out there who voted this buffoon into ofice the first time and then made the same mistake again, let me ask you this: is THIS the "change" you "hoped" for?

Thanks for nothing.

IHC

The Most Dangerous Period in Our Country's History

I'm sure that if you asked different people what they considered to be the most dangerous time in our country's history you'd get a wide range of answers, and all of them would be true for the simple reason that they're all opinions. And anyone who knows me will tell you that it is my belief that opinions are neither right or wrong, they're just different.

It is my humble opinion that we are entering the most dangerous time in our country's history right now. For the first time in my life, I'm genuinely concerned about the future of our great nation, and here's why:

Barack Obama is President. Plain and simple.

Of course, this is not a conclusion that I have come to overnight. No, this one has been forming for more than four years, those four years being the first half of the reign of what I'm sure history will later define as the first American dictator. Before you totally dismiss what I've just said, put your political, ideological, and racist (yes, racist) opinions aside for just a moment and look at it from my point of view.

NObama is a socialist. He's been a socialist all along, making statements while he was in college that he is proving by his actions today to still believe in. He is intent on taking from those who have, those who have worked hard all their lives, and giving it to those who don't have because they're too damned lazy to go out and work for it. He believes that you can multiply wealth by dividing it, which tells me he was asleep during math class. He believes himself to be a modern-day Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. One has to wonder just what he's going to do when the rich are no longer rich and there's no one left to rob except the poor.

NObama is intent on getting his way, and he's proven that he won't hesitate to bypass Congress to make it happen. NObama has proven that he intends to rule by Executive Order, and the proof is that fact that he's issued more Executive Orders in the past four years than the past three Presidents combined. (And just recently, by the way, a Federal court overturned one of those Executive Orders and declared it unconstitutional.)

NObama has proven by his actions and some of his Executive Orders that he has nothing but disdain for the United States Constitution, the document that he swore an oath to protect, and he intends to shred the Constitution at every turn to cement his reign over the American people. This began, as I predicted it would, with an all-out attack on the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms that he initiated almost immediately after he was sworn in for his second term. I said all along that if he won re-election he would then start his attack on our Second Amendment rights because he would have nothing to lose since he cannot run for a third term, and I'm sad to say that I was right. Sandy Hook only served to give him the moment he needed to launch his attack, and it's in full swing.

More recently, he announced that he had the power and authority to kill American citizens without benefit of trial by the use of drones, a power that the director of the CIA has since stated that he does not have. Of course, we've heard nothing from Eric Holder since he's firmly controlled by NObama and wouldn't dare do or say anything to piss off the boss. But the point here is that NObama actually believes he has the legal right and the power to act as judge, jury, and executioner, ordering the killing of American citizens and denying them the rights they are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Never in our nation's history has any American President ever boasted of such power so blatantly.

NObama is the most divisive leader in our nation's history. The political parties in general and the people of America in particular have never been more far apart in their beliefs and degrees of compromise and compassion as they are now, and we have NObama to thank for this. It is my opinion that when someone is elected President, at the moment he takes the Oath of Office he stops being a Democrat or a Republican and starts being a President, putting aside his political party's views and doing what's best for the nation instead of his party. NObama has failed to do this, remaining a liberal Democrat the entire time and taking every opportunity to blast and blame the conservative Republicans for everything. His idea of compromise is the liberal idea of compromise, meaning it's HIS way or the highway. The current "sequester" is proof of this - NObama designed the sequester, NObama and the Democrats refused to compromise on anything to prevent it, demanding instead that the Republicans accept what they wanted unconditionally, and now that the sequester is taking place NObama and his band of merry idiots are blaming the Republicans for it. Words fail me when I try to describe how ludicrous this is and how much it disgusts me.

NObama and the Democrats in Congress have failed to approve a budget, choosing instead to just increase the debt ceiling and putting our nation further in debt and closer to bankruptcy. It is the inept leadership of this President and his cabinet that caused the first-ever downgrading of our country's credit rating, something for which he has of course blamed someone else. The only way to decrease the debt is to stop spending money, and it appears that the sequester that NObama shouted so long and hard about is going to have the unexpected side effect of proving this to the American people. I have a feeling the whole "sequester" thing is going to backfire on him, big time.

Now let's take a broader look at some facts, shall we?

Terrorist attacks on our nation's resources overseas are increasing. This is, I believe, a direct result of NObama's "apology tour" that he embarked upon during his first term. He spent all that time overseas kissing ass and apologizing to our enemies, and now they're repaying him by attacking our embassies and killing our citizens. And, of course, NObama has done nothing in the way of retaliation. When the 9/11 attacks took place, George Bush said that America would not rest until those responsible had been caught and brought to justice. After the attack on the embassy in Benghazi, NObama made no such statement - hell, his own Secretary of State couldn't even figure out who had staged the attack, so why should we expect any kind of statement from NObama?

