Friday, February 29, 2008

New Gitmo Torture Protocol In the Works

I'd talk.

Comedian and actress Rosie O’Donnell wants to return to television in a sitcom about three best friends that would co-star "The Nanny’s" Fran Drescher.


Not on my worst enemy.


Thursday, February 28, 2008

Oops

This makes the MIT kids getting their U-Hauls stuck in the Memorial Drive tunnels look like third-rate amateurs.

(wait for camera angle #3 at 0:41)


Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Count Me In

Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President

I'd slap that.

I mean, this...


...on my truck.


Rendering Unto Caesar

Working on my taxes. Blogging will be light for the next couple days.

Happy happy joy joy.


Sunday, February 24, 2008

Munchies for Mohammed

Whatever you do, don't tell these dimwitted, third-world assholes that the corn used to make this unholy snack food product was likely grown in the same soil, in which the pigs next door have been relieving themselves on a daily basis.


Saturday, February 23, 2008

This Is Just Wrong

I really have to take exception with Time magazine's choice of headline on the story of the police officer who died yesterday in an accident, while escorting Hillary Clinton's motorcade in Dallas.

Clinton Motorcade Kills Cop


Oh, wait...never mind.


A Winning Formula

Ten minutes into the new and improved Knight Rider, and so far, it seems like a cross between Baywatch (minus David Hasselhoff) and the original Knight Rider (minus David Hasselhoff).

So, two thumbs up, for now.

UPDATE: I feel compelled to state, for the record, that I did not watch all two hours of it. NOt even close. I tuned in here and there to see if anything overly cheesy was going to happen.

I was not disappointed.

Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy a good piece of of cheeseball TV as much as the next guy. And, I have no problem buying into such devices as the scratch-proof "super-alloy" coating on the new and improved KITT. I can suspend my disbelief with the best of them.

Like, in the chase scene near the end of the show, when KITT gets t-boned by the SUV on the highway, I'm OK with the part about KITT not getting damaged. That's what a super-alloy coating will do for you. Duh.

But, the part where KITT's tires don't so much as leave the ground on impact.

That's some serious anti-Newtonian fromage.

Let's just hope the mercs from "Blackriver" (any resemblance to any other private security firms operating in the Middle East is purely coincidental) don't get their hands on that technology.

All in all, to paraphrase Garth Algar, if that show were a president it would be Abraham Lame.


Friday, February 22, 2008

Stay Tuned

Via GaryO at the NES Forum, comes word that Fox 25 News in Boston will be running a story tonight about police officers selling their old "high-powered guns" to civilians, presumably individuals already holding a valid Massachusetts License to Carry Own.

Look for the PSH to get spread on nice and thick.

And, keep in mind (not that any of my regular readers need reminding), the Boston media definition of "high-powered" firearms differs substantially from ours.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Can't post much now. Gotta clean all the bullshit out of my TV's speakers. I hope they put up a transcript of this gem. Here's a highlight to set the mood.

"...high-capacity revolvers..."

~ John Rosenthal


It's long past time anyone took this boob seriously.

UPDATE II: The video is up this morning on the MyFoxBoston.com website.

Even the intro from that page is somewhat misleading.

Police everywhere say they want to get guns off the street, but our investigative team found that in some cases, they actually be doing [sic] just the opposite. Investigative reporter Mike Beaudet reveals what's happening to some old police guns when law enforcement agencies buy new ones.


Seems to me, that in all cases (unless there's something they're not telling us), they're selling their old weapons to federally-licensed dealers, in total compliance with existing state and federal law. If that's the media's new definition of "putting guns on the street", we've just seen another shifting of the goal posts.

Not to mention, Rosenthal's new definition of "high capacity handgun", which now includes 6-shot revolvers.

I'll post a longer response later on, I'm sure, including Bruce's Rule of Thumb #20: Anyone who employs the phrase "putting guns on the street", when discussing laws that restrict the rights of non-criminals to purchase and possess firearms, is likely (98%) a disingenuous stooge.

To them, every time an individual lawfully purchases a gun and puts it in his gun safe at home, he's just put another gun "on the street". The phrase has now been rendered meaningless, which, of course, guarantees that it will continue to be a favorite of the Anti-Gun Bigot Brigade (Crowley, Rosenthal, Menino, etc.) for years to come.

