Jason Mattera brings the thunder to Nanny Bloomberg

Hat Tip: Infowars.com

One of my favorite people on the political right, Jason Mattera, asked NYC Mayor (and busy-body control freak) Michael Bloomberg a rather relevant question.  Mattera was unable to get a followup answer from Bloomberg due to Hizzoner's phalanx of armed security.  What was Mattera's question?  I'll give you a hint:  It had much to do with that phalanx of armed security.  Oh, and Mattera's adventure didn't stop when his questioning of Bloomberg did.  Bloomberg then sicced one of his armed pitbulls on Mattera.  Sieg Heil, Herr Bloomberg!



 You're the Man, Jason. You are THE MAN!

 "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

So I have a few things to say about the proposed Defensive Semi-Automatic Weapons Ban

Yesterday, Dianne "Fascist" Feinstein, the traitorous U.S. Senator from my home state of the late, great California, used a bit of dramatic theatrics to introduce her freedom-stealing, slave-making bill that would outlaw over 150 semi-automatic rifles, a step toward her ultimate goal, which is total disarmament of the American people.  This is not hyperbole.  She said once in a 60 Minutes interview that if she had the votes in the Senate, she would have required that she would have the American people, "turn 'em all in."

I had quite a bit to say about both Feinstein's evil efforts, and the ignorance-based efforts of the anti-self defense nuts out there who are engaging in an obsessive crusade to take away my God-given rights - and the rights of millions of fellow law-abiding gun owners/militia members in the United States.

Could I have been more eloquent in parts?  Sure.  Could I have shown more brevity?  You bet.  I know the two videos I made equal just over a half-hour.  But I don't just yap at you... I brought props!





Time did not allow me to go into as much detail about crime figures in Britain and Australia, along with figures from other countries that have strict and not-so-strict gun control. I plan to remedy that in the near future.  

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Our Demagogue-in-Chief to put on a show today

Sometime today, our Dear Leader Obama/Soetoro will surround himself with children who wrote him asking him to ban guns, and then Obama will proceed to posture, pontificate and prevaricate in front of the cameras as he calls for the banning of defensive semi-automatic rifles, magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, and Lord knows what else.

Surrounding himself with children is a classic maneuver that dictators have used in the past, as you can see above.

I weep for my country.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

The militia is....

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include... all men capable of bearing arms. ... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principal."  

-Richard Henry Lee

Just a little reminder for those clueless wonders out there who keep trying to tell me that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to me because I am not part of a militia; that the Second Amendment only allows states to have a National Guard.

First off, until 2004, I was a member of the National Guard.  Second, the National Guards of each state are the very "select militia" of which Richard Henry Lee was speaking.

Even federal law (if one chooses to go there) says that the militia is basically everyone.  Title 10 United States Code section 311 states:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The money quote is subsection (b)(2), which ensures that even if you are not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia, you are still a member of the militia. 10USC311 essentially says, "Here are the people who are required to be a part of the militia, otherwise, everyone else is free to join of their own accord." With the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the God-given rights of the People, I get so sick of being told that it's just the Second Amendment that grants a right to the government - whether it be state or federal.  Of course, this poisonous notion has been drilled into young minds full of mush for decades now.  Just one example of this comes from a discarded high school civics textbook that I ran across while substitute teaching ten years ago.

The book, which was published in 1953 by the California Department of Education and Harr Wagner Publishing is entitled Living in our Democracy.  Referring to our country and system of government as a democracy instead of a republic is a whole other issue I will leave alone in this post!

On page 211, this textbook describes the Second Amendment as such (all spellings and emphases are the publisher's):

The second amendment is not so important as it was in the early days of the nation, but it is still a right of the people. This amendment states that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It gives the people the right to organize state militias. The colonists had seen the Kings's army harm their friends and relatives. They wanted a state militia as a possible protection against a federal army. This is not considered necessary today, since the armed forces of the nation are controlled by Congress. They protect all the people and not the powers of a king or a dictator.

Good Lord, where do I begin?  First, the Second Amendment should be capitalized, in my not-so-humble opinion; they did not do so.

