Sick

The DOD won't give out Purple Hearts to the wounded in the Fort Hood terrorist attack:

Dhimmi Defense Department says giving Purple Heart to Fort Hood Jihad victims would hurt Hasan trial

The Department of Defense is refusing to give Purple Hearts to the victims of the Fort Hood jihad and is blocking support of such a move by any means necessary, because it might hurt the long overdue prosecution of the vile Nidal Hasan. Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

This is Obama's Pentagon -- killer over victim. Jihadi murderer over infidel victim. Obama's DoD is refusing the proper recognition of the victims of the Fort Hood jihad because such a provision will be viewed as setting the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist. That religious savage is a terrorist. Hasan was wearing the garb of the shaheed the morning of his jihad. Hasan was giving out qurans the morning of his jihad. His business card said "soldier of allah." He was ululating allhua akbar as he slaughtered our soldiers in cold blood.

Awlaki is dead but Hasan is still on the army payroll. Please, people, write your congressmen today.

Email conversation

A snippet of a conversation I've been having on a small list.

The gentleman thinks universal background checks are a good idea.

+++++++++++++++

If “By definition criminals don't obey the law and wouldn't submit to this check. It will only put a burden on the law abiding citizen.” then why have any laws?  We can’t stop all drunk drivers, all burglars, all murderers, all thieves and all those who flout the law.  All we do is inconvenience good people with silly rules the bad guys ignore, so what’s the point?  The point is, we do have laws which we try to enforce, albeit with limited resources (tax cuts don’t pay for police, prosecutors and our court system) and do the best we can to provide for the safety of our citizens.  That is a worthy goal.  If you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to fear and aren’t we all safer for the effort?

 

+++++++++++++++

This is a common straw man argument. Criminals don't obey the law, so why have any?

The law allows us to punish those who violate it. "Enforcement" is a idea that appeals to the controller, the tyrant. Enforcement requires the police to take an active role in searching out "violators" rather than patrolling and being available to assist when they witness an actual violation.

Laws that prohibit certain items or force certain actions do nothing to ensure the safety of the public at large - they only allow the lawmakers to feel like they are "doing something".

Take laws against driving while intoxicated. No one would argue that allowing people to drink themselves stupid and then go out on the highway is a good idea. So, let's pass a law that you can't drive drunk.

Fair enough. Now, someone who gets tipsy on two beers gets pulled over for weaving. Only problem is - he's got a good lawyer, and convinces the jury that two beers is not "drunk", and the perp goes free.

So - let's pass a law defining "drunk" by blood alcohol content - and pick a number out of thin air.

Now, when someone is pulled over, they have to "blow", and if the detector registers under the magic number, they are let go with a warning. If the number is equal or greater than the magic number, they go to jail. No wiggle room for the guy who is inebriated with BAC under the limit - he goes out and kills someone, and then we have to pass another law lowering the limit.

Or, seeing as many people can function just fine with BAC at almost double the "limit" and never give the cops any hint they are DWI, we now have to have "sobriety checkpoints" where everyone on that road is stopped and has to prove their innocence before being allowed to continue on. Ever hear of freedom? It just got narrower.

Since roadblocks don't catch all the bad guys, now let's put a tester into every car, so you have to prove to your vehicle that you aren't drunk. Of course all the people who are responsible will have to buy one and the price of cars goes up - but we are safer. There have been suggestions that this actually my happen.

When you get to the bottom of it, it is a question of personal responsibility. Freedom has the price that we have to risk something in order to retain that freedom. The risk is that there are people out there who don't care, or actively are evil. They will always be there no matter how many laws we pass, but our freedoms will keep shrinking right up until we reach the Nirvana of the nanny state - where everything that is not required is forbidden.

And people will still commit violent and stupid acts.



By the way - "If you’re not breaking the law, you have nothing to fear" sounds very Orwellian. Do we really want to live in that world? I do not.

 Chuck Kuecker

+++++++++++++++

Rand Paul LEFT of Jugears?

Fox News apparently thinks so:



I don't watch Fox news anyway - who's the talking head?

I'm paying more attention to Mr. Paul lately.

Thoughts

Front page story in the Beloit Daily news today about a gay couple who married in Iowa hoping the Supreme Court somehow finds Constitutional reasons to force Wisconsin to recognize their union.