Iran has made more overt and specific threats to Israel, brought on by the chilly relationship and shaky alliance with Israel that NObama has shown. Israel has long been the only steadfast, reliable ally that America has in the Middle East, and NObama's statements and actions have proven to the world that he doesn't care if the alliance continues or not.

North Korea made the statement yesterday - and reiterated it today - that they would have no problem with launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the United States, turning Washington DC into a "sea of fire." The last time a North Korean leader made any kind of claim anywhere similar to that was when Gerald Ford was President; Kim Il-Sung stated that he intended to invade South Korea and re-unite the countries, at which point Ford said that any invasion by the North would result in "full military retaliation by the United States which will involve every weapon in our arsenal." In other words, invade the South and Pyong Yang becomes a glowing sheet of white-hot glass. Needless to say, that was the last we heard from North Korea. Fast-forward thirty-odd years or so, and when the grandson of that leader threatens to drop a nuke on mainland America, what do we hear from The Great Pretender? Nothing. Not a peep, not a sound.

I could go on with more reasons as to why I think we're entering the most dangerous time in our country's history, but I think you get the idea by now. Our nation is on the brink of the largest, most dangerous time of civil unrest in our nation's history, and right behind that is the erosion of our relationships and alliances overseas and the threats popping up all over the world aimed at us and our way of life. And we're stuck with a President who is ignoring it all because HE wants to do things HIS way, no matter what.

Personally, I hope that he does something so onerous, so despicable, and so repulsive that even the staunchest of liberal Democrats won't defend him against the impeachment process - but with clowns and idiots like Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer in office, I'm not holding my breath.

In the mean time, I think I'm gonna start stocking up on ammunition and go buy a few more guns.

Molon Labe!

IHC

The Stupidest Thing I've Heard This Week

I ought to start keeping track of all the stupid things I hear on the news and on the Internet, I really should. Either that, or just start a "Stupidest Thing I've Heard This Week" contest or something like that.

This week has really been a boon for hearing stupid things on the Internet and on the news, and to tell you the truth it was kinda hard to decide which one to write about first. But I made the decision and will be writing about each of them in turn, although only one can be declared the "Stupidest Thing I've Heard This Week" - which I will present to you now.

Ready? All righty, then, here it is, "The Stupidest Thing I've Heard This Week:"

The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary were staged.

Yeah, I know, I thought so too. Stupid as hell, right? But the sad thing is that there are people out there on both sides of the gun control debate who believe this, and for entirely different reasons. Then there's the third group of people, those who are prone to wearing tinfoil hats, who believe it for an entirely different reason. So let's take a look at all three of them, shall we?

The liberals believe it because they think the conservatives staged the shootings to prove the need for less gun control and more guns, specifically the arming of teachers. The conservatives believe it because they think the liberals staged it to prove the need for more gun control and less guns. The tinfoil hat crowd believes it because they think the government staged it to give the government a reason to abolish the Second Amendment, thereby disarming the public and then being able to use those bazillion 9mm rounds the Department of Homeland Security bought to go on an all-out attack on the American people.

And all three of these groups are as full of crap as a Christmas turkey, the only difference being just how full of crap each group is. So in my humble opinion, here's the order of being full of crap that I've placed these groups in from least full of crap to most full of crap.

The conservatives are the least full of crap of the three, but only slightly less than the liberals. The conservatives are the least full of crap because one of the main points that the conservatives support is the preservation of life by their stance against abortion, and no conservative in his right mind would even consider staging something as horrendous and nefarious as the shooting of dozens of innocent children. The conservatives believe they have a more sacred belief in the preservation of life than the liberals, so it's easy for the conservatives to believe that the liberals would stage this. After all, the liberals support the killing of children through abortion, don't they?

The liberals are more full of crap than the conservatives, but as I said previously, not by much. The reason for this is that the liberals are much more vehement, angry, and insulting than the conservatives when it comes to voicing opinions and taking action against those who dare to have opinions and beliefs that are different than their own (see my blog of last week, "What The Liberals Have Taught Me"). There are those among the liberal crowd who absolutely believe that the conservatives would do something like this because they believe the conservatives are so entrenched in their "more guns, less crime" mentality that they'd do anything to promote that ideal. After all, the conservatives support 'legal murder' by supporting the death penalty, don't they? The liberals are wrong, of course, but you can't tell them that.