Next, this amendment is indeed just as important today as it ever was.  We may not face British regulars or marauding Indians on the frontier anymore, but predators who would do us harm have not gone away.  Instead, we must defend ourselves against feral urban youth, rural home invaders, and, especially, our increasingly meddlesome and power-hungry federal and state governments.

Next, the Second Amendment doesn't "give" us the right to "organize state militias".  None of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights "give" us anything.  God gave us those rights; the Bill of Rights simply declare to our government that those rights are sacrosanct, and shall not be violated.

And these militias we are supposed to have are not "state militias" that are "organized."  They would be better described as militias that secure the freedom of a state.  Again, the founders made clear that militias are composed of
"the people themselves," and most people are members of what 10USC311 calls the "unorganized militia."

Next, if the book posits that an army controlled by a King can harm your friends and relatives, what possesses the authors to smugly proclaim that an armed forces controlled by our Congress (and President) can't or won't do the same damn thing?  It is the idea of that very standing army - controlled by our federal government - that concerned our founders so greatly that they recommended the guarantee of an armed populace to provide a check on the power of our federal government to use the military against the American people.

So essentially, every statement this book makes about the Second Amendment is incorrect.  But yet, how many young minds were warped by what they read in this textbook?  I would be interested to see what today's civics/political science textbooks say about the Second Amendment.  My parting question is, how are we supposed to possibly reason with these gun-grabbing busybodies among us when they are so horribly misinformed about the Second Amendment, and firearms in general?  If the time for reason is ever over, then God help us.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

The point of no return is quickly approaching

When looking back at the events leading up the American War of Independence of 1775-1783, historians often peg the point of no return for the inevitability of that war as the British government's reaction to the Boston Tea Party.  That reaction was the passage of what American colonists called the Intolerable Acts, which were a set of laws that were not passed in order to raise revenue or to provide for the general welfare of the Colonists - they were passed in order to punish the Colonists, take away their God-given rights, and to brutally demonstrate to them that the King and Parliament were the boss.

Fast forward to December 2012, and elements of the U.S. federal government (and some state governments, such as California) are considering the passage of similar laws that are meant to accomplish similar aims.  In the wake of the mass shootings in anti-gun Aurora, Colorado and anti-gun Connecticut, Senator Dianne Feinstein (who unfortunately represents my home state), and the U.S. President himself, Barack Obama, have made it quite clear that they are now committed and determined to punish peaceable and lawful American gun owners by eviscerating their God-given rights of self-defense as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Feinstein and Obama would have moved on their proposed anti-self defense legislation already were it not for the Newtown massacre taking place during the Christmas holiday and the crunch time of the so-called "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations.

But come January 3rd, when Congress is officially back in session, get ready for an all-out assault on the right of the People to keep and bear arms that, according to the 2nd Amendment, shall not be infringed.

So what does Feinstein have in store for us law-abiding gun owners?  Read:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of: 120 specifically-named firearms; Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic; Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by: Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic tests Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test 

• Banning firearms with thumbhole stocks and bullet buttons to address attempts to work around prior bans 

• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 

• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by: Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment 

• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes 

• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons 

• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include: Background check of owner and any transferee; Type and serial number of the firearm; Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint; Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

The 1994 "Assault Weapon" ban was bad enough, but this new proposed ban from the twisted, hateful, totalitarian mind of Feinstein is even worse.  What especially makes this new proposed law more devious and unconstitutional than the old one is the requirement that weapons already owned will have to be registered and their owners will have to allow the United States federal government to crawl up their derrieres with a microscope like we are a bunch of felons or suspected spies.

Feinstein has been salivating for this moment ever since the 1994 AWB expired in 2004.  All she needed was the kind of crisis that won't go to waste - in this case the horrific murder of 20 children by an evil Morlock who wasn't too worried about breaking laws against murder, never mind the federal and Connecticut laws against illegal possession and use of firearms.  Believe me, Feinstein would go for the whole enchilada if she thought she could make it happen.  Here is what she had to say after the passage of the 1994 AWB:


"Turn them all in." God, what a frightening woman.

