Yet Obama says if he had to do it all over again, he still wouldn't support it. In other words, defeat would have been just fine.
TERRY MORAN: The surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis' rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again. If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you — would you support the surge?
OBAMA: No, because — keep in mind that —MORAN: You wouldn't?
OBAMA: Well, no, keep — these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with…"
Meanwhile, for once, McCain isn't letting Obama get away with it:
When you win wars, troops come home," McCain said. "He's been completely wrong on the issue. ... I have been steadfast in my position."
......
And McCain continued assaulting Obama's record of not supporting the surge of additional troops to Iraq, a strategy that McCain championed and that observers say has helped drive down violence.
"I'm proud that I was right," McCain said. "....That's what judgment is all about. That's why I'm qualified to lead."
Unfortunately for McCain, amid the media Obama crush train, there isn't much attention being given to the truth. I hope McCain is putting together a campaign ad highlighting the fact that Obama was wrong and would have brought our boys home in defeat. It can wait until closer to the election, but it has to be done.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Surge Worked
Obama removes American flag from his campaign jet
Check this out
How famous are you online?
It's called a Vanity Validator. (Scroll down just a bit)
Using Google's PageRank technology, you can scan trusted sites to measure your Internet fame on a scale of 1 (unknown) to 100 (ubiquitous).
I typed in Kathleen McKinley and got a score of 52. Not bad. Rightwingsparkle got a 46.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The NYT refuses to print McCain editorial
So here it is. You gotta love the blogosphere sometimes. via MVRWC
Update: HotAir has the e-mail from the NYT sent to McCain on why they can't publish it.
McCain to announce V.P. this week?
My drinking buddy, Robert Novak says so:
Sources close to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip. The name of McCain's running mate has not been disclosed, but Mitt Romney has led the speculation recently.
Not a good idea in my opinion. But we all know McCain listens to no one and he always seems to do just fine.
via Patrick Ruffini
The Tax Man
I always wondered what would be an effective and funny way of illustrating to young people how ridiculous and overburdened we are with taxes. I saw this video at the RightOnline.com blogger summit. I think it does the trick.
Just when I think dogs cannot be more awesome....
They will be strapped to members of the SAS, fitted with oxygen masks and will be sent to countries like Afghanistan.
The Ministry of Defence has not revealed what tasks they will perform but it is thought they may be used to sniff out explosives.
They may also prove useful for searching confined spaces.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Adams said dogs were first parachuted into combat zones as early as World War II, but that these dogs will be a breed apart.
ABC's Terry Moran gets the Obama interview in Iraq
The only one Obama will be giving in Iraq.
In case you aren't aware of it, Terry is the brother of Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House.
Are illegal immigrant enforcment laws working?
I was reading this article in the WaPo regarding the enforcement campaign against employers who knowingly hire illegals. The article complains of high costs but limited results.
It seems to me that if the "results" we are looking for is less illegal immigration, then we are doing better than ever. Although employers who do hire illegals should be punished, the real goal is stopping illegals from getting jobs here in the first place. So I looked around.
In El Paso Texas illegal immigrants crossings have dropped dramatically. In 1992, the sector's agents apprehended nearly 286,000 illegal border crossers. The end-of-year total this year is expected to be about 34,000.
Let that sink in for a second. Just in El Paso alone going from 286,000 in one year to 34,000 in one year.
This article from Dec. of 2007 describes how illegals are packing up and self deporting in Arizona because of the new laws.
Last year, Oklahoma's Legislature passed the nation's toughest law on illegal immigrants, making it a felony to harbor, transport, shelter or conceal undocumented immigrants. It also gave police authority to check the immigration status of anyone arrested (can you believe that wasn't allowed before???) This summer the law also also allows U.S. citizens to sue employers if they think they were fired in favor of illegal workers.
Since this law was passed in Oklahoma, the Greater Tulsa Hispanic Chamber of Commerce says that 15,000-25,000 illegal immigrants have left Tulsa County alone.
In the past two years, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and Oklahoma have refused in-state tuition benefits to students who entered the USA illegally with their parents. South Carolina became the first state to bar undocumented students from all public colleges and universities. In May North Carolina's community colleges ordered its 58 campuses to stop enrolling undocumented students after the state attorney general said admitting them may violate federal law.
Something is working my friends. Maybe we aren't punishing the employers as we should, but the illegal workers are getting the message. You won't hear much about the success of laws like Oklahoma, but for those living in these areas, the success is obvious.
Dr. Dobson is coming around....
Most bloggers and readers I know don't really care what Dr. James Dobson thinks, but you are being politically naive to think that his opinion doesn't matter. Among evangelicals, it matters a great deal. These religious values voters (of which I am one) pay a great deal of attention to respected leaders like Dobson. So this is significant when it comes to the crucial votes we need to win this thing:
"I never thought I would hear myself saying this," Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. "... While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might."
.......
There's nothing dishonorable in a person rethinking his or her positions, especially in a constantly changing political context," Dobson said in a statement to the AP. "Barack Obama contradicts and threatens everything I believe about the institution of the family and what is best for the nation. His radical positions on life, marriage and national security force me to reevaluate the candidacy of our only other choice, John McCain."
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Rising Star
There is this politican. He is black, charasmatic, and intelligent. Now that may sound like Obama, but this guy happens to be right on all the issues, instead of wrong like Obama.
Meet Michael Williams, Chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas. He spoke at the RightOnline blogger summit this weekend. Keep an eye on this guy.
Al Gore Hypocrisy Video
Kentucky Progress reminded me of this video shown at the conference.
Hilarious. So typical of the left mind set. Lecture us, but live they way they wish.
More Pics
Saturday, July 19, 2008
I am having so much fun!
Sorry I didn't let you guys know that I left for Austin for RightOnline blogger summit. It has been a blast. I will tell you all about when I get home tomorrow. I went drinking with Bob Novak (I have pictures!!!) I got a picture with Barry Goldwater Jr. I got great pics with so many of my Cotillion sisters!
