Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by krome2ez

  1. Actually here's something he said that was on the mark. Too too bad he forgot what he believed to be right and now him and the Dem's are spouting exactly the opposite. As now he spouts this....
  2. The 10 Worst Regulations of 2012 By Diane Katz and James L. Gattuso December 27, 2012 During 2012, virtually every aspect of American life, from caloric intake to dishwasher efficiency, was subjected to government meddling. Most of these rules increase the cost of living, others hinder job creation, and many erode freedom. Not all regulations are unwarranted, of course, but increasingly, the rules imposed by the government have less to do with health and safety and more to do with whether government or individuals get to make basic pocketbook and lifestyle decisions that affect them. And it is not just the regulators who are to blame. Congress writes laws that give unelected bureaucrats the broad powers they wield. In a great many cases, the agencies do not even consider costs when crafting new regulations. For example, the Government Accountability Office, in a report released last week, found that the agencies implementing the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law did not meet the government’s own standards for regulatory analyses. Nor did they evaluate alternatives to regulation.[1] Which are the worst? There is no objective standard to measure such things, but here is Heritage’s take on 2012’s bottom 10: 10. Mortgaging the Future: “Simplified” Mortgage Disclosure and Servicing Rules In July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its proposal for a more “consumer friendly” mortgage process, with a stated goal of simplifying home loans. The rules run an astonishing 1,099 pages. In August, the bureau proposed more than 560 pages of rules for mortgage servicing, which includes the collection of mortgage payments, maintenance of escrow accounts, and loan modifications and foreclosures. Many of the provisions would micromanage the timing, (expanded) content, and format of various disclosures. All of this, of course, will—simply—reduce consumer mortgage lending options and increase costs.[2] 9. Tracking Your Travels: Electronic Data Recorder Mandate The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on December 13 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to mandate installation of electronic data recorders, popularly known as “black boxes,” in most light vehicles starting in 2014. The stated goal is to collect more information about car accidents. But manufacturers, without a government mandate, already put recorders in many models. A government mandate understandably spooks privacy advocates, who warn of possible abuse of the information on drivers collected by federal bureaucrats. 8. Choice Cutbacks: Essential Benefits Rule The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grabs the number 8 spot with its proposed list of “essential health benefits,” published on November 26. Under Obamacare, insurers in the individual and small group markets will be forced to cover services that the government deems to be essential. The HHS list of very broad benefits has created enormous uncertainty about the extent of essential treatment. Included in the list are mental health coverage, “wellness” services, “habilitative” services, chronic disease management, and pediatric oral and vision care. The net result will be higher health insurance costs, which will increase the burden on consumers, employers, and taxpayers. 7. Instant Union: Quickie Union Election Rule In April, the National Labor Relations Board issued new rules that shorten the time allowed for union-organizing elections to between 10 and 21 days. The rule delays most administrative issues—such as challenges to the definition of the appropriate bargaining unit—until after the election. This leaves little time for employees to make a fully informed choice on unionizing, threatening to leave workers and management alike under unwanted union regimes.[3] 6. Don’t Let Them Eat Cake: School Lunch Standards The U.S. Department of Agriculture in January published stringent nutrition standards for school lunch and breakfast programs. More than 98,000 elementary and secondary schools are affected—at a cost exceeding $3.4 billion over the next four years. The dietary rules have drawn protests from students, including the YouTube video “We Are Hungry” from a Kansas high school and a lunch boycott by high school students in Wisconsin. 5. Cleaned Out: Dishwasher Efficiency Standards Regulators admit that these Department of Energy rules will do little to improve the environment. Rather, proponents claim they will save consumers money. But they will also increase the price of dishwashers, and only about one in six consumers will keep his or her dishwasher long enough to recoup the cost.[4] Whatever the numbers, this is a call that consumers—rather than Washington—should be making. 4. Soda Socialism: New York’s 16-Ounce Soda Limit Not all regulations come from Washington. On September 13, at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Board of Health banned the sale of soda and other sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. New Yorkers are apparently still allowed refills, at least for now. No word on how many New York City cops will be moved from crime prevention to monitor the city’s soda fountains. 