But without a doubt, the group that is the most full of crap is the "tinfoil hat" crowd, also known as The Conspiracy Theorists, or "TCTs" for short. The TCTs are so caught up in the whole 'conspiracy theory' thing that they're willing to believe anything bad about our government, no matter what it is or no matter how dubious the source is. As I mentioned before, the purchasing of all that 9mm ammunition by the DHS is good proof of this. To the TCTs this is a sure sign that the government is gearing up to stage an all-out attack on the American people, shooting down citizens in the streets. And of course, before that happens the public would have to be disarmed, and that means the Second Amendment would have to be repealed. And what better way to do that than to enrage the public with an unspeakable act of violence, such as the shooting and killing of not one or two but dozens of innocent children? (These are the same people who believe the government actually carried out the 9/11 attack, by the way.)

And the really sad thing - to me, anyway - is that the majority of TCTs are conservatives. There's a few liberals thrown in, but not many. The vast majority of people who believe crap like this are conservatives - uber conservatives, to be more precise, conservatives who have taken their belief in conservative values and their belief in God to the very extreme until their level of lunacy is right up there with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church crowd. These people are radical to the extremes in their beliefs, and I'm not sure who poses more of a risk to our nation, them or the liberals with similar beliefs.

And there you have it, this week's winner of "The Stupidest Thing I've Heard This Week."

Any way you look at it, anyone who actually believes that the shootings at Sandy Hook were staged is a moron at best. Simple logic tells you that there's no way in hell that any group could plan and execute something like this and still keep it a secret. The sheer number of people who would have to be involved is enough to let anyone with an ounce of common sense know that it's just not possible. As the old Hell's Angels saying goes, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead," and this is no exception.

Personally, all three of the groups disgust the living hell out of me.

IHC

How to Waste the Government's Time

I'll be the very first to admit that the challenges our government faces now are the greatest and most difficult challenges our nation has ever had to face. True, our government has created a lot of the challenges themselves, but that's another point for another time. But as I was saying, the challenges our government faces are serious and, quite possibly, world-changing. There's the unrest in the Middle East between Syria and Israel, with Iran sticking their noses in it; there's the drawdown in Afghanistan and the concerns on how that one will turn out (one name for you: Viet Nam); there's the saber-rattling by the fat little moron in North Korea, who I think is taking a lesson from "The Mouse That Roared." (Don't know what I'm talking about? Read the book or see the movie.)

On the home front there's the ever-rising unemployment rate, spurred on now by the layoffs and cutbacks being forced on companies by NObamacare; there's the all-out assault on the Second Amendment by the Buffoon In Chief and his band of merry idiots, and then there's the polarization of our people along political lines in what has been the nastiest political era in our nation's history.

Yes, our government certainly has a lot on its plate, so the last thing they need is a useless petition to take up their time. Personally, I think they have much more important things to do.

But you can't tell that to the people at New England Sasquatch Research and Protection. No, sir, you sure can't tell them that - all 660 of them. Seems that those folks, spearheaded by someone who calls herself "Rachael Zhang," have started a petition at the White House's petition website with the goal of the petition - and this is a direct quote from the petition - being to "officially recognize the Sasquatch as an indigenous species and have them lawfully protected by laws banning any hunting."

No, I'm not kidding. These people actually want Congress to pass a law recognizing and protecting a species of creature that no one has been able to prove actually exists.

Yeah, it's kinda like passing a law to protect the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Now, for those of you who haven't been following my blog, about two years ago I posted something about Animal Planet's "Finding Bigfoot," and to be honest it was somewhat less than flattering on the show's part. My issue there is not with the topic of Bigfoot, but rather with the idiots and clowns on the show. As for the issue of whether or not a Bigfoot-type creature actually exists, I think it's possible. Not likely, but it's possible. And I'm the kinda guy that in order to get me to believe this, you're gonna have to show me rock-solid PROOF, actual irrefutable evidence to make a believer out of me. So far, no one's managed to do this.

Personally, I think the petition and the idea of a law protecting a mythical creature is ludicrous at best, moronic at worst, and I said so on the group's Facebook page. The conversation which followed was interesting to say the least, and if you have a Facebook page then I suggest you go check it out.

My main point in the conversation was to try and convince "Rachael" that the burden of proof was on HER, that SHE and her organization were the ones who had to actually PROVE that this creature exists in order for the Congress to take them seriously. She tried dazzling me with a bunch of scientific terms, jargon, and phrases, but I guess she's not as smart as she thinks she is - or I'm smarter than she thought I was - because that effort fell flat on its ass. Then she went on the defensive, simply stating that it wasn't her responsibility to prove anything to anyone, especially me. My counterpoint is that if she can't convince me, then what chance does she and her group stand with Congress and the President?

Try as I might, that last point of simple logic just seems to escape her. Then again, logic always "escapes" someone when they know they've been proven wrong.

