There Are Thinkers Out There

I think that one of the most frustrating things about the war we’re in (the war for our survival, not the one in Iraq) is that so very many “Americans” believe what they read in Newsweek and its ilk as well as what they hear from the likes of Katie Couric, et al.

The flatliners actually believe it.

So it was encouraging to read this article during this morning’s internet exercises.

It is legislators such as this man from Michigan that we need to seek out, encourage, and support. Make the survival of your Constitutional right to defend yourself a litmus test in your determination of who to vote for.

And please make a copy of this article to give to a friend or link it in an email. We can still win the war against those who would see our families dead.

ara

Common Sense and Common Decency

So much has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson that it is nearly comical. Nonetheless, I believe it was TJ who said this. Or maybe Ben Franklin. Or maybe ol’ Sam Clemens or Lester Swanson or Alfred E. Neuman—it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is the truth of what was said, which was this:

        “An armed society is a polite society.”

Ever thought about that? Ever been in a gun store and noticed the absence of rudeness? Sure, you’ll run into the obnoxious know-it-all in tackle shops or sporting goods outlets or feminist (sexist) hate literature outlets.

In a gun shop, however, you generally run with people who understand the gravity of the products they survey. By and large this little cross section is very sober, aware, attentive to conversation, and polite.

I just thought I’d say that.

This morning, Sunday the 17th of June, 2007, I stumbled across something very good.

It’s an article out of Canada, our victim neighbors to the north. Victims of embraced liberalism and the inevitable, designed result of an obnoxious, know-it-all, intrusive nanny-state government.

This article was a complete thought to me.

No further comment necessary.

Enjoy this. Become aware, if you still need that sort of exortation.

      From canada.com via Front Sight, Press:

      “Sometimes I wonder whether Toronto Mayor David Miller actually listens to himself talk.

      “Probably not.

      “Nothing original ever issues forth from the man’s mouth. Instead, he seems only to function as a funnel for every fashionable theory about “root causes” and social engineering advanced in the past quarter century.

      “Consider the drivel His Worship has produced since the murder last Wednesday of 15-year-old Jordan Manners at C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute, a high school situated in a violence-plagued north Toronto neighbourhood.

      “Mayor Miller blamed Ottawa for letting law-abiding citizens own handguns.

      “Apparently, the problem couldn’t be the prevalence of father-absent upbringings in the Jane-Finch area of Toronto, or the glorification of gangsta, drug and gun culture that liberals and social democrats such as Mr. Miller have been loathe to denounce out of a politically correct irrational [phobic] fear of being called racists.

      “Nor could it be the every-boy-a-good-boy approach to juvenile crime, also favoured by the Millers of the world, that has eliminated nearly all punishment for young offenders in favour of touchy-feely counselling that hardened young criminals — such as those who would shoot down a student in the hallway of a high school — just scoff at.

      “It couldn’t be the way courts have hamstrung police investigations or lefty city councils have pared back police budgets and reassigned beat patrol officers to traffic safety campaigns and police-minority relations teams.

      “Nope. If we follow Mayor Miller’s logic, the only reason Jordan Manners is dead is the federal Conservatives’ unwillingness to ban handguns.

      “Well, while, we’re at it, why don’t we get those nasty Tories to ban drugs, bank robberies and car thefts, too. And murder. Let’s get them to ban murder, because murder is bad. And rape. And if all it takes to prevent bad things from happening are federal bans on them, well let’s just ban lots of stuff because then all sorts of crime and personal pain will just magically go away.

      “Oh, right: Ottawa has already banned drugs, murder and robbery. The may have banned rape, as well. And despite this bad things continue to happen. In spite of laws making it a crime to murder, deal drugs and hold up credit unions, criminals still do it. Why?

      “It should be obvious to a six-year-old, then, that a handgun ban would never eliminate or even reduce handgun crime in Canada. Handgun murderers in this country typically use illegal weapons, anyway — so banning the weapons outright would essentially be redundant. Despite this, self-important liberal left windbags such as David Miller never fail to call for such bans every time a horrific crime presents them with an opportunity to do so.