3. Sticker Shock: Fuel Economy Standards In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in tandem with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), finalized new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2017–2025. The rules require a whopping average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Sticker prices will jump by hundreds of dollars. Regulators argue that the fuel savings will make up these costs. Whether consumers want to make such a trade-off does not matter. The government has decided for them. 2. Increasing Energy Costs: EPA Emissions Standards The EPA in February finalized strict new emissions standards for coal- and oil-fired electric utilities. The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually. The regulations will produce a significant loss of electricity generating capacity, which would undermine energy reliability and raise energy costs across the entire economy. 1. Conscience Denial: HHS’s Contraception Mandate The HHS on February 15 finalized its mandate that all health insurance plans include coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization procedures, and contraceptives.[5] The mandate allows no exceptions for church-affiliated schools, hospitals, and charities whose religious principles conflict with the mandate. To date, 42 cases with over 110 plaintiffs[6] are challenging this restriction on religious liberty as a violation of the First Amendment. No End in Sight As busy as regulators were in 2012, do not look for them to slow down in the new year. Already in the pipeline are dozens of new rules covering health care, finance, global warming, and more. It is anybody’s guess who will win next year’s prize. The only safe bet is that consumers will lose. —Diane Katz is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy and James L. Gattuso is Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.;utm_campaign=010212FMF
  3. posted on January 2, 2013 byFrank Camp England Considering Ban On Kitchen Knives The slippery slope is usually considered to be a fallacious type of argumentation. By invoking the slippery slope, you are essentially saying that if one thing occurs at the top of this metaphorical slope, you have no other option but to slide down further. That being said–though it is often categorized with other fallacious argumentation, like ad hominem–slippery slope actually is applicable to some things. For instance, consider the following story. According to The Inquisitor: “A West Middlesex University Hospital group contends that violent crime is increasing in Great Britain and kitchen knives are used in approximately half of all stabbings. The team claims that many of the knife attacks are impulsive acts and that a kitchen knife is too convenient of a weapon.” Apparently, in the wake of a rise in violent crime where the primary weapon used is long kitchen knives, a group of doctors is attempting to get those types of knives banned. This would be similar to measures taken in the 1990′s that put heavy restrictions on guns. In England, gun restrictions are so harsh, that self defense–post 1969–is no longer a good enough reason to own a handgun. According to The Wall Street Journal, owning a pistol could get you up to 10 years in prison in the UK. With all of these gun restrictions, you’d think England would be a much safer place–at least according to Liberal logic. Well, not so much. Once again, according to The Wall Street Journal: “Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time…In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.” So, in the face of the fact that gun restrictions have done absolutely nothing to prevent gun-related violence in England, you’d like to believe that people wouldn’t apply the same logic to anything else. Not so. This group of doctors wants to ban kitchen knives, with the intent of stopping knife-related violence. If they would simply look at the statistics, they would see that restriction does nothing to prevent violence. The slippery slope is right in front of us. First, guns were restricted because of gun-related violence, now knives are being threatened. Once long kitchen knives are banned, people will just move on to something else: small kitchen knives, or anything sharp. From there, people will want to ban anything that can be used as a weapon. This will continue until each of us is in our own padded cell, in straight-jackets. Ok, maybe that’s a bit extreme, but I wouldn’t put it past Liberal “logic.” It seems obvious to me that guns are not the problem; neither are knives. People are the problem. People with no empathy, no respect for life, and sometimes serious mental issues are the core problem. Yet in the face of all of this information, Liberals in America seem intent on becoming England. We’ve seen the bottom of the slope; England is halfway down. America’s foot is right on the edge.
  4. Hollywood Gets Tax Break in Fiscal Cliff Deal Wednesday, January 2, 2013 It seems Hollywood’s rigorous backing of President Barack Obama and his Democrat peers in the waning months of 2012 paid off. Section 317 of the freshly approved legislation includes an extension for “special expensing rules for certain film and television productions.” Congress first enacted production tax incentives favorable to the domestic entertainment industry in 2004, and extended them in 2008, but the deal was meant to expire in 2011. The fiscal cliff deal extends the tax incentives through 2013–even as payroll taxes rise on ordinary Americans. Read more:
  5. You and your lib socialist friends just don't get it. It's the Unions, the Regulations and Excess Taxation that has driven the jobs over seas. Wake up and smell the coffee.