I even pointed out to "Rachael" that she had the perfect opportunity to convince someone who admitted that it was possible that a Bigfoot-type creature exists that they really do exist, and she refused to take the chance. At that point I cast a hell of a big doubt on her devotion and beliefs, and she did nothing to refute me. She simply said that it wasn't up to her to convince anyone of anything, proving that she was either totally ignorant of my point or just choosing to ignore it. (Personally, I think her devotion sucks. If a liberal gave me the chance to prove to them that gun control doesn't work, I'd be all over that like hair on a - well, on a Bigfoot.)

The truth of the matter is that if "Rachael" and the six-hundred-odd folks at NESRP want to be taken seriously, if they want their petition to stand even a snowball's chance in Hell - which it doesn't now - they're going to have to convince nearly three hundred people, elected officials whose reputation and political careers will be affected by their decision, that this creature actually exists. And it's going to take a hell of a lot more than some shaky cell phone video filmed through the mesh screen of a tent, or some country bumpkin standing out in the woods in his RealTree camo outfit saying, "Yeah, I seen it, and it wuz raht over thar!" for that to happen.

Like I said, if you can't convince ME, then you stand ZERO chance with Congress.

And apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way; or, rather, there aren't that many people who feel the same way as "Rachael" does. You need to amass 25,000 signatures on any petition in order for the White House to even look at it, and you only have thirty days to do it. The "Tooth Fairy" petition, as I call it, runs out on February 10, a mere five days from now. So how many signatures do they have?

1,272 as of now. They still need 23,728 more signatures.

Good luck with that, "Rachael."

IHC

What the Liberals Have Taught Me

This past summer was an eventful one in more ways than one, both positive and negative. On the negative side, the summer got off to a lousy start with the passing of our Boston Terrier, Buster, and then got worse with some philosophical and practical changes in the company I work for which caused me no small amount of inconvenience and irritation. On the positive side, in August we picked up our new Boston Terrier puppy, Cage, which helped more than I can describe to fill the void left in my heart by Buster's passing; I also got to spend some quality time with my parents and my wife, and get in some riding on top of that. All in all it was a good summer, but quite an eventful and educational one at that.

The one lesson I learned this past summer that has stuck with me the most was taught to me by the Liberals in our nation, and I wish I could say it was a good one but I'd be lying if I said that. The Liberals taught me all about tolerance - or, rather, their lopsided and self-serving version of it.

Let's start out by looking at what the Webster's definition of "tolerance" is:

Definition of TOLERANCE

1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
b: the act of allowing something : toleration

It goes on to give a couple more definitions of the word, all of which are correct but none of which have anything to do with what I'm talking about here. (Like the amount of variance allowed when constructing machinery, etc. See what I mean?)

No, the part I'm specifically referring to is #2, the "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." But after the events of this past summer, it is apparent to me that the Liberals in our country have an entirely different definition of the word, one that is warped beyond all reasoning.

In a nutshell, the Liberals believe that their way is the only way, that anything they choose to do or believe is right and above reproach, and everyone must accept their beliefs in their entirety without debate or recourse, while at the same time the Liberals have the right to totally and completely dismiss any other belief held by any other group no matter what, and may ridicule and deride those beliefs without fear of retribution or retaliation. Anyone who dares dispute their beliefs or voice objections to them or their ridiculing of conflicting beliefs is immediately branded either a "hater," a "racist," or a "bigot."

In short, to fully and completely accept their beliefs is being "tolerant." They, of course, are not required to be "tolerant" of your beliefs since theirs are right and yours are automatically wrong.

The proof of this is the big flap over the Chick-fil-A president's comments concerning his religious beliefs. All of the liberals out there automatically took issue with his beliefs because they were drastically different than their own, and immediately began flooding his corporate and personal telephones and mail boxes with death threats. That's right, death threats.

That's a really good way to show how "tolerant" you are, huh? God forbid that a Liberal should receive a death threat for voicing their opinion...should that happen, the next thing you know MSNBC or CNN will be doing a feature story on it!

The Liberals have also taught me the true meaning of the words "hypocrite" and "hypocrisy." Case in point: after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association suggested that a good way to keep our children safe at school was to post either police officers or armed guards at the schools. The Liberals, of course, took issue with this, saying that it was "silly" and "ridiculous" to post armed guards at schools. During the invevitable gun control debate that followed, one New York newspaper, "The Journal," even went so far as to publish the names and addresses of concealed weapon permit holders in their county in the newspaper.

So how is this hypocritical? Those actions alone are not; however, when the President of the United States refuses to entertain the idea of posting armed guards at public schools while his children attend a private school with armed guards, THAT is hypocritical. The various liberal congressmen who cry about needing more gun control laws while doing so from behind the protection of their own armed guards is also hypocritical, as is the number of those very congressmen who themselves are in possession of a concealed weapons permit - like Chuck Schumer of New York. And last but not least, when the newspaper that published the list of permit holders began to get hate mail, they posted armed guards at the entrances to their buildings.