Meaningful concepts such as freedom, liberty, self defense, limited government, personal responsibility, and the swift incarceration of violent criminals are rather lost on them.


Blog Comment of the Day

From Hot Air:

Obama doesn’t need to hunt. He simply waves his hand and pheasant fall from the sky… happily… and with hope in their hearts.


New York Times Calls It

It's official. Set your calendars accordingly.


This RCOB Not Going Away Any Time Soon

The more I read that Michelle Obama quote from my previous post, the more infuriated I get, though not at her for saying what she said. What infuriates me, to no end, is that there are so many people in this country who can hear something like this coming from this cult leader's camp...

He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism.


...and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Can you imagine the magnitude of the shitstorm that would have followed, had Laura Bush declared during the 2004 campaign:

"George Bush is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. Docile complaince with this admistration's ideology will be mandatory. Disagreement with the ruling party will be vigorously discouraged in my husband's second term. George Bush will demand that you refrain from any such contrarian thought."


"Yes, but when Barack says it, it's so change-o-licious."

This is scary shit, kids.

We're talking real "Get on the train!" kind of stuff here.

But, then again, these are the same people who stand up and cheer (or faint and fall down) when their Messiah figure tells them all that he's coming to fix their souls.

The same people who break out into spontaneous applause upon witnessing their Savior blow a load of snot into a tissue. Though, in that case, I can see their point. People have been asking him for some time to offer up some substance.

The same people who can look at Obama's proposal to take nearly a TRILLION dollars from American taxpayers and hand it over to the United Nations, to "fight poverty", and say, "Sounds great! What could possibly go wrong?"

Why won't this empty suit just come out and say, straight up, that he wants to dismantle the Republic, declare the Constitution null and void (well, at least the parts he finds objectionable), and start over again from scratch, with him and his disciples running the show?

Because, if there's a revolution coming, I'd like at least a 48-hour advance notification.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Don't you dare talk about voting against, or you'll be a racist.


Thursday, February 21, 2008

Got Milk Authoritarianism?

Michelle Obama:

Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.


Barack can kiss my ass.


Give Us This Day Our Daily PSH...

From Helen Hocknell, Editor-in-Chief of The New Hampshire, the student publication of the University of New Hampshire (the same academic breeding ground that spawned our esteemed State Representative Nickolas "I'm Interested in Stalking and Shooting Republicans" Levasseur), comes this predictable bit of crystal ball gazing.

On the topic of allowing college students with concealed carry permits to carry their weapons on the campus at UNH, she says...

As college students we are statistically more likely to binge drink and suffer from depression or other mental illnesses than many other age demographics. I see bar fights turning into fatal shootouts, and a distressed student making a rash and irreversible decision to end their life - this is not a crowd of people I want to see armed.


Sorry, Helen, but we're talking about people who are already armed. We're talking about people who have already been determined to be the most law-abiding of citizens, deemed responsible, in the eyes of the law, to carry defensive weapons they likely already own.

We're not talking about handing out guns to everyone when they show up for freshman orientation. Your prophecy of "Blood in the lecture halls!" is nothing more than the latest installment in the endless string of fantasy-based "Wild West" scenarios, which have been regurgitated to no end by every gun-grabber in the history of gun-grabbing.

Keep planting those seeds. Let me know when you get fruit.

As to your claim that affording people the right to defend themselves will lead to shootouts in bars, I'll say this. You do have a point, though I suspect it's not quite the point you were trying to make.

Compare and Contrast:

April 2007: Uptown Tavern - Manchester, NH (gun-freedom zone)

MANCHESTER – Bullets flew outside the Uptown Tavern early yesterday when a peeved patron began shooting at a doorman after being thrown out of the club. The shooter himself was shot twice by an armed customer who rushed to the bouncer's defense, a club owner and police said.


February 2006: Puzzles Lounge - New Bedford, MA (gun-free zone)

Police continued their hunt late today for an armed suspect who shot two people and slashed another inside a popular gay nightclub.

The incident occurred about midnight inside the Puzzles Lounge on North Front Street. A bartender, who asked that his name not be used because he feared for his life, said a man armed with a hatchet, a machete, and a handgun attacked patrons before he fled the bar.


But, I digress.