  6. Boehner swore at Reid after 'dictatorship' comment, sources say by | January 02, 2013 As nasty as the battle over the fiscal crisis bill looked on the floors of Congress, it was even nastier behind the scenes. Sources confirmed to Fox News that House Speaker John Boehner told Harry Reid to "go f--- yourself" while passing by the Senate majority leader at the White House Friday. The outburst came after Reid, on Thursday, took to the floor and likened Boehner to a dictator. Reid had claimed Boehner was holding back a bill out of concern for his speakership. "John Boehner seems to care more about keeping his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing," Reid said Thursday, claiming the chamber was "being operated with a dictatorship of the speaker." Boehner did not take kindly to the accusation. Politico first reported that Boehner swore at Reid when he saw him the next day at the White House, where congressional leaders were convening for a meeting. Reid reportedly seemed startled, asking, "What are you talking about?" Boehner then repeated, "Go f--- yourself." Boehner's office offered "no comment" on the incident. Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report. Read more:
  7. The Cliff Deal Graph That Will Make Your Blood Boil Posted on January 2, 2013 by Conservative Byte One of those occasions when one picture really does speak a thousands words. Read more:
  8. Not My Fault Posted on January 2, 2013 by Conservative Byte
  9. Back to Vacation: Obama Takes $1.8 Millon Dollar Midnight Flight to Hawaii 2 January 2013 After Congress agreed temporarily to avert the “fiscal cliff” last night, President Barack Obama hailed the deal in brief remarks delivered from the White House, and then headed to Air Force One to take a midnight flight to Hawaii. Obama had left his family days earlier to return to Washington to deal with the “fiscal cliff.” Obama “ended a seven-minute statement in the Press Briefing Room starting at about 11:27 p.m.,” according to the pool report. “Dressed only in a blue suit, he walked across the South Lawn to board Marine One at 11:40 p.m.” The pool report adds, “Marine One touched down at Andrews Air Force Base at 11:54 p.m. POTUS, still in a dark gray suit and light blue tie, walked quickly to Air Force One and dashed up the stairs. Valerie Jarrett, Jay Carney and Alyssa Mastromonaco also are on board tonight. At 12:01 a.m., Air Force One is rolling.” But the American tax payer paid a price for Obama’s return. The cost of flying Air Force One from Andrews Air Force Base to Hawaii, MSNBC reports this morning is, $1.8 million. That means the total round-trip cost of President Obama’s return trip to Washington from his Hawaii vacation was at least $3.6 million. Read More: Read more:
  10. Guns Are Good For Journal News But Not For Those Whose Addresses They Published January 2, 2013 – 6:34 am If you’ll remember, The Journal News published a Google map containing the names and addresses of those in 2 NY counties who have handgun permits. This was purely done in an attempt to shame and expose those who expressed their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course, what it did was tell criminals which homes they should not rob, namely those with guns. But, what about The Journal News itself? (Rockland County Times) Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander. A Clarkstown police report issued on December 28, 2012, confirmed that The Journal News has hired armed security guards from New City-based RGA Investigations and that they are manning the newspaper’s Rockland County headquarters at 1 Crosfield Ave., West Nyack, through at least tomorrow, Wednesday, January 2, 2013. According to police reports on public record, Journal News Rockland Editor Caryn A. McBride was alarmed by the volume of “negative correspondence,” namely an avalanche of phone calls and emails to the Journal News office, following the newspaper’s publishing of a map of all pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester. Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location. There you go. She was concerned with safety, so she hired people packing guns. Which is the primary reason law abiding citizens obtain a handgun permit and purchase a handgun, for safety. And here’s some serious sarcasm from one of comments by Cody Allen I do not see how they justify armed guards. Newspaper offices should be gun free zones. They simply need to develop a plan in which a code red blue or whatever is issued. Employees should close their doors and hide under their desks. Do not open the doors or come out from under the desks until a police officer comes into the room to tell you your safe. Impress on them the importance of being quiet. The police response time should be within minutes and given this plan the odds of a particular employee being killed is minimized. Liberals like McBride expect Other People to be disarmed and to depend on police showing up after the crime, but, for themselves? Armed guards. Humorously, many of the same people they exposed in their map are probably law enforcement and employees of the company they hired as security. Weasel Zippers calls this “assploding irony”.