Stay tuned!
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Obama Changes Information on Website
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's aides have removed criticism of President Bush's increase of troops to Iraq from the campaign website
.........
As first reported Tuesday by the New York Daily News, Obama's campaign removed a reference to the surge as part of "The Problem" section on the part of his website devoted to laying out his plan for Iraq. The change was part of many broader changes that Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said were made to reflect current conditions.
Also new: A description of Obama's plan as "a responsible, phased withdrawal" that will be directed by military commanders and done in consultation with the Iraqis. Previously, the site had a sentence, since removed, that flatly said, "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."
Given without comment. I mean, is any needed?
Ummm......
A partner at Covington & Burling who represents 15 Guantanamo detainees took off his pants at a news conference in Yemen on Monday to illustrate the humiliating strip searches that his clients have to endure several times a day, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports.
Well, looking at that picture is torture, so are we even here?
Here is what Mr. Underwear had to say:
So at the news conference, I said that, in addition to this torment, which has become so typical that we don’t even talk about it anymore, now the torment also consists of constant body searches in which the men are required to pull their shirts up to their chest, drop their pants, and then the corn-fed U.S. military sticks their thumbs under the prisoner’s underwear band and circles the prisoner’s torsos.”
Just a couple of thoughts.
Corn-fed? What kind of insult is that suppose to be?
I'm thinking the soldiers who take their thumbs and circle the prisoner's torsos aren't so fond of that procedure either.
In other words, a day in the war on terror ain't fun for anyone involved.
Look, I think of myself as a compassionate person. I don't believe in or condone torture, but I just find it hard to take seriously people like this lawyer.
I have lawyers in my family so I hear the whole "everyone deserves representation" speech ad nauseum. But I always wonder when I read stories like this if lawyers like this one couldn't find some abused child in the U.S to represent. Maybe a victim of domestic abuse? I guess my point is isn't there enough people being victimized here the U.S. to represent that might be a bit more...I don't know....innocent?
The infamous "N" word.
It's no surprise to me that Jesse Jackson used the "N" word when talking about Obama the other day. In case you haven't heard, in addition to wanting to cut Obama's n*ts off," Jesse had this to say about Obama:
"he’s talking down to black people…telling n—s how to behave."
It seems some Internet spy of some sort let that leak out. It also seems O'Reilly and Fox News had this tape (which was taped at the same time as the "cut the n*ts off" comment) and didn't deem to release it. I'm sure CNN or the other networks would have shown the same courtesy to a rightwinger, right?? Right.
Anyway, yes it is hypocritical. Yes, it is crude. It is also common. If you are around young people at all, you hear it all the time. My 15 yr old's best friends are black and I am constantly having to tell them to knock it off. They use the "N" word as an insult and as an endearment. It's ridiculous and it drives me insane. It doesn't seem to matter how much I lecture them on what that word meant when I was growing up or how their parents fought against it being used. It just doesn't matter. They don't see it that way.
Now, Jesse Jackson is no teenager, but he uses the slang that is common.
There is this double layer of hypocrisy here. If a leader or official or teacher uses this word, it's over for him or her. Yet we not only allow the "N" word in music, the artists make platinum records off of it. It's common in movies. No one says a word.
We reap what we sow. If we saturate society with crude language, then crude language is what we are going to get.
Besides, didn't Jesse Jackson lose any credibility he had left when he cheated on his wife, fathered an illegitimate child, all the while acting as a Reverend and"counseling" Bill Clinton on his infidelity?
The War We Weren't Suppose To Win
Greyhawk at Mudville has such a good post up I want you to read the whole thing. His perspective on the war is something I have depended on greatly during my time of blogging. He was always fair, always honest in his assessment. But most importantly....he was boots on the ground. He was there.
Milblogs gave us a window into this war that was amazing in that nothing like that was possible in wars before. It wasn't some journalist giving his opinion or reporting. It was men and women fighting the fight and opening up their world to us. There were no starry eyed posts. There were no political rantings. There was just real stories of battles, of friends lost, of determination, of sadness, and of bravery. It has seemed as if I could feel the ebb and flow of the war reading the Milblogs. I knew when things were going badly and I knew when things were looking up. It was in their writings and in the honesty born of their sacrifice.
God, I love them. Our Warriors.
But, back to Greyhawk. He writes of getting ready for his second deployment to Iraq:
As we went from the hospital to the dentist to finance to all the other fine locations you must clear in order to prove that you really really want to go to Iraq we noticed every television in every waiting room tuned to the news story of the century: Anna Nicole Smith. Meanwhile, the initial briefings on the surge were delivered to empty seats.
But I was successfully poked, prodded, and stamped a-ok, and I got to go to Iraq - for my second tour. While I was there I had a different perspective than Mike Yon. I had a view of the bigger picture, knew how many missions were ongoing, knew where the fighting was, and knew how fierce it was. But a funny thing happened through the summer of '07: all the right numbers fell. Casualties - down, attacks of every sort - down, violence - down. And the right numbers rose: tips from citizens - up, trained Iraqi soldiers - up, and on and on. Amazingly, a much expected "Tet Offensive" immediately prior to General Petraeus' September briefing to Congress didn't happen. More amazingly, "violence" didn't return to high levels during Ramadan (a month that began with the General's briefing and had many folks "in the know" questioning the sanity of those who timed it) either.
Greyhawk saw long ago the narrative the media and the left would make of our victory:
The narrative on Iraq - the one you see in the media, that is - is changing. Claims that "we've lost" and that American soldiers have been beaten by opponents who are righteous heroes or nine-foot tall and bullet proof are being quite subtly shifted to arguments that no potential victory (if even grudgingly acknowledged) could be worth the price. This argument may prove irresistible to those who've invested heavily in defeat.
And we all know who those people are.