Ms. Hocknell's editorial, as entertaining as it is in its failure to recognize reality, pales in comparison to some of the readers comments submitted thereto.

If I need someone to save me from a homicidal maniac then I'll take my chances with the police and thank my lucky stars that some would-be hero can't carry on campus.


Um...no.

You'd be taking your chances with the homicidal maniac, relying on his mercy for your very existence. The police will be the ones drawing the chalk outline around your corpse long after the bullets have stopped flying.

And, from the resident weapons "expert":

Having a 9 mm handgun for self protection is one thing, but should larger caliber semi-automatic or automatic weapons (like those that were used at Columbine and Virginia Tech), pump action shotguns (Columbine and Northern Illinois), or fully automatic assault rifles (the North Hollywood shootout) be available to everybody? I don't think so.


As good as that one is, however, I'm giving the gold star to Becca.

People kill, with guns.
Guns kill.
Guns are inherently violent.
More guns will not decrease violence.
Less guns will.
inherently.


A veritable René Descartes, that one is.

Commenter Jeff sums it up nicely.

Behold the failure to learn critical thinking skills


"Thinking is for the scary real world. We like to feeeeeeeel our way through life."


Wednesday, February 20, 2008

File Under: Least Likely to Reoffend

Gun Control: Because the right of a convicted/registered sex offender to rape a couple women, after breaking in their home at 3:00 in the morning and tying them up, is more sacred that the right of their next-door neighbor to prevent him from doing so.

A Brighton man shot and killed a 44-year-old registered sex offender who attacked two women in their home early this morning, officials said.


Highly unnecessary sidenote: This was in Brighton, Tennessee, not the Allston/Brighton neighborhood of Meninostan, where rapists' rights are still respected and preserved.

(link via Say Uncle: Nice Shot)


No Surprises Here

With each and every Hillary Clinton primary defeat, I know I feel a lot better about the future.


Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Quote of the Day

From the Must-Read Post of the Day.

Blaming late 20th century warming on fossil fuel burning was just an opportunity for these religionists to try to impose restrictions on economic activity, and in that way “save the planet” from human encroachment. Global warming alarmism never did have anything to do with climatology.

If only the sun had stayed aboil for one more solar cycle, the religionists would have succeeded. When the inevitable cooling did come, it would still pull the curtain off of their global warming hoax, but by then it would be too late. Economic restrictions would already be fixed in place, under UN bodies that the religionists control.

Alas, it was not to be. The fake bride was almost to the altar, but mother nature put her foot down on the bridal veil, leaving the hairy ogre standing in front of the congregation in his stuffed bra and BVDs. Fake minister Al Gore must be furious, but to no effect. Their game is up.


It pretty much mirrors what I wrote here just five days ago.

It was no accident.

And, stay tuned for more and more cries of apocalyptic doom, each one scarier than the previous one. It's the only way they can scare enough people to successfully advance their agenda (global socialism and a tax on rich countries to be filtered through the sticky-fingered sieve we call the UN).

If Al Gore and his disciples fail in getting their Save the Earth agenda ratified, and the earth enters its next cooling phase (with no "help" from the Carbon Taxation Society), they'll be all washed up.

Until the Global Freezing movement ramps up.

Again.




(link via Traction Control)


Monday, February 18, 2008

Non Compos Mentis

How does this sound for a headline for tomorrow's paper?

NH State Rep and Obama backer wants to kill Republicans

Well, here are a couple MySpace pages featuring our favorite New Hampshire state legislator, Nickolas Levasseur, or Rep. Nikoli, as he likes to be called in cyber-world. First, this one with a picture of him standing next to his childhood hero, Barack Obama.

Note the John Quincy Adams quote, age/location info, and MySpace user ID (39495626).

(click to enlarge)


Then, there's this one, (my personal favorite) where we learn a little more about what makes Representative Levasseur tick. Same MySpace user ID (39495626). Same bio info. Same John Quincy Adams quote. Same guy.

(click to enlarge)

My Interests

Medicine, biology, mathematics, anything that doesn't involve Organic Chemistry, cars that don't begin with "Ford" and end with "Aspire", HBO series, Bill Mahar, politics, the hunting of neo-conservative Reaganites (a shooting sport brought to you by the republican party in more ways than one!), sleeping (it is sad when necessary life takes become occational hobbies).