  11. 6-Year-Old Suspended For Saying, “Pow” posted on January 2, 2013 by Philip Hodges Michael Moore recently said that the only reason white people are buying a bunch of guns in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting is that they’re fearful. Afraid of black people specifically. He said, “Calm down, white people, and put away your guns.” So if we’re all buying guns and ammo out of fear of the black man, what emotion would cause this idiocy: a 6-year-old boy was suspended from school for making his hand in the shape of a gun and pretend shooting it, saying, “Pow,” as it was pointed at a fellow student. Were school officials actually scared that a bullet was going to come out of the child’s index finger and kill his classmate? So, it’s not fear that’s driving this; it’s pure stupidity. Renee Garraway, the Assistant Principal in this Montgomery County, Maryland school, sent a letter home with the 6-year-old. Her letter, addressing the child’s parents, stated in part that “your son … was involved in a serious incident. [He] threatened to shoot a student. He was spoken to earlier today about a similar incident.” He threatened to shoot a student? Are they kidding? He was probably playing a version of Cops and Robbers. He’s a little boy. At one time, such behavior was considered normal for little boys. Nowadays with the abject paranoia of the left, this child’s configuring his fingers in the shape of a gun is worthy of suspension. And because of the school’s “no tolerance” policy and ridiculous overreaction, the parents have had to retain an attorney, Robin Ficker. Ficker pointed out that “five years from now when someone at Montgomery County looks at [the child's] permanent record, they’re going to see that he threatened to shoot another student.” This is similar to another recent incident where a 3-year-old deaf student was told he had to change his sign language name because the hand gestures for the name “Hunter” resembled guns, much like the 6-year-old’s “gun” above being used to shoot a fellow student. Government schools are proving themselves to be dangerous, mentally, emotionally and physically. They’re also run by imbeciles who think they’re doing society a favor by removing the kids with “behavior problems” such as the child who was playing Cops and Robbers. Shutting down these government schools would do society a much greater favor. Read more:
  12. Data Source: The California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Study, 2004. Numbers have been rounded off to make the relative magnitudes easier to perceive, and any errors in the calculations are my own. Total Electricity usage (all applications) per year for comparison: USA 12,000 kWh per capita California 8,000 kWh per capita Average of SC Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric Household electricity use: 6,000 kWh per household per year for 3 residents average per household. So the household use per capita is 2,000 kWh or about ¼ of per capita electricity from all applications. Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and Other Electricity Savings The first thing we can do in the house is to replace all lighting with Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, which take only ¼ of the power for the same light. Since lighting is 22% of home electricity, removing ¾ of it saves 17% or 1/6 of the total 6,000 kWh, leaving only 5,000 kWh of household electricity. At $0.10 per kWh, this gives a yearly savings of $100. This is where more energy efficient appliances and air conditioning come in, as well as solar adaptation by awnings, tinted or upgraded windows and use of fans to lessen the cooling needs of the house. Getting rid of a second fridge, replacing an old one, turning off equipment when not in use, and avoiding 400 watt plasma screen televisions also help. For saving an average of 27 cents per day, I'll stick with the cheaper safer incadescent bulb. And until some break through in solar power, hydrogen power, or you libs ok more nuclear power plants, we will need coal fired power plants to meet American's need and demand of electricity.
  13. This is a great idea, maybe not for here, but for third world nations. But if the Libs get thier way, we might end up with this for our only light.
  14. I know this is so so wrong, but yet I still laughed. :lol:/> BEER AND SWEET TEA A woman goes to the doctor all black and blue. "What happened?" "Doctor, I don't know what to do. Every time my husband comes home drunk on Bud Light he beats me up." "I have a real good medicine for that. When your husband comes home drunk on Bud Light, just take a glass of sweet tea and start swishing it in your mouth but don't swallow. Just keep swishing and swishing until he goes to bed in his Bud Light stupor." Two weeks later the woman comes back to the doctor looking fresh and reborn. "Doctor, that was a brilliant idea. Every time my husband came home drunk on Bud Light, I swished with sweet tea. I swished and swished, and he didn't touch me!" "You see how much keeping your mouth shut helps?"