We all know that the fact that so much has been accomplished in Iraq doesn't mean the war on terror is over. Danger still exists. We will never live in a perfect world. But we can take a moment to relish that we (along with very brave Iraqi citizens and soldiers) ended a civil war, decimated al-Qaeda there and the Sadrist militia. We can marvel that the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all the legislative benchmarks set by Congress and the Bush Administration.
A page in history is about to turn, and I am so grateful that the last line on that page will read that America never gave up, never backed down, and fought the good fight to victory.
But there is no doubt in my mind that during our lifetime nothing will change between the right and the left. Both sides will retreat in their corners. The left will say Iraq was never worth it, even won. The right will resent the left for believing that.
Only history will tell us if this war was worth it. Only history will judge if the Middle East changed, if the tide turned, and if radical Islam was defeated.
Important To Remember
Speaking before the Center for the U.S. global Engagement, Sen. Joe Lieberman said this regarding Obama:
“What Sen. Obama does not seem to understand is that, had we taken the course he had counseled and retreated from Iraq, the United States would have suffered a catastrophic defeat that would have left America and our allies less safe not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi and Tokyo and London,” he said.
It is fundamental to understand how wrong Obama was on what was the most important foreign policy decision in all of our lifetimes. This speaks volumes on his ability to lead this country.
via FirstRead
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
"The War Is Over"
And we have won. At least according to one of the most respected journalist covering this war, Michael Yon:
We have won the war in Iraq. By "we" I mean the Coalition and the Iraqis. Unless there is some unexpected reversal, what lays ahead is the challenge of building a better Iraq. There is still violence. We have lost four soldiers to combat this month, but there were times when we lost that many on an average day. There still are attacks, though we have finally reached the point where all that's left are truly "dead-enders." Al Qaeda is still a problem, but their numbers are decreasing in Iraq. The Iraqi people are sick of the violence. The Iraqi Army is filled with courageous soldiers who can fight. It is possible that by the end of the year we can really say, "Mission Accomplished," except for the continued support that Iraq will need.
Personally, my optimism has never been higher for Iraq.
Michael Yon has always been honest, even when it was something we didn't want to hear, like when civil war broke out in Iraq. He gives an honest assessment of Afghanistan that we might not want to hear as well. But I trust him (unlike the mainstream media).
More here.
My heart is truly filled with hope that we have done what needed to be done in Iraq.
No defeat. No surrender. Not this war. Not this time.
Energy Independence. We Can Get There.
Texas Senator John Cornyn (a wonderful true conservative) has Mike Huckabee writing over at his site about energy independence. Huckabee has it right:
We have to explore, we have to conserve and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel and biomass. And while we are at it, let's drill here and drill now!
You can listen more to Senator John Cornyn speak about energy independence below.
There is a misconception that conservatives are all about drilling, but it simply isn't true. Cornyn and others are getting together to figure out ways to find alternative sources of energy, but we can't ignore what we need here and now. We all agree that we need to be less dependent of foreign oil.
Democrats have stood in the way of this independence for many years. The silver lining of this gas crisis may be that we can finally get the public to listen and understand how important it is to depend on ourselves for energy.
Pres. Bush has lifted the Executive Ban on offshore drilling, but Congress needs to take action for this to happen.
Newt Gingrich is also writing over at Cornyn's site and he has discovered that the American people are ready:
Through our polling at American Solutions we have long known that a whopping 81 percent of Americans support developing more American energy, including oil and coal. And this 81 percent majority is made up of 85 percent of the Republicans, 83 percent of the independents and 76 percent of the Democrats surveyed.
We need to strike while the iron is hot. There will be no better time to pressure the Democrats to not stand in the way of America become energy independent. I'm tired of the Democrats using the excuse that any new drilling now will not produce results for five years. So? If we had done this five years ago, then we would have the results now. The Democrats say we can't drill our way to energy independence. Can we try? We can continue to find our way to cleaner nuclear technologies, wind and solar plants at the same time!
Most Americans don't realize that our ban on drilling is in the same gulf that's open to Venezuelans, Indians, Vietnamese, and Cubans. That just doesn't make sense. The time is ripe to drill for ourselves.
And it isn't just about drilling. Sen. John McCain has proposed building 45 new nuclear power plants in America. Obama has simply said that he is “not a nuclear energy proponent.”
Alternative energy research and depending on ourselves for more oil is where we need to go. It's time.
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Left Attacking Obama?
"This makes the third bigoted attack from the Left on Obama. Two weeks ago, it was Ralph Nader acting as the arbiter of black authenticity, and last week it was Jesse Jackson wanting to castrate Obama. One side in this cycle certainly seems obsessed by identity politics, but so far it isn’t the Republicans."
........
"The New Yorker is attacking conservatives, but Obama’s the one taking offense (and for good reason). Obama warned that the Republicans would obsess over his ethnicity, but so far only the mainstream Left has made it an issue."
Remember who was the first to put out a picture of Obama in Muslim garb? That would be Hillary's camp.
And they aren't done yet:
"Operation Chaos may not yet have finished, according to CQ Politics. While Hillary Clinton negotiates for a place of honor at the convention, some of her followers have a more important role in mind for her. They want an open floor vote for the nomination — and think that Hillary could win it."
Sunday, July 13, 2008
"We Remained Free"
Anyone who has read my blog these last few years, know that it was stories that I read about the sacrifice and love that occurred during the holocaust that affected me so as a young adult.
It wasn't just the horror that captivated me. It was the fierceness of the human spirit. I am constantly amazed at how some people handle the harshness of life. From people like Tony Snow who faced death, yet remain one of the most optimistic people in Washington D.C., to every day people who face adversity, pain, and hardship with grace and dignity. I have seen it over and over in my life, and there is nothing that I admire more.
Which brings me to the American hostages that were recently freed from Columbia's Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known as FARC). Intelligence forces freed the hostages by tricking FARC.