So what they're all trying to tell us is that it's okay for them to use guns to protect themselves, but it's not okay for us to do it.

That, friends and neighbors, is the absolute height of hypocrisy - and I despise a hypocrite.

I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I also believe that those opinions are neither "right" nor "wrong," they're just different. I've always believed that, and I always will. And I truly don't have an issue with differing opinions - my issue starts when the intolerance and hypocrisy starts, and unfortunately we've seen a plethora of both in the past seven months or so.

And with the looming inauguration of the Buffoon In Chief to his second Reign of Terror, I have a feeling it's only going to get worse.

IHC

My Reply to Allison's Daughter

Yesterday I received a very interesting comment and a request for help from one of my readers, Allison Hardt. Here's the comment as posted:

"Allison Hardt said...

I have been reading your blog for quite some time now and for the most part I have agreed with you .I was wondering if you could help me with your input on something ? My Daughter came home from school yesterday and told me that the talk at school is now they are going to let teachers carry a gun in school. My daughter is 12 yrs old and is very upset .. This is what she said “ Mom , why is it alright for a teacher to carry a gun at school when guns are prohibited on school property . I would feel safer with the police being here then I would with a teacher having a gun . The police are trained to use a gun and are prepared to use it if they have to. If the teacher has one in her desk all that will do is make it easier for the insane student or other insane person at the school to get it . They have taken God out of my school and replaced it with a gun ,and further more the only American Flag is the one out front on the flag pole. “ My daughter did not want to go to school today , she did go but now she is more afraid on how many guns are there . What do you tell your child ? School is hard enough as it is . I would really like to know what you think about this if its not to much trouble . Thank You."

As I told Allison in my initial reply, I'm very flattered that she's been such a loyal reader, and instead of answering her in the "Comment" section I said I'd answer her here instead. Having said that, let me also say that I'm honored that she would ask for my opinion and assistance, and am more than glad to help out in any way I can. Since Allison is going to be relaying this to a 12 year old child, I'm going to try and keep my answers simple and non-political.

So here we go!

People at all different levels of government thought that prohibiting guns from being taken onto school property would keep everyone safe; unfortunately, events in real life have proven this idea to be wrong. The rule was made with the best of intentions, but the fact is that people break rules every day, and this rule is no exception.

Having the police station an officer on school grounds is a good idea, one of which I'm in favor of, but the reality is that the police don't have either the money or the officers to be able to do this. One alternative is to hire an armed guard agency to protect the schools, but the schools don't have the money either. The only other alternative is to let the teachers be armed themselves. If this takes place, I'm 100% sure that the school would train the teachers on the use of firearms first, very much like the police are trained on firearms safety and use, and would make sure that the teachers either carried the firearm on their person at all times or had it locked up in a gun safe where no one could get hold of it except them. We did this as a nation with our airline pilots after 9/11 and the program has worked, so there's no reason to think that it won't work in schools either.

I agree that "they" have taken God out of schools, which I disagree with, but I don't think "they" have replaced Him with a gun. The Supreme Court says that religion can't be taught in schools, and while I disagree with this I will follow the law because that's what good, honest citizens do. I also think that if parents were to teach their children about God, integrity, and respect for others that we wouldn't have most of the violence we have today. The schools used to do that, but now they can't so it's up to the parents to do it. I'm sorry to say that there are a lot of parents who have not done this, and the results are obvious.

I think that every classroom in every school in every state of the United States of America should have an American flag in it, and each day should be started out with the reciting of The Pledge of Allegiance. This is how I was raised, and this is how I think all future generations of American children should be raised. I'm sorry to say that for a lot of reasons, all of which I don't understand, the schools have gotten away from this and don't do this anymore. There were some confused and misguided people who said that the mention of God in the Pledge was teaching religion to children, so the schools had to stop. I think this has done much more harm than good, and until we get a President and a Congress who agrees we're just going to have to do the best we can with it.

Lastly, guns are nothing more than a tool, much in the same way as a hammer or a saw is a tool. If you put a hammer or a saw on a table and leave it there, it won't do anything but lay there until someone picks it up and uses it. If they use that hammer or saw to hurt someone, then it's not the hammer's fault or the saw's fault, it's the person's fault. The person should be punished and not the tool.

It's the exact same way with guns. A gun is a tool that will hurt no one on its own; it takes a person to pick it up and use it for this to happen. People will say that guns are designed for only one thing and that thing is to kill, and to a point they are right. But they choose to ignore the fact that a gun is nothing but a tool, and will only be used to kill if someone - the person who picks it up - uses it for that reason.