And then there is our illustrious Hope and Change Agent, Barack Hussein Obama.  Listen to him during his 2008 presidential campaign as he swore up and down that he wasn't interested in taking away anyone's guns, and mocked anyone who said different:



So, Obummer wanted to make it "absolutely clear" that "it just ain't true" that he wants to take anyone's guns away. Of course, from the moment he was elected in 2008, gun purchases went through the roof as we gun owners and other freedom-loving people who were paying attention knew that this day would come. And sure enough, here we are. Listen to Obama on yesterday's Meet the Press as he talks about his willingness to take away people's guns:



Naturally, being the politician he is, Obama would never just come out and say it, but all the code words are there. The magic words out of that 4 minutes of nonsense are, "I'm going to be putting forward a package, and I'm going to be putting my full weight behind it." That "package" would be Dianne Feinstein's declaration of war on our God-given right to self-defense. I am truly frightened by what the next several months portend.  

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Today's the day!  December 21, 2012.


Do you feel fine?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

RIP to the best U.S. Supreme Court Justice we never had

Robert Bork died yesterday.  While he did not serve for upwards of 25 years on the Supreme Court as he should have been allowed to do, Bork still made his mark on the American political and cultural landscape, including leaving an indelible impression on my political and social evolution.

I have a well-loved and dog-eared copy of Bork's 1996 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah.  During the mid-1990s, when I was still solidifying my political beliefs (for instance, I used to consider myself "pro-choice" on abortion), Bork's book was instrumental in teaching me about how our country used to be, and what it was becoming.

When I was reading Slouching Towards Gomorrah, I often thought about what could have been had Bork rightly taken his place on the Supreme Court.  That he was rejected by the Democrat-controlled Senate after being nominated by Ronald Reagan was bad enough; what was intolerable were the lies and vicious slanders said about Bork by some of those Democrats - especially by the "Lion of the Senate," the execrable Ted Kennedy.

On the floor of the Senate chamber, Kennedy - the cowardly killer of Mary Jo Kopechne, and overall abuser of women - had this to say about Robert Bork:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artist could be censured at the whim of government.

Lies all, but what did that matter to Kennedy and his leftist, nihilist goons? The ends justify the means, right Comrade? In the end, I like to believe that Bork had the last laugh. Kennedy died a bloated, drunken caricature of himself, while Bork remained a respected author and pundit. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Are we citizens or subjects?

To the gun grabbers out there:  Stop talking about taking away the tools by which I would defend myself and my family.

To the pantywaist conservatives out there:  Stop talking about hiring armed security guards and elderly veteran volunteers to patrol our schools.

Instead, return to the way things are supposed to be, and that is to do away with concealed carry licenses, permits, "gun-free zones", banning of scary-looking guns with pistol grips and bayonet lugs, and all the other nonsense laws and regulations out there that do nothing but disarm law-abiding citizens, but do nothing to stop the psychos, sociopaths, and generally bad guys out there who mean to do us harm.

When will you gun grabbers get it through your thick skulls that if a person is not afraid to break laws against murder, he is going to think nothing about breaking laws against bringing a rifle with an illegal pistol grip into a "gun-free zone."

When a bad guy does harm with a gun, there is only one thing that eventually stops him, and that is the arrival of another gun.  Pure and simple.

The gun that stops him could be...

1. his own, as he puts it to his temple or under his chin;

2. the ones held by the phalanx of police who arrive on the scene to try to stop the carnage that is already well under way;

3. one that belongs to a private citizen(s) who happens to be at the scene when the carnage begins.

Waiting for the shooter to use his own gun to end his own life is not an option, as he has already killed upwards of dozens of people.  Waiting for the cops is better than nothing, but as the old saying goes:  When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.  Or we could depend on good old fashioned self-reliance - like we Americans used to - and stop infringing upon the God-given rights of  people... responsible, upright, law-abiding people... to possess and use (keep and bear) the tools (arms) that are necessary in our society to defend their own lives, and the lives of their family and any other innocent people out there who need defending.

I am sick to death of being told by these hyperventilating ninnies in the media, in the halls of academe, and in the halls of our state and federal governments that I should be left defenseless because of the actions of some deranged monster.  It is the very reason that deranged monsters like Adam Lanza exist that as many people as possible should keep and bear arms in our country.