Now, I couldn't care less if two people - or twenty people - want to get "married". It's nobody's business but theirs, and unless there's force involved, the government should have nothing to say about the matter.

Marriage was a contract between consenting adults, perhaps with the approval of a church - up until the states started sticking their noses in. As in the case of "gun control", they could care less about marriage, and a whole lot more about licensing. From Wikipedia:

The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage, as is proper and correct. Any decision the Supreme Court makes either validating or invalidating any such private contract is an overstep. They should have refused to hear the case.

It got me thinking about registration and "licenses". The Nazi government would have had a much easier time rounding up and exterminating homosexuals if "gay marriage" had been recognized in Germany in the 1920's.

I have to wonder if any modern gays agitating for state sanctioned "marriage" have considered that putting their names on a "list" might not be the smartest thing they could do...

The truth behind the "straw buy"

Mark Kelly, Gabby Gifford's husband, was recently widely accused (by myself, too!) of buying guns he intended to give away - a "straw" purchase. Turns out his purpose was something else:



See? Universal background checks are nothing to fear! They are SO easy to pass!

Just give up another little piece of your freedom. It's common sense!

And, it's totally unenforceable unless we couple it with universal registration, and a complete reworking of human nature. So, of course, next thing we will hear after it passes through Jugears' hands at the bill signing, will be a law requiring us to tell Big Brother everything about all our guns, or risk prison. I figure that will happen next year, after UBC fails to prevent another "gun violence" tragedy.

From there it's a clear path to those box cars - or a bloody revolution.

I would love to see where he gets "93% of American gun owners support UBC".

He's lying again

His lips are moving.

Barack Obama: We're Not Taking Away Anyone's Gun Rights

President Obama just wrapped up remarks at the White House pushing for more "common sense" gun control measures as public support for new legislation wanes.

"What we're proposing is not radical, it's not taking away anyone's gun rights," Obama said.
Flanked by a dozen mothers, Obama called on members of Congress to get on board with support for universal background checks, otherwise known as the criminalization of private firearms transfers. The President claimed proposals on the table will keep guns out the hands of criminals, but a deeper look at background check legislation (which will be voted on next month in the Senate) tells a different story. 

 Iowa Senator Charles Grassley cast a committee vote in opposition to the Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act today on Capitol Hill. The bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee along party lines and criminalizes all private firearms transfers, otherwise known as universal background checks. Grassley indicated in a statement today that the legislation was rushed and lacked bipartisanship.

"The first point I want to make goes to process.  When this bill was first listed on the Committee agenda to be marked up, it was just a list of findings.  It was not ready to be marked up. The language has changed.  It is still not ready to be marked up.  But we are marking it up anyway. We were told there was such widespread support for universal background checks that a bipartisan bill would be on its inevitable way to passage.  Instead, three of the four senators involved in those discussions do not endorse this bill. The bill is somewhat similar to a bill Senator Schumer introduced in the previous Congress.  So let’s start with the big picture problems," Grassley said. "And this bill would eliminate private sales. Talk about unintended consequences."

As has been pointed out by many pro-gun advocates already, Grassley reiterated that universal background checks cannot be enforced without universal gun registration and eventually gun confiscation.

+++++++++++++++

Yep. Just like he promised - first regulation, then registration, and we are ripe for the final step before the boxcars get filled - confiscation.

Write those letters and make those calls. 

A moving story

Go see what Old NFO has found.

Check out the rest of his entries today - lots of interesting history sitting out in the Pacific that we will likely never see otherwise.

Microsoft bullshit

Microsoft Windows is a big scam.

I bought my main computer, a Gateway FX gamer machine, a couple years ago, with 64-bit Windows 7 installed. I then paid these leeches to upgrade to Windows 7 Professional for my business.

Up until a couple weeks ago, I was running Oracle VirtualBox with Windows XP, so I could run my copy of AutoCAD 2000, which won't even install on 64-bit Windows 7 in XP compatibility mode.

VirtualBox refused to boot XP one day, and for some reason, I can't purge it from my computer so as to do a clean reinstall. So, I looked around, and lo and behold, Microsoft Windows virtual machine is out there.