The Americans were Marc Gonsalves, Thomas "Randy" Howes and Keith Stansell. I watched their interview on CNN today. I was impressed with the obvious affection they had for one another. They spoke of how each had kept the other strong. The entire story is fascinating, as you might imagine, but they described how they carved chess pieces and drew a chess board. It became a way to escape. But the next thing they said is what got to me the most. I'm paraphrasing, but this is close. "They tried to brainwash us. But we love our country. We remained free."
Even in their captivity, they knew that as Americans, they were free men.
The capacity of man to endure never fails to amaze me. I can only hope and pray that in similar circumstances I would be as strong as these captives were.
Sometimes I get discouraged by the evil in the world. I get discouraged by how low mankind can go to oppress or objectify or destroy innocent people. But then I am reminded by men like Marc, Randy, and Keith, that man can stand up to oppressors. I am reminded that man can be strong and endure under incredible odds.
I am reminded of our unending capacity to love and reach out to one another.
They said that once they have re-connected with family they will ride motorcycles across the country together to remind them of how great a country this is.
It is a dream they had during capture.
Ride free, my friends, Ride free.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Tony Snow R.I.P
Friday, July 11, 2008
Look at everyone whining about Phil Gramm
Regarding "the big story" of Phil Gramm saying we have beome a "nation of whiners." I have to agree with Jonah Goldberg's assessement over at NRO:
...this is just another example of why I've always wanted Phil Gramm to be president of the United States and why that can never, ever, happen.
Because it's a peeve of mine, my ears always seem to be catching people talking about how much we need straight talkers in this country who won't cave to their handlers, won't spin, won't poll-test their views. And yet, whenever somebody speaks honestly, down comes the thunder. I think this is a bipartisan phenomenon, by the way.
So true. Remember when Obama said that some Americans cling to their religion and guns out of bitterness? If he believes it (and he does) he should have stuck with it. Maybe John McCain doesn't agree with Gramm, but if he does, he should say so. Isn't that what straight talk is all about?
We are a nation of whiners. Good grief. We complain about everything and that is a bi-partisan problem.
It reminds me of when I was watching one of the Houston morning shows the other day and they had a veteran from WWII on. The left loves to whine about the length of deployment of our troops (although I never hear a soldier whine about it) and the host asked the veteran about it. He said that when he was in the war you weren't told when you were coming home. You went for however long they needed you or however long the war lasted. He said his first deployment was 3 years.
When we look at all the riches of our country. When we look at our freedoms. When we compare our lives now to our parent's lives at the same age and especially our grandparents lives at the same age, we live enormously well. Even those with low income. When my mother was a little girl, not only did they not have electricity, but no indoor bathroom. They kept "slop jars" underneath the beds for when nature called at night. (Forgot to add this to the post when I put it up at TexasSparkle) My Dad didn't have shoes in the summer growing up. He went barefoot all summer. They could only afford one pair a year and that had to wait for school to start.
We take all our good fortune for granted. We whine. We do. Phil Gramm was right and I hope he doesn't apologize for it.
"Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan:Mission Impossible?"
When you see that headline on ABC News, it catches your attenion. Wow.
Click on the story and you get this:
Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult
U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare
The story basically interviewed several commanders in Iraq that looked at Obama's plan and said that there was no way it work logistically.
Maybe the Obama Crush with the MSM is over and the cold reality of what it would be like to have a novice as commander in chief is sinking in.
Skanks and Golddiggers feeling the economic pinch
Who knew?
It's not just the Porsches and the expensive lunches that are being credit-crunched down in the City – mistresses of high fliers are also feeling the pinch.
Nearly half of analysts, stockbrokers and hedge fund managers say 'the other woman' is first to get the chop as they cut their spending habits.
h/t BigDog
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Jesse Jackson made a boo boo. A big boo boo.
Remember when J.C. Watts said at the last RNC that "character is what you do when no one is looking." Well, Jesse Jackson let us see a bit of his character when he thought no one was listening.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for saying Obama is “talking down to black people” during what he thought was a private conversation with a FOX News reporter Sunday.
Jackson also made an off-hand comment about cutting off a part of Obama’s anatomy.
Watching the CNN apology that Jackson immediately gave, I searched and searched for what he actually said because Wolf Blitzer said it was too crude to repeat on TV. I thought..."What?????" I mean, what's too crude anymore?? Then I read the above that he obviously said Obama needed his ***** cut off.
Good grief. I almost feel sorry for Jackson. I mean, he did have a point about Obama talking down to black people (although Obama talks down to everyone, not just black people), but to insert such crude language is just weird.
Update: I don't know why I didn't think to look to Drudge. Of course he would have it. Jesse said (referring to Obama) that he "wants to cut his n**s out.
UpdateII: Jesse Jackson's son seems to love Obama... a great deal. Enough to slap his own Dad around:
"Revered Jackson is my dad and I'll always love him. He should know how hard that I've worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself."
Yeah, Dad!
Just another day in Democratic politics.
Guns and Roses
The roses are Obama's attempt to seem moderate on gun rights.
Obama has said that he believes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but that reasonable restrictions can be enacted.
ABC News:
On the Supreme Court ruling on the DC gun ban, Obama explained, “I actually have said I agree with that for years, even before the ruling came down. That doesn’t mean that I also recognized that we need to make sure that we’ve decent controls over the use of firearms in our community. Those two potions are not contradictory.”
But here is what he said in his book, The Audacity of Hope: “I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby.”
That is a difference of night and day from saying "Keeping guns out of the inner city" and "decent controls." Obama loves to use words to his advantage. He claims he is saying the same thing. But he really isn't.
Keeping guns out of the inner city means keeping law abiding citizens from protecting themselves because they live in a certain place. That isn't "decent controls." That is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
It is beyond ridiculous to believe that any gun laws and any gun restrictions will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Saying that you believe that a certain area where people live should ban guns is only speaking to law abiding citizens. We all know that.
If only criminals would obey!
I have never been a big gun rights person. But I'm starting to feel I may soon be.
via NRO
I wanted to add this I found at UrbanGrounds. I mentioned before that I wanted to get my concealed handgun license while the getting was good.