  15. What's not to like? :D/>/> Nugent ROCKS!! On and Off the Stage!!
  16. NUGENT: Open letter to Joe Biden on guns ‘Gun control’ won’t save lives By Ted Nugent - The Washington Times Monday, December 31, 2012 Joe, Congratulations on your appointment to lead a presidential commission to end gun-related violence. As a National Rifle Association board member, husband, father, grandfather, law enforcement officer and genuinely concerned American, I too want nothing more than to see evil, senseless massacres stopped. I concur with the president and caring people everywhere: It’s time to end these slaughters. As you gather your team to study massacres and how to stop them, I offer to you my services and a lifetime of expertise on guns in all their implementations. While I strongly differ with President Obama on many issues, I agree with him that we must work with all we can possibly muster to end these tragedies. As you begin to formulate your thoughts on how to proceed with your task, I hope your starting point is to provide the president with the facts regarding these slaughters and to offer him common-sense recommendations that are void of a political agenda and will actually make a meaningful difference. If the American people smell a political agenda here, that will only bog down our efforts. In the spirit of goodwill and a deep desire to end gut-wrenching, incredibly sad and senseless rampages, I offer you the following recommendations: I encourage you to persuade the president to lead this effort by providing a number of public service announcements. The announcements should include watching out for each other, encouraging parents to be more involved in their children’s lives regarding entertainment choices, and knowing various indicators we should watch for in people who are unstable. Clearly, the focus on solving these mass murders must be on the mentally ill. In almost every instance of mass killing, there were ample red flags and warning alarms that either were avoided or were not acted upon by mental health professionals, family members, friends and acquaintances. While I deeply respect an individual’s privacy and civil liberties, the American people need basic awareness of what indicators to look for regarding potentially violent, psychotic people. Our collective safety begins with being collectively vigilant. You will find in your assessment that all of the massacres have occurred in gun-free zones. What gun-free zones create is an environment where good people are unarmed and virtually defenseless against an unstable person intent on committing mass murder. Gun-free zones are modern killing fields. I implore you to recommend that Congress pass a law to ban gun-free zones immediately. Just like your full-time, armed security detail, qualified citizens with authorized, legal concealed-carry permits should be able to carry weapons virtually everywhere to protect themselves, their loved ones and innocents. I also implore you to strongly consider recommending that trained school officials have access to weapons to protect students. Just as airline pilots may have access to a weapon to prevent another Sept. 11 mass murder, school officials also should be trained to stop shooting sprees at our schools. I don’t encourage you to recommend a ban on any weapon, magazine capacity or type of ammunition. That won’t accomplish anything other than prevent the 99.9 percent of responsible, law-abiding Americans from enjoying these modern weapons as we do now. We should never recommend or develop public policy that restricts the rights of the good guys based upon what evil people do or might do. If that were the case, alcohol still would be banned. As you may know, drunk drivers kill an estimated 12,000 Americans each year and hurt tens of thousands more. I encourage you also to keep this misnamed “gun violence” in perspective. While all deaths are tragic, the vast majority of gun-related murders and violence are committed by gang members who do not use guns that look like — but do not perform like — military assault weapons. The majority of crimes that involve a firearm are committed with handguns. I concurred with you back in 2008 when you stated, “If [Mr. Obama] tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.” I trust you still maintain those sentiments. Again, I offer you my services and a lifetime of expertise. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Ted Nugent Ted Nugent is an American rock ‘n’ roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of “Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God, Guns & Rock ‘N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing). Read more: Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
  17. The Ball Dropped Tuesday, January 1, 2013
  18. Just stocked up on some 75W and 100W bulbs today. Stores can continue to sell those in stock till gone. Have you read the warnings on the "green" bulbs? If broken, your told to have some one licensed in HazMat disposal to remove the broken bulb. Are you frigg'n kidding me? Happy New Year: Feds Kill 75W Incandescent Light Bulbs by Ben Shapiro 1 Jan 2013, 6:56 AM PDT Beginning today, the 75-watt incandescent lightbulb has been banned from production and importation in the United States. That’s right – as soon as stores clear their shelves of their current stock, you won’t be able to buy a 75-watt incandescent lightbulb anymore. Why? Let Consumer Reports’ Celia Kuperzmid-Lehrman explain: 90 percent of the energy the bulb uses is wasted, so what they replaced them with are much more energy-efficient bulbs which as just as bright, just as good and will actually save you money over the long run. “Over the long run.” The new light bulbs are significantly more expensive than the old incandescent version, so you’ll have to shell out more cash up front. And if you don’t want to do that, you can sit in the dark. Under current federal law, 60 watt and 40 watt bulbs will be gone by 2014. We’ll instead have to buy Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) or Light-Emitting Diode bulbs (LEDs). Only the slightly more expensive versions don’t hum or emit cold-looking light. link
  19. Too relevant with the snow job congress is blowing our way. Needs a bump.
  20. What's next? <_</>/> Sep 07, 2012 Concord, Mass., is first to ban small plastic water bottles By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY Updated 2012-09-07 6:21 PM Aquafina Concord, Mass., has become one of the first communities in the nation to ban the sale of small plastic water bottles, the Boston Globe reports. The law, which takes effect Jan 1., makes the sale of single-serving plastic water bottles of 1 liter or less illegal. First-time offenders will get a warning, second-time violators can be fined $25, and third-time offenders can be fined $50, the newspaper says. It was the third attempt by environmentalists to get the bylaw in place. The state attorney general rejected the first effort in 2010, saying the bylaw approved in a town meeting was not validly written. A second attempt was rejected by the town meeting. This week, Attorney General Martha Coakley ruled that the latest version, which passed in April, does not violate state or federal laws. The bylaw allows an exemption during emergencies and it can be suspended outright if it proves too difficult or too expensive to enforce, the newspaper says. The International Bottled Water Association, which represents 640 U.S. and international bottlers, distributors and suppliers, says it will continue to challenge the measure, the Boston Herald reports. "This ban deprives residents of ... their choice of beverage, and visitors, who come to this birthplace of American independence, a basic freedom gifted to them by the actions in this town more than 200 years ago," the association says in a statement. The town of 17,000 people was the site of the first armed conflict of the American Revolution.