So - I attempted to download it from Microsoft's website. It wanted to "validate" my Windows installation. I clicked OK, thinking, of course my machine is legitimate, since I bought it though Best Buy, and it is from a well-known manufacturer.

Silly me. The validation failed. There's a button to click to resolve the situation.

Click. Now, I'm presented with a "buy Windows" page. Windows 7 Professional is "only $149.95".

Well, I can either pay their baksheesh, or not do the job I contracted to do for my customers. I got out the credit card.

The receipt page shows one of those 25-character 'keys' they give you that you have to enter to validate your copy of Windows. It even told me how to find the box to enter it in. Only problem there is that they give you a "print" button so you can have a record of your purchase - that prints everything BUT the 'key'. Lucky for me I wrote it down.

Entered the 'key'. Rebooted the computer. Tried to download Windows virtual machine again.




Update - that message comes up every morning now. That's my thanks for giving Bill Gates anotehr $150 I can't afford.

My computer is not running a valid copy of Windows, it tells me. I look for troubleshooting hints. The best bet is to take the CD that comes with the original installation and reinstall Windows.

That's just great. Microsoft decided, without giving me any voice in the matter, that they would utilize the U S Snail for delivery of that disk, sometime in the next few weeks. Until it arrives, I can't use AutoCAD on this machine.

To add insult to injury, when I came home today, there was a nice notice in the middle of the screen telling me that I need to validate my copy if I want to use it without problems. It's really funny that the message only comes up AFTER you try to "do the right thing" by them. I've had this box running for a couple years without ever seeing such a message.

If Ubuntu could run my business CAD software other than in a virtual machine, I would reformat this hard drive and never give Microsoft another penny. Of course I could never buy another new assembled PC since almost all of them come with a Windows product pre-installed - so if I wipe it and install Ubuntu or other OS, I still pay for Bill Gates' great-grand-kids' vacations on the Moon.

Emails to senators

To Ron Johnson:

As one of your constituents, I want you to stand firm and oppose ANY new legislation concerning "gun violence" or further infringing on our God-given, Second Amendment ensured right to keep and bear arms.

"Universal background checks" will do nothing except lead to "universal registration", which inevitably leads to universal confiscation and genocide. History is clear on this.

No new gun laws. Perhaps we could try enforcing a few of the existing ones - like the magazine ban a TV reporter violated in Washington DC recently, or the blatant attempt at a "straw purchase" by Gabby Gifford's husband.

I'm counting on you to negate the vote your colleague Tammy will no doubt give, to destroy our freedom insurance once and for all.

To Tammy Gay Baldwin:

As one of the people you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution for, I want you to vote NO on each and every new proposal to further infringe on our God-given and Second Amendment ensured right to self-defense and freedom's tools.

"Universal background checks" will do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons, but will be completely unenforceable unless accompanied by "universal registration". Of course, criminals will ignore that too, but now there's a nice neat list of all those law-abiding folks who own guns, and which guns they own.

As happened in California, that list WILL be used when the next "scary gun of the week" ban comes along, to confiscate those scary registered weapons. Or, it will be leaked to the press to enable burglars to know exactly which houses to target to obtain weapons without worrying about the other laws enacted to prevent this.

Once the lists are made, it is simple for a future administration to go get those guns - to "keep us safe".

History - you know, that inconvenient truth that keeps proving socialist ideas don't work - tells us that once such lists are made, they WILL be used, and then the people are ripe for the concentration camp and the gas chamber.

Please remember what certain governments in the last 100 years did to people who were seen as different or deviant - and then think of what you will do when your neighbors and friends are all disarmed and sadly watch as you are herded into a box car or a truck with airtight doors.

It has happened. It will happen again if we are stupid enough to lay the foundations for a new Holocaust.

Do NOT be that stupid person. You work for me and the rest of Wisconsin - not for the new world order or George Soros.

No new gun laws. NONE.

We have spoken. Ignore us at the risk of your next election.

The fight is never over

Melt the Wicked Witch of the West, and another flying monkey pops up:

Harry Reid’s New Gun Control Bill Is Designed To Destroy Gun Ownership

Since Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) massive gun control bill is going down in flames due to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) decision to stop it in its tracks, that didn’t mean that the gun grab was over. In fact, that seems to have been all political theater. The real threat comes in Harry Reid’s own S 649 bill, or as its innocuous title is referred to as Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. It’s anything but safe for communities, schools or freedom and has sweeping legislation that has the potential to destroy gun ownership in America. Because of its introduction last Thursday, it will probably be brought up immediately following the Easter recess.