So to those people who are reflexively jerking their knees, and are calling for new rounds of gun bans, and gun control laws, and have their totalitarian control-freak rat claws reaching for the firearms that I own for the purpose of protecting and defending myself, my family, my community, my state, and my country, I say:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

 "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

150 years ago: The Battle of Fredericksburg

I have been rather lax in my observations, but as of April 2011, we have, with each passing second, been living through the 150-year anniversary of the War for Southern Independ... er... the Civil War.

On this day 150 years ago - December 13, 1862 - one of the war's biggest butcheries took place as the Union Army of the Potomac was sent by its inept commander, General Ambrose Burnside, across several hundred yards of open ground toward Confederate positions behind a stone wall located at the base of Marye's Heights.  The sight of the slaughter that ensued prompted Robert E. Lee to famously remark, "It is well that war is so terrible; otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

The official number of dead in this one-sided battle has traditionally been tallied at 608 killed on the Confederate side, and 1,284 killed on the Union side.  However, recent research has found that the number of killed in Civil War battles was often grossly underreported, and the number of Union dead from the Battle of Fredericksburg is more likely around 3,100.  This is after taking into account the massive number of "missing" that turned out to have died in front of the Confederate stone wall, and also the wounded who later died within weeks of the battle's aftermath.

I have been to the Fredericksburg battlefield twice.  The field over which the Union soldiers traversed in their attempts to reach the stone wall has been built over with houses, but a good portion of the stone wall is still there, along with some original houses near the wall (complete with bullet holes gaping in their siding), and there is a massive cemetery on top of Marye's Heights.  Being built over, the Fredericksburg battlefield doesn't quite have the impact of the pristine preservation of Gettysburg, but standing in front of the stone wall and seeing what, for thousands of Union soldiers, was the last thing they would ever see was quite sobering.

I have already missed my opportunities to mention Fort Sumter (April 2011), First Manassas (July 2011) Shiloh (April 2012), Seven Days Battles (June 2012), and Second Bull Run (August 2012), and Antietam (September 2012).  I promise to be better from now on, especially since some of the biggest battles of the war took place in 1863.  That means come the spring of 2013, I will need to pay attention.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

I'm confused: It IS or it IS NOT acceptable to say the word "Nigger"?

 Forgive me, but I am getting some very mixed messages from the political Left (where you will find most black Americans to be ensconced).

If you have been following the goings-on in the the capital city of Lansing, Michigan, you know that the Republican-controlled Michigan legislature and governor's office passed right-to-work legislation that prevents labor unions from requiring membership and forcibly taking dues (especially dues used for left-wing political activism) from union and non-union workers.

Needless to say, members of the unions in this dying Rust Belt state are not happy.  In protests outside the Michigan state capitol building, thousands of union thugs exhibited some absolutely nasty violence, including tearing down a tent owned by Americans For Prosperity (while the tent had women, children, and elderly people inside); sucker punching conservative comedian-reporter Steven Crowder; and destroying the hot dog cart of a vendor who was serving hot dogs to conservative counter-protesters.  Oh, the hot dog vendor is black, and these leftist Democrat/Obama-supporting union thugs (most of them white) called the vendor - Clint Tarver - a "nigger" and an "Uncle Tom."

So far, our black President has no comment about this execrable action by his white supporters.

Perhaps these union thugs are getting a pass for their racial slurs because perhaps they just saw an advanced screening of the new black revenge fantasy film Django Unchained.  Quentin Tarantino is a leftist in good standing with his Holllywood pals, so apparently he gets a pass.  Star of the movie Jamie Foxx was saying the other day on Saturday Night Live how much he enjoyed his role in this movie because he gets to "kill all the white people" in it.  Apparently, the movie's dialogue is peppered with the word "nigger" over 100 times.

Jamie Foxx was also calling our president "our Lord and Savior" not to long ago, also.  I wonder how he feels about his fellow [white] Obama supporters in Michigan calling one of his fellow black Americans a "nigger"?

So, bottom line is that I can't keep up.  If I declared myself to be a leftist Democrat and swore my support for President Obama, would that mean I can throw around the word "nigger" and not worry about it?  Not that I want to, but I have always been a sucker for the concept of consistency.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

Quote of the (made my) day

I thought I had read them all, but this is a new one for me.