Nice.

Very nice.

A pro-gun rights New Hampshire resident decides to get involved in the political process and sends Levasseur an e-mail asking him to clarify a statement he made while serving in his capacity as a state representative, and Levasseur threatens to report him to the authorities for his "threatening" and "harassing" behavior.

All the while, Levasseur's MySpace profile page lists as one of his interests the "hunting of neo-conservative Reaganites", by use of firearms.

Well, he got one thing right the other day, while offering his comments on House Bill 1354. He does have "issues".

Forget about the good people of New Hampshire, Levasseur isn't fit to serve Happy Meals. Who voted for this intellectual powerhouse?

Or, as Uncle would ask, why are anti-gun activists so violent?


Pantsuit on Fire

HILLARY, THE HUNTRESS

Hillary Clinton, the huntress? Yup.

The New York senator was trying to reassure voters in a Wisconsin sausage joint, the Brat Stop, this afternoon that "no lawful gunowner has anything to worry about" from her with gun control, and let on that she’d chambered more than a few rounds in her time.


You see? She's really on our side. We'd have nothing to worry about. Unless, you know, we actually want to maintain possession of our guns.

"You know you may not believe it, but I’ve actually gone hunting," she said to some surprise and laughter. "I know, you may not believe it, but it’s true. My father taught me to shoot a hundred years ago."

Well, well. We wondered, did she have any hunting tales to tell? Did she ever shoot anything?

"A duck," she answered a bit later in a press availability. "And a lot of tin cans, and a lot of targets, and some skeet."


mAss Backwards - June 2005:

I'll tell you this much. Hillary (or whoever the Dem nomination turns out to be) had better start getting in some serious practice at the skeet shooting range if she wants to be in true John Kerry-like form for the 2008 presidential race. For my money, that would be the most entertaining part of the campaign - listening to Hillary explain how she's on the side of the nation's gun owners (and you thought Kerry looked ridiculous in those hunting photo-ops with his fresh-off-the-rack L.L. Bean barn jacket).


Show me a voter who doesn't think she'd be entirely hostile toward the rights of gun owners, were she to move into the Oval Office, and I'll show you someone with the cognitive capacity of sand.


How the Other Side Thinks Feels

Speaking out in support of HB1354, the bill that would deny New Hampshire residents the right to self-defense while doing business in the State House or Legislative Office Building, New Hampshire State Representative Nickolas Levasseur had this to say:

The only problem I have with this bill is that it only bans handguns in the Legislative Office Building and the State House. I have personal issues with handguns in general, which compels me to [you know] be in favor of this bill.

Handguns are, after all, only designed to harm other human beings. They have no other use.


The source for these quotes is the video recording of Thursday's executive session of the House Legislative Administration Committee (Part 1). I transcribed the audio as best I could, given the low sound levels of the recording, and placed in brackets the part I couldn't make out clearly or recall from memory.

I'm bringing this up, because one of my readers sent Representaive Levasseur the following e-mail requesting that he clarify the meaning of the above statement.

Mr. Levasseur,

After hearing your comments in regards to HB 1354 I have to wonder if you were joking around or if you simply that ignorant of firearms.

Your quote is italicized below.

"The only problem I have with this bill is that it only bans handguns in the Legislative Office Building and the State House. I have personal issues with handguns in general, which compels me to, you know, be in favor of this bill.

[...snip...]

Handguns are, after all, only designed to harm other human beings. They have no other use"


It’s alarming that an elected official is voting on an issue that he knows absolutely nothing about.

Please let me know if your comments were tongue in cheek or if that is how you feel about firearms.

If it is the latter I would be more than happy to educate you on firearms and their practical uses in hopes of keeping you from looking like a complete buffoon in front of your colleagues and the people you represent.

Derek [xxxxx]


Levasseur's response:

Mr. [xxxxx],

While the transcript is not completely accurate, it does communicate properly my stance on this issue. While I do see many legitimate uses for firearms in general, I can see none for handguns in particular. Hey are designed for one purpose and one purpose alone; the harm of another human being. Whether one wishes to harm malevolently or defensively, the intent is harm. I am very well informed on this issue and do not require any “education” (in whatever sense you mean).