The bill’s summary says that it is “To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.”

According to Gun Owners of America:

We expected it to contain the Veterans Gun Ban, which would mean that you would sell, gift, or raffle a gun in America at the risk of a 15-year prison sentence because of something you didn’t know about the veteran/buyer.
But, surprisingly to us, the Far Left has convinced Reid to include the original Schumer version of the Universal Registry Bill. This would ban private sales of firearms, unless purchasers first get the permission from the government. If Senators can pass this de facto registration bill, they will be well on the way to confiscation (see, for example, Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York, who has a gun owner registry and has called for gun confiscation). If this bill is passed, Senators will claim that they “broke the back” of gun owners in America.

GOA also pointed out that “there is still every evidence that Reid will move to proceed to the bill under ‘regular order,’ which means he will need 60 votes to advance to the ‘gun control buffet.’”

The only “no compromise” Second Amendment organization also said that “anti-gun zealots have begun to use the ‘ObamaCare Paradigm’ to threaten, bribe, and coerce senators into submission on the most far-reaching aspects of gun control, including Feinstein’s proposal to ban shotguns, rifles and handguns that millions of Americans legally own. So if the ‘motion to proceed’ to S. 649 is adopted with 60 votes, then Feinstein’s ban could be passed in the Senate with only 50 votes (plus Biden).”

They also pointed out that reports are out that there may be an “unholy alliance” at work which has the potential to succeed in achieving a dangerous gun control compromise. Politico reports:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and the National Rifle Association are quietly engaged in private talks on a proposal to broaden background checks on purchasers of firearms.
That the NRA is even talking with Manchin suggests there’s at least some room for negotiation for the group — despite its public posture against tougher gun laws, several sources say.
And if successful, a Manchin-NRA deal could draw in enough Republicans and red-state Democrats to defeat an expected GOP filibuster of the overall gun control bill when it hits the floor next month.

Some of the problems with the NRA compromising on the Second Amendment are seen in a previous article by Felix Bronstein, but more recently by an NRA backed bill introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Mark Pryor (D-AR.) to expand the scope of mental health information submitted to the background check system used by gun sellers. That is a bad move for sure and is easing giving in to the gun control crowd by means of RINOs working with Democrats. As Publius Huldah has so clearly pointed out, any Federal legislation on arms and ammunition is unconstitutional and for an organization taking millions of Second Amendment supporters’ money they should be defending that right completely, not compromising.

Michael E. Hammond writes, “Unless Harry Reid wants to invoke a ‘special order’ procedure which will be a disaster for him, he needs 60 votes to proceed to his gun control bill (S. 649) — votes which Reid does not have if the GOP holds firm. If Republicans hold the line, in fact, Reid probably doesn’t even have 50 votes. And, for reasons which we can explain in a future memorandum, the ‘special order’ procedure could cause horrific problems for Reid.”

“So with one vote, the GOP could kill all gun control,” he continues. “And, as for those ‘blue state’ Republicans who are scared of the ‘gun issue,’ here’s a question: Why would you not want to limit your exposure to one vote which can be framed around opposition to the unpopular Feinstein amendment, rather than have Reid subject you to 20 votes on a variety of ‘gun issues’ which he is crafting to make you easy to defeat? In other words, if you can kill all gun control with one vote, why would you not want to do that?”
Hammond goes on to list ten reasons Republicans should kill all gun control in one vote here. He concludes that “If they succeed, four things will happen: (1) Their package will be nothing but a platform for the next set of gun control demands. (2) Saturation media will be encouraged by their “victory” and, as a result, more copycat shootings will occur and more children will die. (3) Democrats will have a vigorous new component of their “ground game” and the most significant remaining pillar of the GOP “ground game” will be demoralized. (4) Obama will have an aura of invincibility which will make it more difficult to stop the rest of his agenda.”

Our Senators need to get an earful from the American people regarding Reid’s plan and the RINOs plan as well. You can do so quickly and efficiently with a prepared email by clicking here.

Follow that last link. Write letters.