From H.L. Mencken:

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

That's a good one!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

I'm sorry, which holiday would that be?

What better way to kick off the happ-happ-happy holiday season than a post about Christmas being tossed down the memory hole?

This has become a yearly ritual as people, in an effort not to offend just one person, go to ridiculous lengths to not offend.  However, by bending over backward not to offend the minority, the majority is left feeling shortchanged and offended instead.

I stopped by a local coffee shop in the Sacramento area the other day, and saw this poster:

Ah yes, the "Holiday Tree."  C'mon folks, what holiday has a tree with decorations all over it?  C'mon, SAY IT!!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

Newest statist narrative: If you own guns, you are a racist

Who knew?  Supporting gun ownership is the equivalent of terrorizing black people and burning crosses on their lawns.

So says Kansas City Star newspaper reporter Jason Whitlock, who, as a guest on a call-in radio show, compared the National Rifle Association (NRA) to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), as he further expounded on his support of gun control after sportscaster Bob Costas used Whitlock's anti-gun column as a reference as Bob Costas spoke in favor of banning handguns while announcing an NFL game on Monday night.

Whitlock said the following:

You know, I did not go as far as I’d like to go because my thoughts on the NRA and America’s gun culture, I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don’t have our best interests [at heart].

What is ironic is that the first gun control laws in the United States were passed in order to keep guns out of the hands of black slaves (and newly-freed blacks after the Civil War), and these gun control laws were fully supported by none other than the KKK.  I love that passive language of his: "the arming of so many black youths...."  So who exactly is arming them?  The NRA?  Is the NRA walking down the streets of the ghettos and handing out guns to the poor wayward youth who would be sitting in church and feeding widows and orphans were it not for that dastardly NRA?  And is Whitlock also saying that the NRA is handing out drugs at the same time?

I was thinking about this as I drove home from work today.  I have been planning for quite a while to make a certain purchase, and after listening to a clip of Whitlock's comments - you know, the one where he called me a racist for owning guns - I decided that today was the day.

So, late this afternoon, I purchased this:



I paid a mere $700 for that beautiful thing.  That is a Smith and Wesson M&P 15 Sport.  It is a semi-automatic rifle that fires the NATO 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington) round.  It has a sliding adjustable stock, and peep-style iron sights, with the rear sight having the ability to be flipped up or down.  There is mounting rail on top if I ever want to switch from iron sights to an optic sight.  This rifle is essentially the same as the M16A2 that I fired during my years in the Army.  Thanks to California's insane gun laws, I won't be able to pick up my new rifle for another ten days.  I will just have to longingly stare at this picture until then.

If you are in the market for a firearm, I highly recommend going to The Gun Range, which is located near Watt Ave. and I-80.  Here is their website.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

Chris Matthews is happy that Hurricane Sandy ravaged the east coast

After all, it helped reelect the man who sends thrills up Matthews's leg.

For the record, this cretin said, "I'm so glad we had that storm last week!"

Watch and be amazed as Matthews says what is truly in his heart, and then backtracks a bit when he realizes what he has just implied - which is that it is a good thing that over a hundred people died and billions of dollars of property was destroyed as long as it helped get Obama reelected. 

The ends justify the means. Eh, Comrade?

Matthews later apologized to his viewers, but what is said cannot be unsaid.  He may have apologized for saying it, but that doesn't change that fact that this is how he truly feels.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Obama turns out to be the candidate who is "for the rich"

If there is one description about Mitt Romney I heard again and again from my monolithically Obamaphile students was that Romney only cared about rich people.  Be that as it may, what is more important to note is that, conversely, my students believe with all their heart that Obama is for the little guy.

After looking at this article from CNBC, one thing is for certain:  Even if Mitt Romney really is only for rich people, it turns out that rich people are all about Barack Obama.  Voters in eight of the ten richest counties in the United States went for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in yesterday's election.

My Obamaphile students were also very indignant that Romney was a "millionaire" (the word being uttered with sneering contempt).  I was rather amused by the confused looks on their faces when I informed them that Obama is a multimillionaire as well.