  21. Americans never give up your guns 28.12.2012 By Stanislav Mishin Americans never give up your guns. These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions. This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles. Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor. This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently. Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot. Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers. To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and to often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined. While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse. For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves. The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture? No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
  22. Entertainment New Video Mocks Celebrities’ ‘Demand A Plan’ Gun Control PSA Posted on December 31, 2012 at 7:24am by Mike Opelka Many celebrities have spoken out about gun control. Some of the biggest names in Hollywood have even stepped up and offered to use their fame to change the current gun laws. Jennifer Aniston, Jamie Foxx, Will Ferrell, Beyonce, Chris Rock, Steve Carrell, Ellen Degeneres, and others have appeared in a video called “Demand A Plan.” Image: Demand A Plan screen capture While it is perfectly acceptable for famous folks to trade on their celebrity status to promote causes they deem to be important, it has also been noted that many of the people in the video have earned fortunes by appearing in movies and TV shows that promote guns and gun violence. A new video is quick to point out this hypocrisy. The alternative campaign called “Demand A Plan? Demand Celebrities Go **** Themselves!” has surfaced on the web. It uses a combination of clips from the actual “Demand A Plan” video and intercuts it with violent scenes from virtually every single star in the PSA. Watch it, below (caution: violent themes and images): For the record, the “Demand A Plan” campaign is an effort from “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” and the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Both group’s websites host the 1:22 video calling for American citizens to contact their elected officials and demand action on gun laws. From Demand A Plan’s website, here are their three specific requests regarding gun laws: •Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America •Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines •Make gun trafficking a federal crime, including real penalties for “straw purchasers” It should be noted that every state in the union requires a criminal background check when a licensed firearms dealer sells a gun, any gun. The first item on the list seems tied to a push requiring background checks on private gun sales and those made at gun shows. Hat Tip: Sailing Manuel for inspiring the full video version. Where do you stand on celebrity endorsements? Join the conversation in the comments section and take our Blaze poll. Celebrity Endorsements Do celebrity endorsements matter? Yes - Their personal opinions matter to me. No - Do your job and entertain me, that's all. It depends, on products YES, politics - NO
  23. Obama: ‘I Cut Spending by Over a Trillion Dollars in 2011’ By Terence P. Jeffrey December 30, 2012 President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) ( - Appearing on NBCs “Meet the Press” on Sunday, President Barack Obama said that he cut spending by more than $1 trillion in 2011. However, the White House Office of Management and Budget says that federal spending increased by $147 billion from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2011. Host David Gregory asked Obama: “Well, you talk about dysfunction in Washington. You signed this legislation setting up the fiscal cliff 17 months ago. How accountable are you for the fact that Washington can't get anything done and that we are at this deadline again?” Obama responded: "Well, I have to tell you, David, if you look at my track record over the last two years, I cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011. “I campaigned on the promise of being willing to reduce the deficit in a serious way, in a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy while keeping middle class taxes low,” Obama continued. “I put forward a very specific proposal to do that," he said. "I negotiated with Speaker Boehner in good faith and moved more than halfway in order to achieve a grand bargain. I offered over a trillion dollars in additional spending cuts so that we would have two dollars of spending cuts for every one dollar of increased revenue. I think anybody objectively who's looked at this would say that, you know, we have put forward not only a sensible deal but one that has the support of the majority of the American people, including close to half of Republicans.” According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending was not cut by $1 trillion in 2011. In fact, in fiscal 2010, federal spending was $3,456,213,000,000. In fiscal 2011, federal spending was $3,603,213,000,000. That was an increase of $147 billion. While President Obama did not cut federal spending by $1 trillion in 2011, he did increase the debt by more than $1 trillion in that fiscal year. In fiscal 2011, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the federal deficit was $1,299,595,000,000. That was up from a deficit of $1,293,489,000,000 in fiscal 2010.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.