Looks like I'm not alone in Texas:
AUSTIN — More than 52,000 people in Texas have submitted an application for a first-time concealed handgun license or renewal since the beginning of the year, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.
That is an almost 5 percent increase over the first six months of 2007, but there’s a good chance they’ll have a bit of a wait.
The crunch which some say is spurred by concerns about rising crime, the state’s new “castle law” and uncertainty about future gun laws has created a ballooning backlog of applications for the department.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama would nominate Judges that would restrict our gun rights. The D.C. gun ban was so startling in that 4 Supreme Court Judges thought it perfectly fine to ignore the 2nd Amendment.
Crossing the line
In 1991 ACT UP, a radical gay activist group, fitted Jesse Helms home in Arlington Virginia with a condom because of Helms unrelenting opposition to the radical gay agenda. Video here.
ACT UP was a newly formed group at the time and had no cash, it was never revealed then, but Towleroad is now admitting that Hollywood Mogul David Geffen gave Act Up $3000 cash to fund the act of protest on a Senator's home.
I believe in the right to protest, but targeting people's private homes goes beyond the pale. And I say that about any protesting that I agree with as well (like anti-abortion protesting). Private homes are off limits to me. Period. There must be common decency.
Jesse Helms died on July 4th and he put up with more than most of us ever would have. He wasn't perfect, but he never deserved that.
Rest in peace.
David Geffen is, of course, supporting Barack Obama for President having raised over 1.3 million for him already.
It ain't a river in Egypt...
Obama denies quite a bit.
He reminds me of a 2 yr old who insists he didn't eat your cake, but has icing all over his mouth. When you point that out he gets mad you for not believing him. Indignant even.
via Ace
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
I'll tell you where you can put your happy meal....
It's a dark place. No sunshine. That kind of thing.
吮它
via Fark
I am not alone...
I'm not the only one who thinks Hillary isn't out of this game yet.
Hint: It's not a rightwinger.
550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium
Enough to make 142 nuclear weapons. Saddam had this yellowcake when we invaded. What could he possibly have wanted to keep it for?
h/t BigDog
Hello McCain...
I think this ad speaks for itself. There is nothing for me to add. Except it's AWESOME!
Monday, July 07, 2008
A Victory In Iraq That Was Meant To Be
As I ponder what looks like actual victory in Iraq, I am amazed at how we got here. I found this article over at the Media Research Center showing how a year ago every media outlet saw the surge as nothing but folly. Over and over they bleated about it.
Here is Senator Chris Dodd on the Senate floor in January of 2007: (emphasis mine)
That is why we must say no to the decision by the President of the United States to send thousands more of our brave men and women in uniform to the streets of Baghdad to risk their lives for a plan which just “doesn’t make any sense.”
I, as one Senator, intend to speak out loudly against this ill-conceived policy. But more than just speak out, I intend at every available opportunity to get the Senate of the United States on record against the President’s specific decision to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, and against the continuation of our failed military strategy in Iraq.
This administration’s Iraq policy has been a total failure, and this “escalation” or “surge” of 21,500 more Americans will not work. We all know it. Generals Powell, Abizaid and Casey know it. The British and the rest of our allies know it. Nearly every expert who has come before the Foreign Relations Committee in the past two weeks of hearings knows it. Most importantly, two-thirds of the American public flat-out oppose it, according to a recent Newsweek poll.
Well, guess what Senator? It did work.
If we had done has the Senator wished, Iraq would now be overrun by Al Qaeda and Iran. Dodd was willing to accept defeat. President Bush was not.
I have to add this:
MSNBC's “Response To The President's Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07
Barack Obama: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
How wrong could he be?
How did this happen? Dodd said that just about everyone opposed it and that the American people opposed it. A year ago the Democrats were screeching for an end to the war and Bush got 21,000 additional troops?
It really seems almost miraculous.
Looking back I found one article that tries to explain it from a political perspective. If you read the article carefully you find that it came down to Majority Leader Harry Reid trying to avoid embarrassment and hoping to blame it all on Republicans. Such is the bizarre world of politics.
So despite the Democrats, the surge happened. It must be noted that John McCain had argued since before 2006 for sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to defeat the insurgency and stabilize Iraq. While Obama was against the surge. In other words, McCain was for our victory and Obama was for what would have surely been our defeat.
It is something we would do well to remember when we vote in November. We need leadership, not pandering. Obama knew what was popular to say at the time and said it. McCain wasn't thinking of popularity, he was thinking of America winning.
So now we have an Iraq with violence down 60 percent nationwide. Al Qaeda has been expelled from Baghdad and Anbar Province and is currently on the run. 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been achieved. Military and political victories are sweet.
We are almost there. Leaving a stable Iraq, defeating Al Qaeda, and achieving victory in this war.
It's sad to think that America's victory is a defeat for Democrats.
Update: It looks like we all may get what we want..... our boys home. But with the surge, they come home as victors.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington. It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi'ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq.
But make no mistake. Terrorists will still try their hand where they can. As they did today in Kabul on the Indian embassy.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
"One of the Most Spectacular Victories of the War on Terror"
There are all kinds of juicy news we may have missed over the 4th. for the first and best news you have to run across the pond to read, but no matter, it's gold:
American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.
Vets For Freedom has their first ad up to counter the lies of the far left group MoveOn.org. It's brief and excellent. It will be playing in battleground states. They don't promote any candidate, they just want the truth about the war out there:
"As an organization, we have four months here," said the group's chairman, Pete Hegseth, an Iraq veteran. "A window of opportunity of heightened awareness. We think it's crucial that the success our troops have made on the battlefield is relayed to the American public."
Why is this necessary? Maybe because as the surge succeeded, coverage of Iraq declined 92% in one year.
Our troops have taken a beating from the media and the far left in this country for many years. But they stood steady and did their job.
There is a reason we have not been attacked again. Our warriors are the reason. God bless them.