I am daily astounded by the ignorance that surrounds me.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

Bill O'Reilly nails it before the results even started coming in

Soon after I turned on the Fox News coverage of tonight's election results, I caught Bill O'Reilly being interviewed by Brett Baier and Megan Kelly about his thoughts on what was going to happen tonight.  At the time, the Electoral College map had Romney leading 49 to 3, yet O'Reilly was looking glum and resigned.  He had already all but written off Romney, and offered these words of wisdom that sounded very much like what I wrote in a post last night:

"It’s not a traditional America anymore. People want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. Whereby twenty years ago President Obama would be roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney. The white establishment is now the minority. The voters, many of them, feel like the economic system is stacked against them. And they want stuff. You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel they are entitled to things. And which candidate between the two is going to give them things?"

And, in the end, O'Reilly was exactly right.  He also lamented that Romney had played the campaign too safe and tried to coast across the finish line, rather than hammer on Obama to the very end.  O'Reilly then brought up the impact Hurricane Sandy had on the final days of the election, and he revisited something that I had heard from other pundits a couple days ago, but couldn't fully comprehend that people would actually think this way.  O'Reilly said that many people who might have otherwise voted for Romney decided instead to vote for Obama after seeing him "looking presidential" while walking side-by-side with Governor Chris Christie through the storm-ravaged streets of New Jersey.  Megan Kelly was incredulous - as was I - that someone would allow something that trivial to change their voting decision.  Obviously, O'Reilly was correct on that point as well.

I remember way back when Mitt Romney secured the Republican nomination for President, I slapped my forehead as I wondered how the morons in the GOP had managed to screw themselves again by nominating another retread squish in the vein of Bob Dole and John McCain.  I see a necessary war brewing in the Republican Party between these establishment squishes led by such assholes as Karl Rove and Ed Rollins and the conservative/libertarian wing who are sick of the Republican Party offering up these sacrificial lambs to the Democrats. 

If the "moderate/big government Republican" schtick that is being offered up by such losers as Dole, McCain, Romey, and, yes, George W. Bush is obviously not working, perhaps it is time to swing the other direction and offer up a true alternative to the inevitably big-government Democrat candidate.  What do we have to lose?  After all, we are already losing.  Big time.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

Who's ready for four more years of this guy?!

Ready!  Set!  Go!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

Election Day 2012 is upon us!

Let's check out what is going on in the Democrat precincts...

Yep.  Just as I suspected.  Remember folks, if it's not close, they can't cheat.  Get out there and vote for Romney.  If you are like me, and you live in a state where Romney doesn't have a prayer, and you want to vote your conscience, go ahead and vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson or Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode.  At the very least, you will be diminishing Barack Obama's popular vote total.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson

In the end, we all lose tomorrow

Even if Mitt Romney eeks out a victory in tomorrow's presidential election, I will not feel much like celebrating.  The fact that he has to eek out that election at all is what depresses me.

Bear with me as I recount a tale that will make sense when I'm finished.

On May 12, 1987, I was a freshman in high school, and my 5th period P.E. class was underway.  It was near the end of the school year, and we were performing a physical fitness test to see how far we had come that school year.  The first apparatus was pullups - jump up to the bar and knock out as many as you could until you could do no more.

I had already had my turn doing my pullups, and was now watching Zach, a classmate of mine, jump up and grab the pullup bar.  He knocked out five pullups or so, walked away from the pullup bar, said, "That's it for me," and then promptly collapsed on the floor, struggling to breathe.  His breathing became more labored as he developed a panicked look on his face that turned from ashen gray to blue.  Paramedics soon arrived, and we students were quickly ushered out of the gym.  Several minutes later, the paramedics walked out of the gym and, without any sense of urgency, began putting their equipment back into the ambulance.  It quickly became apparent to all of us that Zach had died on the gym floor.  Between that day and the funeral a week later, rumors began swirling that on the day he died, Zach and some buddies had spent the 4th period lunch hour shotgunning a bunch of beers on the wooded hillside overlooking the football field.  It was feared that his physical exertion had joined forces with a massive amount of alcohol to stop his heart.

Several weeks later, the toxicology reports were released, and it turned out that Zach did indeed have a small amount of alcohol in his system that day.  What I found disturbing was peoples' reaction to the news.  They seemed to breathe a collective sigh of relief, saying that it was a good thing that his blood alcohol level was not what did Zach in.