      “Their constituencies — academic theorists, special interest and right organizations, feminists, guilty white liberals and multiculturalists — disdain guns and lawful gun owners (not our kind, dear). So guns make an easy — and convenient — target. If they can turn the blame on guns and lawful gun owners, then they do not have to admit their own social and criminal justice experiments have been a bust.

      “A 2004 metanalysis by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (hardly a gun-owners’ lobby) evaluated more than 250 articles from academic journals, nearly 100 books on gun control and more than 40 government studies from around the world. They found no evidence that gun control or gun bans had reduced gun crime, gun murders or suicides with guns. Curious, isn’t that? And this is the rule rather than the exception.

      “A new study by American criminologist Don Kates and Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser (both, admittedly, pro-gun ownership), published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, shows no correlation between civil gun ownership and murder or suicide.

      “For instance, Kates and Mauser found that Russia, with a relatively low incidence of legal gun ownership (4,000 per 100,000 population) has a murder rate nearly 30 times that of Norway, even though Norwegian civilians own nine times as many guns as Russian civilians.

      “Since Britain implemented a near-complete ban on civilian handgun ownership a decade ago, handgun possession among criminals has soared by an estimated one million to three million guns, and handgun crime has almost tripled. What an amazing coincidence.

      “The cause of gun crimes such as the Manners murder and Britain’s recent rash of similar shootings is a changing culture. And that’s the one “root cause” David Miller and his ilk refuse even to talk about.

      “- Lorne Gunter “

And you know the sad part of this? It’s happening all over.

You are your own first line of defense.

Best wishes,

ara

Published in: on June 17, 2007 at 2:05 pm Comments (0)

More Proof Debunking the Junk Science of “Global Warming”

I use “Global Warming” with quotes because of the totality of the lie behind that splendiferous myth. The entire solar system is warming, and that is pretty pissing difficult to blame on Dufus and Goober and their SUVs. Yet mush-minded government skool kids will barf what they’re told to barf and their handlers will continue in their sinister molestations.

An article relating to (1) junk science as embraced by the freedom-loathing left and (2) the state of our stolen yet still touted “Free Press,” which tells you nothing of truth, rekindled my undying contempt and enmity for the liars of the old media.

Click here for another dose of accuracy and brilliance from Joseph Farah, CEO and Editor in Chief over at WorldNetDaily.com.

The MSM can only choke on its own duplicity when faced with facts.

ara

An Open Letter to my Brother, Part I

Dear Dave,

You made the last effort.

You wrote that you missed the relationship we had as brothers, and I let that drift in the wind. I don’t expect it will ever return to the richness it once had. I’m not even sure it can.

But it was me who left your overture swinging and I apologize for that. That was unkind and you deserved more.

A mutual acquaintance said to me a year or two ago that, in a nice way, she was surprised that you and I had ever grown close in the first place because it seemed as though we had nothing in common.

I thought that was a keen and profound observation. Back in ‘75 or so we were very much the different set, I the hippie and you the hip Denver businessman, and yet we meshed well. It was ‘97 when things went bad.

And my distancing grew.

Emails have been exchanged of late that are encouraging and I do hope we can develop dialogue on a variety of subjects and grow once again to a position of good communication.

Why the “Open Letter?”

First, I think it’s because the questions you asked in your last email were wonderful. You plumb the depths there, and I believe the answers may surprise you.

Second, I think the discussion deserves exposure in the sense that others have certainly encountered similar if not the same conflicts and these discussions, one-sided as they may be, may be helpful. They may garner comment and insight that neither of us has considered, or that one or the other of us needs in order to bolster a point.

But lastly I use this format to see if you’ve accepted my invitation to read my blog, to learn some of what and how I think, what my hot buttons are, which hills I will be willing to die on, so to speak, and why I stand so obstinately for so many issues.

Since I’ve not yet received an answer to my last email to you (three or so days ago, I believe) I fear that either that you haven’t chosen to read here or that it blew you out of the water and you’re gone again. I hope I’m wrong on both parts.

I will continue with “Part II” in a day or so. Hopefully this weekend will provide a lot of time to structure answers for you, my Brother.

Best of all things to you,

Bro. B.

Published in: on June 13, 2007 at 6:16 pm Comments (0)