Update: I've got to add this. Greyhawk, over at Mudville wrote the following song while in Iraq when the surge began. Check out the video here.
The Free and The Brave
Greyhawk
Over in America, home of the free
Land of unlimited opportunity
People in the streets protest whatever they can
While over in Iraq and Afghanistan
The brave, far from home, are standing talland toeing the line, so they can have it all
Some try to complicate it but it's simple to me
They're making noise, we're making history
Osama'd like to think that we can't get it done
And some would like to tell you it's time to cut and run
Me I like to finish something once I've begun
And I don't think I'm the only one
Here making history, hearing the noise
of things that divide and things that destroy
Things you'd never ever want to see on your street
Things you might call the price of defeat
So excuse me if I come home a little annoyed
If while I was making history, you were making noise
We're making history
They're making noise
We're facing the fire
They're playing with toys
Nobody ever said
That it would be easy
They're making noise
We're making history
- Iraq, May, 2007
Perfect.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Fred Thompson puts "change" in perspective
Speaking at the National Right to Life Conference:
Instead of a constant search for the new, exciting and different, let’s re-assert the “First Principles” that made this country great.
Has freedom, liberty and the strength which guarantees them become outdated? And just what part of our Constitutional framework requires sprucing up or should be abandoned altogether?
Those changes that are momentarily popular in elite circles, which would expand our government, weaken our ability to defend ourselves, redefine marriage and life itself, sap our sense of personal responsibility and treat our people as if they were merely a collection of appetites to be fed in an election year … they must be rejected.
These are not changes we can believe in. These are changes we should run away from. Because the ideas behind these endeavors, which have long inspired left-wing politicians around the world, have led to consistently disastrous results.
This is possibly the best summary of the Obama "change" bunk I have ever read. via HotAir
The Obama Shift
The WSJ chronicles Obama's rush to the center. It is typical for a primary candidate to shift a bit to become more moderate for the general, but Obama's turn arounds are so extreme that he has ticked off the left to the point where the nutroots king Kos, has said he is refraining from giving money to Obama for now.
One of the big leftwing heresies that Obama committed is now supporting FISA legislation. Last October, Obama responding to FISA and the surveillance of foreign terrorists , vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies" that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. All that is different now. Obama says now that he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote.
The left has gone on ad nauseam about Bush "spying," and the warrantless surveillance program that gave telecommunications corporations legal immunity practically sent them into spasms. They thought they had a candidate that would stand boldly against this, but that turned out to not be the case.
Obama now has this to say about the FISA bill:
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program."
The 2nd and perhaps greatest heresy is Obama's change regarding troop withdrawal from Iraq:
Back in Sept of 2007 Obama said this:
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now."
Obama called for the pullout of military forces by the end of 2008.
On April 16th at a Presidential debate ABC's Charles Gibson asked this of Obama:
"And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, 'When he is' -- this is talking about you - 'When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that.' So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?"
Obama: "Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, 'Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus.' Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission."
Sounds pretty firm, right? He is practically sneering at the thought of taking cues from the Generals. But what a difference a few months can make.
Here is Obama on June 8th on CNN's Situation Room with Candy Crowley:
Crowley: "You have said you want to go back to Iraq."
Obama: "Yeah."
Crowley: "See what the situation is on the ground. Is there nothing that they could show you or that General Petraeus could tell you that would move you from wanting to immediately begin removing U.S. troops?
" Obama: "Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or no way in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq."
This is what is called CYA.
Recently Powerline wrote about Iraqi foreign minister Hoshay Zebari speaking with Obama about troop withdrawals. According to Zebari, Obama vowed to not do anything reckless, and added that “whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”
Isn't that a bit like "taking cues?" Just asking.
As the WSJ points out:
Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright "was not the person that I met 20 years ago."
While the left gnashes their teeth over this, there actually may be a very reasonable explanation for Obama's shift in policy when it comes to this war and security.
And that explanation is President George Bush.
I was listening to talk radio a few weeks ago and a reporter (I missed who it was) was talking about how he had recently interviewed Pres. Bush and that Bush had told him that he spoken to Obama about the troop withdrawal and other security concerns. He basically told him that he might want to scale back on promises that cannot be kept. Bush was telling him that if Obama becomes President he would be privy to security information that would not allow these grandiose plans for our troops and the importance of intelligence through surveillance.
It looks like Obama was listening. Sometimes a flip/flop is just good judgement.
The left may be very angry about these shifts of policy in Obama, but it at least gives me some hope that should Obama become President, he may very well put out nation's security above political posturing. Maybe he will care more about our country and it's security than he does his own popularity. You know, like the President we have now.
We can always hope.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
The Black Panthers, then and now
I saw this video over at Blogs of War. This is the neighborhood of Joe Horn where he shot two criminals robbing his neighbor's house (see links in posts below). If you live in Houston then you are familiar with Quanell X (you know,like Malcolm X..get it? *snort*). He is the head of The New Black Panther Party and he brought his posse with him to protest in the neighborhood. Well, the neighbors of Joe Horn in this nice suburban area outside Houston weren't too happy about Quanell X coming in to get his face on camera.
When I was growing up in Mississippi the Black Panthers were one scary group. They walked around with rifles and military type attire (ironic when you think about this incident here, huh?)I just find it amusing that these white suburbanites chase off the Black Panthers. I imagine a woman looking out her kitchen window and saying, "Honey, that Black Panther group is here, go put on some dockers and chase them out of here!"
There has to be a SNL skit in there somewhere.
Learning something new everyday
Did you know that there is a "Negro National Anthem?" Well there is, and recently in Denver a woman who was supposed to sing the National Anthem at the Mayor's "State of The City Speech" decided to sing the other one instead:
Mayor John Hickenlooper’s annual State of the City address may get more attention for what wasn’t included than what was.
At the start of the event Tuesday morning, City Council President Michael Hancock introduced singer Rene Marie to perform the national anthem.
Instead, she performed the song “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing,” which is also known as the “black national anthem.”