But guns can be, and are often, used for good and to save lives as well. The police use them for this purpose every day, and I myself have used a gun to save my own life. Two young men tried to rob me using a knife one night a long time ago, and I was carrying a pistol at the time for which I had a license. I drew my pistol and pointed it at the young men, who dropped the knife and ran away. I thank God that I didn't have to shoot anyone that night, but the point is that a gun saved my life that night. So guns are used for good as well as bad, every single day.

You don't need to be afraid of guns, because guns can't hurt you. Be afraid of the people who use the guns to hurt people, because people are the cause - not guns.

And there you have it, Allison. I hope this helps, and I hope that you'll let me know how things turn out with you and your daughter.

Again, thank you for being a reader and for asking my help on this.

IHC

NObama's Committee to Study Gun Violence is a Sham

Oh, my God, where to start on this one...

First things first: appointing Joe Biden to be in charge of a committee to study "gun violence" in America and actually expecting him to be fair and unbiased is like buying a lottery ticket and actually expecting to win - and then being surprised when you don't. What did you expect, really? NObama's chief Court Jester has made his feelings on gun control very plain from Day One, and to expect him to recommend anything except more useless gun control laws is nothing short of stupid. Not ludicrous, not foolish, but STUPID. NObama would have served the purpose much better if he'd appointed a moderate to head the committee or, better yet, if he'd appointed two people to co-chair the committee one from each side of the issue - with the Court Jester NOT being one of them. THAT would have been the smart thing to do. But then again, NObama hasn't been doing very many smart things these days, has he?

And were we really surprised when the Court Jester had the "Brady Bunch" in his office first, instead of, oh, I don't know, the NRA? It's human instinct to want to talk to those of the same opinion first, but it sure doesn't say anything for being fair and unbiased, does it? If he wanted to be seen as fair and unbiased, then he should have had the NRA in his office first. That would have done wonders for his credibility with me, and while I realize I'm only one person, I'm quite sure there are legions more out there who feel the same way I do on that point.

Then again, the Court Jester doesn't seem to be concerned about being fair and unbiased - he's already come to his conclusions as to what he thinks needs to be done, and he's also already decided how he and NObama are going to do it. Why else would he announce after the first day's meetings that the use of an Executive Order to establish tighter gun control was "on the table?" He tried to cover his ass by adding that "legislation would be needed" to back it up, but the damage has already been done. As I'm typing this, the Republicans in Congress and the citizens of the nation are lining up and screaming their heads off about this blatant intent to bypass the Congress and the Constitution and rule by "executive decree." Considering the number of Executive Orders that NObama has issued in the past four years - more than the previous FOUR presidents combined, by the way - I'm not at all surprised that he'd stoop to this tactic.

For those of you who voted for this asshat last November, congratulations - you've elected the first DICTATOR in our nation's history. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

As I said in the title of this entry, this whole committee thing by NObama and the Court Jester is nothing but a sham. It's a facade, a fake, a dog and pony show to give people the impression that they actually give a damn about saving lives and that they really want to hear ALL suggestions on how to solve the problem of gun violence in America. If they were really serious about it, then they would have taken Ted Nugent up on his offer to sit on the committee with the Court Jester - but as far as I know, Uncle Ted isn't included. That tells you something right there. (Nugent, by the way, wrote a letter to Biden and then published it on his web site in which he offers his services. If you haven't read it, you really should.)

No, the Court Jester and NObama don't really give a damn about saving lives. What they REALLY want is to eliminate private ownership of firearms in the United States, and to do that, of course, they have to repeal the Second Amendment. The establishment of yet more useless gun control laws in the face of reams of documentation that proves gun control laws in general - and the Brady Bill in particular - don't work is just the first step, as I said in a post last week. Their ultimate goal is the repeal of the Second Amendment, and they'll do anything, both legal and illegal, to accomplish that goal.

And in the mean time they're going to pass up the opportunity to address and possibly solve - or at least drastically reduce - the real cause of gun violence in America. Guns are not the cause, they're the tool. The cause is mental illness, and the programs in our country to recognize and treat mental illness are sadly lacking. We have the opportunity as a nation to take some definitive actions that will absolutely reduce gun violence in our nation, but focusing on and banning guns is not the answer. Banning guns is no more the answer than banning cars is the answer to drunk driving, and for the life of me I just don't understand why the libtards and the Demoncrats don't understand this!

For the first time in my life, I'm genuinely concerned about the future of our great nation. I'm a student of history, and one of the things I've studied is how the great dictators in the past have come to power, and in every instance - every single one - the very first thing they did to secure their power was to disarm the people. As the old saying goes, "An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject," and it seems apparent to me that NObama is intent on making all of us his subjects. He envisions a socialist society where the government takes care of everybody - whether they want to be take care of or not - and provides everybody what HE thinks they need. Of course, the flip side is also true in that if HE thinks we don't need it, then he either deprives us of it or takes it away.

