WH: There is no Double Standard

Apparently the White House Press Secretary doesn't believe there's a double standard that the left routinely applies to it's own actions and judgements.

This amidst the quotes from Obama and Sotomayor that imply (if not directly say) that Sotomayor's ethnicity makes her better suited for the job.

Prager University: The American Trinity

Dennis Prager posted his first YouTube video for Prager University.






If you'd like to rate it or leave a comment (please do) visit the YouTube page.

Italian Cruise Ship: 1 Pirates: 0

I guess Larry Pratt was right.



Italian Cruise Ship Fires on Pirates
ROME — An Italian cruise ship with 1,500 people on board fended off a pirate attack far off the coast of Somalia when its Israeli private security forces exchanged fire with the bandits and drove them away, the commander said Sunday. READ MORE>>

The Problem with "Hate Crime" Legislation

I just received my all too annoying MegaVote (from Congress.org) email notifying me of upcoming votes in the House and Senate and the first bill listed for the house was H.R. 1913 "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009".

The email gave it the very vague description of: This House bill would provide local jurisdictions with funds to prosecute hate crimes.

This bill (and Hate Crime legislation in general) carries with it two obvious problems.

1. The bill seeks to give harsher penalties for the murder of a person because he/she was gay (or Black, White, Asian, Muslim, a woman, or whatever). Thus creating a new 'protected' class of people.

You might wonder, What's wrong with a harsher punishment for the murder/rape/assault/etc of a homosexual (or whatever) because the person is a homosexual? Well, is it more wrong to kill someone because they're a Jew than it is to kill because of jealousy or out of envy? Is it more wrong to kill ... than to kill? It's a non-sequitur.

I believe that crime is BAD, regardless of the motivation of the attacker or status of the victim. Criminals should be brought to justice and made to face the consequences of their crimes regardless of who the victims were or for what reason the crimes were committed.

The murder is the crime, not the motivation. Prosecuting attorneys can still use the motivation to prove the commission of the crime by an alleged suspect, but the motivation shouldn't be what's on trial.

2. The bill will vilify and quite possibly make free speech (especially speech you disagree with) illegal.

I'll quickly add that a cursory reading of the bill doesn't reveal this, but the testimony given by members of Congress allude to it.

HumanEvents.com provides this insight and dialog between members of Congress (debating a similar "Hate Crime" Bill) in their article titled "Is Your Minister a 'Hate Crime' Peddler?":
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) debated Rep. Artur Davis (D-Alabama) last Congress.

Here is a very telling portion of that exchange:

Mr. Gohmert: Even with your amendment, you still have to go back to the "rule of evidence" at page 15 of the underlying bill. And it says that these things may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial unless the evidence specifically relates to the offense.

And if I understood the gentleman's amendment -- and I will put the question back to you -- if a minister preaches that sexual relations outside of marriage of a man and woman is wrong, and somebody within that congregation goes out and does an act of violence, and that person says that that minister counseled or induced him through the sermon to commit that act, are you saying under your amendment that in no way could that ever be introduced against the minister?

Mr. Davis. No.

If you parse your way through that thicket of legalisms and double negatives, you’ll find that Cong. Davis was saying that the sermon could be used as evidence against the minister.
H.R. 1913 broadly defines “intimidation.” A pastor’s sermon could be considered “hate speech” under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on any “sexual orientation.” The pastor could be prosecuted for “conspiracy to commit a hate crime.”

Andrea Lafferty, who wrote the HumanRights.com article, sums it up as:

The question of which “sexual orientations” will be protected is left wide open so a great deal of discretion will be granted to judges and prosecutors to determine what is a “sexual orientation” and which ones will be covered. . .

No reasonable person could conclude that the Founders had any of this in mind when they drafted the Constitution and said which “rights” should be protected and which should be prohibited.

At the least, this bill wastes your and my tax dollars by wasting our Congressmen and Senators' time to push legislation against crimes already covered by our existing criminal code.

And at the worst, it's a way to demonize traditionally held beliefs such as: homosexuality is a sin and it's wrong and people's genders are encoded in their DNA and are NOT subject to 'interpretation'.

Take it as you will and I'll continue to just believe that...
Murder is Murder. Rape is Rape. Crime is Crime.

Recent DHS Report on R.W.E. = +722% Visits

Seeing this I have to laugh because I know it's only as a result of people searching the words "Right Wing Extremist" on Google or Yahoo (most likely) that they come across my site.

Too bad, my witty commentary and sophomoric writing style can't keep people's interest.









So I guess I should be thankful that DHS has released this memo. I was just surprised is all.

Pro Libertate: The Triumph of the Torture State

Pro Libertate Blog has a good post on torture (and specifically controlled drowning-i.e. waterboarding).

I admit that this subject of torture ("enhanced interrogation techniques") is one that I tend to flip-flop on.