When she finished, the audience responded with mild applause. The national anthem was never performed.
She didn't tell anyone she was going to do that, so one can't blame the city officials, but where is our backbone in this country? If I was at an event and they said over the speakers"and now the National Anthem," and some woman sang something else, then I would start singing the National Anthem right there and then by myself until others joined me. But no, we just let these narcissistic self involved people do what they wish and we stand there and "politely" clap.
Ugh. You just know the Democratic convention will be awash with displays like this, except they will be sanctioned.
Update: Not related to that fiasco exactly, but if you are ticked at reading that, then you will love reading this. I got from a Mom blogger (Mama Drama) at the Chron:
***This is the text of a letter written a US Navy chaplain that was passed to my friend Bill by MA1 Michael S. Hainline, Patrolman US Navy Law and Order Det. For photos, look here.***
I recently attended a showing of feature film here at LSA Anaconda. We have a large auditorium we use for movies, as well as memorial services and other large gatherings. As is the custom back in the States, we stood and snapped to attention when the National Anthem began before the main feature. All was going as planned until about three-quarters of the way through The National Anthem the music stopped.
Now, what would happen if this occurred with 1,000 18-22 year-olds back in the States? I imagine there would be hoots, catcalls, laughter, a few rude comments; and everyone would sit down and call for a movie.Of course, that is, if they had stood for the National Anthem in the first place. Here, the 1,000 Soldiers continued to stand at attention, eyes fixed forward. The music started again. The Soldiers continued to quietly stand at attention. And again, at the same point, the music stopped. What would you expect to happen?
Even here I would imagine laughter, as everyone finally sat down and expected the movie to start. But here, you could have heard a pin drop. Every Soldier continued to stand at attention. Suddenly there was a lone voice, then a dozen, and quickly the room was filled with the voices of a thousand soldiers, finishing where the recording left off:
'And the rockets red glare, The bombs bursting in air, Gave proofthrough the night That our flag was still there. Oh, say does thatstar-spangled banner yet wave, O'er the land of the free, And the homeof the brave.'
It was the most inspiring moment I have had here in Iraq. I wanted you to know what kind of Soldiers are serving you here. Remember them as they fight for you! Pass this along as a reminder to others to be ever in prayer for all our soldiers serving us here at home and abroad. For many have already paid the ultimate price.
Written by Chaplain Jim HigginsLSA Anaconda is at the Ballad Airport in Iraq, north of Baghdad
"30 Days"
I watched FX's "30 Days" hosted by Morgan Spurlock last night. It was about a woman who is a gun control activist who moves in with a family of sharp shooters and gun rights enthusiasts.
It was very well done and by the end she admitted that she understood why people hold the 2nd Amendment close to their heart.
At one point the gun control activist takes the gun rights guy to meet women who have lost loved ones through gun violence. He feels for them, but he doesn't change his mind about the fact that law abiding citizens didn't harm their loved ones, bad guys did. And he makes the simple point that bad guys will always be able to get guns no matter what the law.
The thing that finally changed her mind a bit was listening to a man who had killed a stalker who invaded his home with a gun while his wife and four kids were in the kitchen. He shot the man (who incidentally didn't die, because he was wearing a gun vest). The stalker had already murdered four people that evening, including a baby. The woman said it was the first time she had heard about someone protecting their home with a firearm. We don't hear about those incidents, but they happen all the time. Usually without violence, because once the criminal realizes a gun is on him, he decides that maybe robbing this person isn't such a good idea.
During this Jerry Horn incident here in Houston, they interviewed a guy here in Houston on TV that killed a man attempting to get into his home through a window. His wife and baby were in the next room. Who can say that isn't right?? That criminal could and probably would have killed his family. How can anyone deny a law abiding citizen the right to defend himself and his family?
By the end of 30 days the gun control activist understood our side, and she thought she made progress by the gun rights's activist saying that if Congress can come up with a way to make it harder for criminals to get a hold of guns without infringing on his right to gun ownership, then fine. I don't think that was much of a change for him.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Bartender Song
My son turned me on to this song. I have no idea why I like it. The radio version doesn't have the cuss words. It's got a Jimmy Buffet vibe going on. I think when you hear it once, you gotta hear it again.
It's a perfect bar song.
This is OUTRAGEOUS!
That's right. How DARE the Scottish police use this image to promote a new phone number. What were they thinking?????! I don't know how you feel about it, but I'm just SICK.
I'm back!
All was magical.
I haven't even looked at a TV for four days. It's true. Ignorance is bliss.
But who needs bliss when one can blog?
I haven't linked La Shawn Barber is a while. She stopped blogging on politics and started blogging mostly on her faith. She is a wonderful spiritual filled person and doesn't back away from the controversial subjects. This post, Fatherlessness as Child Abuse? is brutal, but honest and true.
Related, kinda.
Oh, a quick note on "The Hall of Presidents" at Disney World. At the end they have those robotron like things that look like all our Presidents across the stage and each President was represented and introduced. I noticed that that other than Kennedy, none of the Democrats got much applause. Reagan got the most. Bill Clinton got NONE. Not even a single hand clap from a bored 2 yr old. George Bush got the most, but that was probably because he was last, but maybe not. Just an observation.
CNS News reports:
Obama spoke in Albuquerque, N.M. last week about his commitment to the issue and his support of a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination. "Mr. McCain is an honorable man, we respect his service. But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer," Obama told the audience in New Mexico, a voter-swing state. "It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family's income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You'd think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay."
Which makes this funny and not surprising:
Democratic Sen. Barack Obama pays women staffers 87¢ for every $1 he pays his men.
Compare and contrast:
That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.
Obama is becoming the consummate politician. Say one thing, but do another. via Dr. Melissa Clouthier
I still can't believe that Gen. Wesley Clark dismissed McCain's service and sacrifice as any sort of qualification to become President. Obama, of course, refuted it and he continues to let others say the dirty mean stuff, while he stays above the fray being the saint that he is.