And the sad thing is that there are enough people out there who think that the total loss of their freedom as a citizen is a fair price to pay for being "taken care of." Why else would they have elected this charlatan twice?

As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

I've long said, and said it proudly, that I'm a "Sheepdog." If you've read my blog then you know what I'm talking about; if not, then do a search for that term in my blog and read what I wrote. But over the course of the past few days I've been giving some very serious thought to what's going on in our nation and with the socialist buffoon now occupying the White House, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm no longer just a "Sheepdog."

I'm also a "Three Percenter." (If you don't know what that means, then look it up.)

And I'm damned proud of that, too.

I don't know where all of this is going to take us, so just like the rest of you I'm going to just hold my breath and pray to God that it doesn't all go to hell on us. If NObama tries to "rule by executive decree" then it's going to go South in one hell of a hurry; if not, well, we may just be able to survive NObama's reign of terror intact.

Time will tell.

IHC

Fact Versus Fantasy: What The Libtards Hope You Don't Know About Gun Control

Now that the topic of gun control is #1 on the White House Hit List - just as I said it would be if NObama was re-elected - I think it's time that we all took a serious look at some of the bullshit that that libtards and Demoncrats are spouting about what a wonderful thing gun control is, and how we'll all be safer when we're disarmed. What follows are the myths and fantasies that the libtards and Demoncrats are saying about gun control and what they would have you believe, and the corresponding facts that prove them to be just that - myths and fantasies. So here they are, in no particular order, although I did try to go from the most prevalent to the most obscure, with one exception.

#1 - More stringent - or just more - gun control laws will decrease gun violence.

This one is wrong on so many planes it's laughable. At present there are more than 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide, yet we still have acts of violence being committed with guns. And on top of that, statistics have proven that 94% of the murders committed in the United States are committed with "illegal" guns - that is, guns that have been stolen and are not used by the person who legally purchased it when the crime is committed. And then there's the basic fact of why ANY gun control law has not and will not ever work: CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. That's why they're called "criminals." And if you want proof of this, you need look no further than the city of Chicago. Chicago has the most stringent gun control laws in the nation, yet they also have the highest murder rate, the majority of which are committed with - you guessed it - "illegal" guns. The city that was second to this was Washington, D.C. which also had very stringent gun control laws - as in, you couldn't own a handgun at all. D.C. also had the second-highest gun murder rate in the nation, but all that changed last year when the D.C. gun ban was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States as being unconstitutional.

#2 - Gun control laws such as the "Brady Bill" will make us safer/decrease gun violence.

Not according to the FBI, it won't. After the "Brady Bill" expired, the FBI conducted a study on the effects of gun crimes and violence that the bill had, and they found that the bill made no noticeable difference in the amount of crimes being committed with a gun. And the FBI isn't the only organization to conduct such a study and come up with those results. Georgetown University, Duke University, and the American Medical Association to name a few have also conducted research on the effects of the bill, and none of them was able to prove that the "Brady Bill" had any measureable effect on hangun violence in the United States. The harsh reality that the libtards and Demoncrats don't want to admit is that every single study done on the effect of the "Brady Bill" have ALL failed to show that the bill did any good at all. The studies did show, however, that the Federal government - specifically the Department of Justice - had been what I would call criminally negligent in punishing those who attempted to purchase a handgun in violation of this bill. In the entire time the bill was in effect from 1994 until 2004, more than 700,000 applications were denied yet only six thousand offenders were prosecuted! And of those prosecutions, less than a handful resulted in jail time.

The question now is, why should a criminal fear or obey a law that they know won’t be enforced? Simple answer: they won’t.

#3 - Banning "assault rifles" will make us safer/decrease gun violence.

For openers, there's no such thing as an "assault rifle." This is a term that was invented by the liberal media because it sounded scary and would intimidate the weak and faint of heart, and they were right. There is NO weapon in the United States military arsenal that is officially classified as an "assault rifle."

And once again, the FBI says that this isn't true. The fact is that approximately 1% of gun crimes committed in the United States involve the use of a so-called "assault rifle," with the weapon of choice being an automatic pistol. The liberal news media incorrectly reported that an AR-15-type rifle was used during the shootings in Connecticut, but the investigation has shown that while an AR-15 style rifle was found in the killer's car, the actual shooting was done with two 9mm automatic pistols. (Did I mention that all three guns were STOLEN from the killer's mother after he murdered her?)

#4 - Banning "high capacity" magazines will reduce the number of people killed in a mass shooting.