Part of me wants to say the "enemy" doesn't deserve any rights and the ends always justify the means regardless of what kind of "interrogation technique" used. We now know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured supposedly as a result of information gained by these sort of "interrogation techniques" and we're told that this information has saved countless American lives. But all at what cost?

This very opinion is one that many "terrorist" Muslims point to as a reasoning for their attacking of America and I know that our founding fathers would disagree with an "ends justify the means" approach to treatment of prisoners (even "enemy combatants") in the name of keeping the American public safe.

A wise man once said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," and I heartily agree.

My litmus test has always been, would you want your government to have this power/right to exercise over you?

What if something crazy happened and our government more resembled the Big Brother from George Orwell's 1984 than a constitutional republic that seeks to safeguard the liberty of it's citzens? Would you want the government to be able to suspend your habeus corpus and be able to torture you by fear of death and infliction of psychological torment?

By many sources, the "terrorist" watch list has grown to well over 1 million people (USA Today, The New American, Voice of America, & ACLU) and many of them are probably folks like you (well, not the feds reading this probably) and I. This should concern you greatly.

If things don't change, this War on Terror (and the fear that it inspires) will be the stepping stone to unravel all of our Bill of Rights.

Be very afraid, and ask yourself: If you lived in 1950's U.S.S.R. (or 1930's Germany) would you want your government to have this power over you? Why should it be different because you live in a 21st Century United States?

Top 40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

Massive props to Derek Clark at Geek Politics & Michael Z. Williamson.

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense — give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.

14. These phrases,” right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumeration’s herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

15. We don’t need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles,” because they are military weapons.

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”

27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but “civilians” do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” they don’t mean you. Really.

This list was composed from an article by Michael Z. Williamson.

PA Gov Double-Speak

Our wonderfully naive governor is apparently an expert at Orwellian double-speak. He's been in the news as of late showing his 'support' of the Law Enforcement community by pushing to make their civilian firearms illegal.

In a clever bit of double-speak.

CNBC: Assault Weapons 'Nuts' for Ordinary Citizens: Governor

"Assault weapons are difficult to operate, they jam easily. If you want a gun to protect your home it’s the last thing you should have." . . .
"These weapons have one purpose," added Rendell. "...They’re to kill and to maim, and they shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone else but the police and the military."

Now I'm a bit confused, maybe our governor can explain how this makes sense. 'Assault weapons' are poor choices for home defense weapons, but they should be used by the police and military?

Gov. Rendell, I thought you said you supported the police!

Now you want them to use weapons that are difficult to operate and jam easily?

And you say that these weapon's only purpose is to kill and maim but the police and military should have them, so are you saying that our police aim to kill and maim people?

This guy makes me ashamed to be called Pennsylvanian... when's his term up?

MT Legislature: Fed Gun Regs Not Valid Here

In another story of state sovereignty the Montana legislature passed a bill in the state house & senate that would exempt Montana from Federal gun regulations.

Commentators mention that the bill has a very limited scope (only applies to guns manufactured in Montana and never leave MT, if I understand), but this is still a good move. It's nice to see the great people of MT understanding that a 1" difference in barrel length or a quieter gun doesn't make that gun anymore lethal.

From the bill (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm):

Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

The KXNet (covering news in North Dakota, South Dakota, & parts of Montana) which publishes blog posts from Say Anything Blog has this to say:

Only guns made, sold and possessed in Montana, of course, which means the bill has a limited scope. But the intent here is to send a message to the federal government about overstepping their bounds. The Constitution may give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce (I don’t think gun control is what the founders had in mind with that particular clause, but that’s a subject for another post), but it doesn’t give the federal government the power to regulate commerce - up to and including guns - that takes place entirely within a given state.

This is a bid for federalism. The same effort Governor Rick Perry in Texas has taken up. And this one is being pushed by a Democrat Governor. One Barry Schweitzer. READMORE>> Or View the Original Blog Post

This regulation would of course remove restrictions (at least in theory) from MT manufactured, sold, and possessed Short Barreled Rifles (SBR-A rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches or overall length less than 26); Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS-a Shotgun with a barrel length less than 18 inches or overall length less than 26); Suppressors (silencers-"any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm"), but it exempts Machine Guns.

China Creates Carrier Killer

I just heard this from my brother, and after checking it out it does have credibility.

The U.S. Naval Institute is reporting today that the Chinese have a ballistic missile that is so fast and so sophisticated it can hunt down a U.S. Supercarrier and take it out with one strike!

The missile travels at Mach 10 speed. It is supported by unmanned drones and satellites to track a U.S. Navy carrier, and it can elude radar through a series of maneuvers. . . . READMORE>>

When I heard this news, I was immediately alarmed.

After all, why develop a weapon you don't intend to use?

...and more importantly which other nations have aircraft carriers in their arsenal?