Meanwhile, I wanted to scream from the rooftops, "Folks!  Aren't you paying attention?  It may have only been a little bit, but ZACH HAD ALCOHOL IN HIS SYSTEM!"

So what does this have to do with tomorrow's presidential election?  I am going to have a similar reaction if Mitt Romney pulls out a victory.  If he gets the 270 electoral votes he needs, Republicans will breathe that same sigh of relief and celebrate that Romney defeated the Democrats and Barack Obama.  Meanwhile, I will have that same urge to scream from the rooftops, "Folks! Aren't you paying attention?  Romney may have won, but he barely squeezed out a victory!  This election should not have been a nail biter down to the very last day before the election!"

If demography is destiny, then Romney's victory tomorrow - should he even win - could very well be the final victory for a Republican candidate, let alone a true Reaganesque conservative, and I do not consider Mitt Romney to be a true Reaganesque conservative.

With each passing year, the ethnic makeup of this country is changing, and has been since 1965 when Lyndon Johnson signed that year's infamous Immigration Act.  As our country fills up with more and more people from third-world countries and their offspring, the statists in the Democrat Party will gain more and more voters every year, as most of these immigrants and their offspring - legal and illegal - tend to vote Democrat.

With the mess Barack Obama has made of this country while doing his best impression of Jimmy Carter, he should be getting steamrolled tomorrow in the Electoral College vote.  Instead, many prognosticators have Obama winning the EC vote by 290-248.  Even the most optimistic prediction showing Romney as the winner is pundit Dick Morris's projection of 325-213.  When Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan won the EC vote 489-49, winning such states as California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Vermont, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania - all states that a Republican has little to no chance of winning today.  Each passing election cycle sees our country grow less and less conservative; not because traditional Americans have rejected conservatism - heck they are the only ones still voting like the old days.  No, it is the newer Americans from Latin America and Asia who have been imported here from cultures that are incompatible with our governmental system and culture that was designed to embrace personal liberty and smaller government.  Add to this the millions of black Americans who monolithically vote 90-95% Democrat, and you begin to see the writing on the wall.  The only reason that Mitt Romney even has a prayer of winning this election cycle is because Barack Obama has truly done that horrible of a job as president.  Were he even partially successful in his endeavors, Obama would handily be on the way to winning reelection right now.

And yeah, when I say "traditional Americans," that inevitably describes Americans who are of European descent.  Prior to the Immigration Act of 1965, the people of the United States were about 90% European heritage.  Even when they elected Democrats, the Democrats they elected may have had some screwy ideas (I'm looking at you FDR!), but by and large, these Democrats, who also included Truman, Kennedy, and two-time candidate Adlai Stevenson, at least purported to put America first.  Through both his words and actions, especially regarding the middle east, I cannot say the same for Barack Obama, nor for the millions who plan on voting for him this second time around.

I realize I am speaking in rather broad generalities, and if I dig a bit deeper into my own arguments, even I could pick them apart on several issues.  However, you would be hard-pressed to deny that what I say above - although it may be uncomfortable to discuss - is generally true.

So, let's see what happens tomorrow.  Whoever wins, I have a feeling it is going to a long night before we finally find out.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson 

Lapdog Media: Evangelical Christians are damned (literally) if they reject Romney the Mormon, and are damned (literally) if they support Romney the Mormon

As Newsbusters correctly points out, not too long ago, the common wisdom among the lapdog media was that, as one of those weirdo pseudo-Christian Mormons, Mitt Romney would be unable to secure the all-important votes of conservative Evangelical Christian Republicans, because they would be too bigoted to accept someone of another faith, such as Romney's unapologetic embrace of Mormonism.

Now that it is evident that these Evangelical Christian voters are not the bigots that the lapdog media painted them to be, and are overwhelmingly supporting Mitt Romney over Barack Obama in Tuesday's election, we now have Stephen Prothero, a religion blogger from CNN, telling us that Evangelical Christians are now sellouts who are abandoning their faith by supporting Mitt Romney for President.

These people are reaching, aren't they folks?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be."  -Thomas Jefferson