That's all for now. I must unpack and restore order.
I have a funny pic from Disney I will post later.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Things Iranian
I have no solution for the the issues we have with Iran. Clearly, they are provoking us, their acts have given us enough case for war. Their own population hates their tyrannical government which commits appalling crimes.
However, their propaganda is a hoot.
"Iran is to dig 320,000 graves in border districts to allow for the burial of enemy soldiers in the event of any attack on its territory, a top commander said on Sunday."
Obviosuly, they are referring to American casualties. They even mention Vietnam. (sigh) We are STILL paying for the cowardice and dishonor of Democrats in abandoning the South Vietnamese.
Also, Ahmadinejad's wife is a real looker.
**URL and joke shamelessly lifted from Fark
Energy Fetish
Who is it that is blocking alternative energy? Evil Oil companies? Evil Republicans? Nope.
Environmentalists
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it." - H.L. Mencken
Sunday, June 29, 2008
On the Con Side
Opinions and pontification from the SCOTUS ruling on the Second Amendment is still precipitating. I thought a sample of these opposing opinions wouldn't' be amiss.
This opinion has the advantage of at least being honest about true intentions.
Repeal the Second Amendment
"The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor."
Agreed. They were being too poetical. Save us from lawyers and Orwellian perversion of speech by redefining words.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn't, and it isn't. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years."
The Second Amendment IS an unambiguous declaration of the individual right to bear arms, and it HASN'T been an open debate until about 30 years ago. The Founders knew what it meant, and everyone else did for 200 years. It wasn't debated, and it wasn't ruled upon all that much because it wasn't controversial.
ALL rights are individual rights, there is no such thing in the American system of collective or group rights, no matter how much Leftists wish to believe it is so, or how often they lie about it.
Imagine if the First Amendment were a group right. A person wouldn't have the right to free speech, but newspapers would. You as an individual wouldn't be able to speak your mind unless you worked for a newspaper or TV station or some other group that was allowed to have free speech. That doesn't make sense, and anyone can see how perverse that would be. Newspapers have First Amendment rights to free speech because its made up of individuals who do have Free Speech rights, not the other way around.
Rights belong to each individual sovereign citizen. Yet, some people advocate the notion that 9 of the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights are individual rights but for some reason 1 of them is a 'group' right. How strange, you'd think the Founders would have mentioned that. They didn't, in fact its clear - not arguable, not controversial, not vague or ill-defined - its CLEAR in word, fact, intent, and deed what the Founders meant. Personally, I think that most of the people who push this line know very well that its BS, they are just lying.
You might ask, what is that militia stuff about? Its pretty simple. During the Revolutionary War, Washington and the Continental Army were driven to distraction by the variable and unreliable quality of the American militias. Washington wanted universal military training. "Well regulated" does NOT mean in the modern sense regulated or controlled like for example CAFE standards for cars. "Regulated" as intended by the Founders was in the sense or a regular army - meeting a minimum standard for training, equipment and weapons.
What the Founders wanted was a very well armed citizenry equipped and trained to match a military standard and forming their own militias for mutual defence of their rights and nation.
Before I get comments from silly people, personal arms means rifles pistols and shotguns, not cannons or nukes, so spare me that argumentum ad absurdum.
Speaking of absurd:
Make firearms manufacturers figure out how to reduce the 12,000 shooting deaths each year.
"This year, about 12,000 Americans will be shot to death. It's a staggering figure, and even though lawmakers have continued to pass gun-control laws to try to bring the number down, they have not significantly reduced the murder rate. Indeed, for the last decade, guns have steadily remained the cause of about two-thirds of all homicides."
First: "staggaring figure", not really. Its actually a very small figure in comparison to population. Less staggering yet once the factors such as drugs and criminal background are considered. A man murdering his wife is a horrible crime, drug dealers shooting eachother is less surprising.
Gun manufacturers insist that these deaths are not their fault, preferring to pin the blame on criminals and irresponsible dealers. They have fiercely resisted even minimal restrictions on sales and have simultaneously washed their hands of responsibility for this "collateral damage."
I don't know anyone in the firearms industry who thinks of it as 'collateral damage' I think the author is making that up. Criminals ARE responsible for murders. Duh.
On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court made the problem a little more difficult to solve, ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller that the individual's right to bear arms is indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment -- and making it clear that some laws banning guns would have a difficult time passing constitutional muster in the future.
"Harder to solve" In what way? WAshington DC's laws were both unconstiutional and they DIDN'T WORK. Whereas states like, for example, South Dakota have very few restrictions on firearms and a very heavily armed citizenry - and few crimes. Harder to solve? Maybe DC and Chicago should adopt our laws to solve their crime peroblem.
What is to be done? The conventional regulatory approaches seem to be failing. A more recent strategy, in which victims or municipalities bring lawsuits against gun manufacturers or retailers, seems legally and politically unpromising since the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.
What is to be done? Glad you asked. 1) Stop trying to regulate objects. Its silly. It doesn't work. Its insulting to free people. 2) reduce the number of laws and regulations 3) concentrate law enforcement efforts on finding and arresting criminals 4) stop wasting police efforts on regulating non-criminal behavior like seat belt laws and smoking bans. 5) punish criminals 6) don't punish law abiding citizens who defend themselves.
We propose a new way to prod gun makers to reduce gun deaths, one that would be unlikely to put them out of business or to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. By using a strategy known as "performance-based regulation," we would deputize private actors -- the gun makers -- to deal with the negative effects of their products in ways that promote the public good.
One wonders what they have in mind. Heckler and Koch squads cleaning out drug houses? Smith and Wesson hired Pinkertons sweeping bad neighborhoods for people with outstanding warrants? Somehow I think this idea is less pragmatic and has more to do with trying to suborn gun manufacturers into some kind of state program. Cap adn Trade. That's a good one.
Doesn't surprise me that these authors are professors.
"Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility." - George Orwell