Uh, no. All a high-capacity magazine does is keep you from having to change magazines more often. The simple solution: carry more magazines or, better, yet, carry more than one gun. And for those of you out there who are foolish and/or stupid enough to think that you have enough time to attack and disarm a shooter while he's changing magazines, keep in mind that it only takes 3 to 4 seconds to change magazines. Are you willing to bet your life that you can carry out your plan in that amount of time?

#5 - Less guns mean less crime.

Again, not according to the FBI. Statistics have shown - and continue to show - that the exact opposite is true. Less guns actually means more crime. Florida was the first state to adopt a "must issue" concealed carry permit law, meaning that you no longer had to prove to a judge or anyone else why you should be issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Once you applied for the permit, the local government was compelled to issue you the permit. Once this law took effect, two things happened: concealed weaons permits skyrocketed, and the numbers of violent crimes being committed plunged. And since that time a total of 39 states have adopted "must issue" laws, and in every state violent crimes have dropped. It seems that criminals don't like to get shot, either.

And if you need still more proof that less guns means more crime, take a look at the violent crime statistics for England and Australia. Both of these nations have abolished the private ownership of firearms, and in both nations violent crimes have skyrocketed.

#6 - There's nothing wrong with "common sense" and/or "responsible" gun laws.

Maybe, maybe not. But the fact is that "common sense" has proven lately to be anything but common. What one person may consider to be "common sense" may not be such to another. The same is true for the term "responsible" in that what you may consider "responsible" may not be considered as such by another person, me included. The use of these two phrases by the gun grabbers is nothing but a ploy to get the public to agree with them by making it appear that disagreement with what they propose shows both a lack of common sense and irresponsibility. I, for one, won't fall prey to this tactic.

#7 – “Gun Free Zones” save lives.

No, for one simple reason: the only person in a “gun free zone” that will have a gun will be the shooter. After all, if someone is intent on committing a mass shooting, do you really think he’s going to avoid a “gun free zone” simply because the law says so? Remember what I said about criminals not obeying laws? No, the truth is that a “gun free zone” is going to be the FIRST place the shooter will look for – and that’s where he’ll go, count on it.

And here’s another factoid that the libtards and Demoncrats don’t want you to know: the shootings in Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona, and Virginia all took place in a “Gun Free Zone.” So if you want irrefutable proof that “Gun Free Zones” don’t work, all you have to do is look at the last FOUR mass shootings.

And I saved the best for last.

#8 - Making all guns illegal will make us safer and/or eliminate gun violence.

This is another one that is wrong on so many planes that it's laugable, and the really sad thing is that there are folks out there who truly believe this. But once again, facts prove that this is nothing but wishful thinking and a myth perpetuated by the libtards, the Demoncrats, and the liberal media. If you want proof of how making something illegal won't keep it from happening, just ask the DEA how their war on drugs is going. Meth, LSD, opium, heroin, marijuana and cocaine are all illegal but we still have a drug problem in America, don't we? And any DEA man you ask will tell you - off the record, of course - that the war on drugs is one we can't win, ever.

Drunk driving is also illegal, yet in this nation more people are killed each year by drunk drivers than are killed with guns, yet you don't hear anyone calling for a ban on cars, do you?

Last but not least, look at the City of Chicago again - more proof that making something illegal won't stop the criminal activity that involves that item.

Someone please tell me how taking away my means of self-defense will make me safer, because I still haven’t figured that one out.

I see one hell of a fight coming on Capitol Hill about gun control, and for a lot of us it's going to be a severe case of deja vu. In the 1990s the gun grabbers trotted out John and Sarah Brady to appeal to the emotions of the nation in their drive to get the "Brady Bill" passed, and it worked. Of course, the fact that the President and both houses of Congress were controlled by Demoncrats also played a hell of a big part. But now, in 2013, we have the same thing happening again, only this time it involves former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. Giffords was one of the victims of the Arizona shooting two years ago, for those of you who may not remember the name. Yesterday she and her husband announced that they were founding an organization to establish "responsible" gun control laws (there's that word again) and to raise enough money to effectively fight the most powerful and influential pro-gun lobby group on Capitol Hill, namely the National Rifle Association.

So once again we have the victim of a gun crime taking aim not on the person who committed the crime, but on the tool he used. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. After all, when you don't have the facts on your side and you have nothing left to use, the only thing you can possibly do is come up with a way to appeal to the emotional side of the human race and go for the "pity effect." It worked once, and the libtards and Demoncrats are hoping it works again. The one big difference between then and now is that this time, the Republicans control half of Congress, so we won’t get anything shoved down our throats this time like we did in 1994.

I, for one, am going to do my best to make sure we don’t have a repeat of 1994. We can’t afford to make the same mistake twice.

What about you?

IHC