On the subject of education, I believe that you would be well served by being tutored in several subjects. Perhaps a lesson on the purpose of civilized discourse or the purpose of representative democracy would be beneficial, or perhaps simply a course on manners. You see, it is a simple fact that people do not always agree. To the contrary, they more frequently do not. Even when around friends, as I was in the committee hearing, we might find ourselves in disagreement. This is not a problem or even a bad thing. However, when we cross the line from opinion to insult, from debate to harassment, then we lose what is best in ourselves and our system. If you wish to have an honest and open debate about the value of handguns versus their harm to society, I welcome it. However, if you wish to dishonor and degrade yourself by using insulting language and threatening tones, then I will not be part of it. While I do not agree with you on this particular issue, I have a responsibility to maintain the honor and dignity of the seat I hold, and I will not disgrace it by getting into a mud pitching battle.

I have to say that I find your comments to me to be at best dishonorable and at worst threatening. While I do not intend any further action, I am compelled to forward this and all other messages of this nature to the House Sergeant-at-Arms.

Representative Nickolas J. Levasseur
Hillsborough District 11- Manchester


Wow. Where to begin?

I guess I'll start by sharing the e-mail I sent to Mr. Levasseur addressing his earlier comments as well as his response to Derek's e-mail. It pretty much says it all.

Mr. Levasseur:

I am writing you to address an e-mail that you sent an acquaintance of mine, Derek [xxxxx], in response to an e-mail he sent you asking you to clarify something you said during last Thursday's executive session concerning House Bill 1345.

That e-mail exchange is as follows:

[e-mails from above cut & pasted here - ed.]

There's a video of that meeting posted on YouTube.com if you want to check it out for yourself. I don't think Mr. [xxxxx] or myself would want to be accused of misquoting anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbANWVlwXuU

First, given your statement about handguns having "no other use" than to harm other human beings, and the emphasis with which you delivered that statement on Thursday afternoon, it goes without saying that you're more than slightly uninformed on this topic.

Small caliber handguns, both revolvers and semiautomatics (most commonly chambered in .22 Long Rifle), are used everyday in this country for recreational target shooting, or plinking.

Medium caliber handguns, both revolvers and semiautomatics (chambered in .38 special, 9mm, .45ACP) are widely used in competitive and exhibition shooting events across the country.

Large caliber handguns, again, both revolvers and semiautomatics, as well as single-shot models (chambered in .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .480 Ruger, .454 Casull, .500 S&W), are used quite frequently for hunting big game (elk, bear, and moose) throughout North America, as well.

Also, handguns of many different makes and models are used every day by law-abiding Americans in self-defense situations where no shots are fired, and NO ONE is harmed, not the bad guy or the intended victim.

However, according to your earlier statement, handguns are simply not suitable for hunting, recreational, competition, or any other non-injurious purposes. Such an assertion is, of course, indisputably and demonstrably false. Yet, when Mr. [xxxxx] called into question your lack of knowledge on this subject, you dismisses the argument, telling him that's merely his "opinion".

Based on your comments on Thursday, whether or not you are woefully ignorant on the topic of lawful handgun use in modern American society is simply not subject to debate here.

Second, and this one's a classic, you seem to be implying that there's no moralistic difference between harm brought upon another through a malevolent act and harm brought upon another through a defensive action. Both are inherently bad, and equally deplorable in your eyes.

I'm sorry, Mr. Levasseur, but, if some disturbed, homicidal maniac opens fire in a shopping mall, movie theater, city park or government building where I'm conducting business with my wife and children, and directly threatens my family with malevolent harm, you can bet the farm I'll be doing everything I can to dispense an equal or greater amount of defensive harm in return until that threat is neutralized.

And, I would do so with a clean conscience, and without compromising my moral values one iota.

The way I see it, either way, someone's going to get "harmed".

How could any educated person with half a shred of human decency in his body, say that the preferable outcome would be one in which the harmed party consists of my wife and daughters, and not the homicidal maniac in question?

Why is it that people like you insist that those with no respect for the law or the well-being of others enjoy a monopoly on the dispensation of harm?

At Northern Illinois University (and in pretty much every "gun-free zone" shooting in our country's history), that monopoly was shared by a homicidal maniac and armed local law enforcement agents. That arrangement really worked out well, huh?

Lastly, I ask you, who's threatening whom here?

You then accuse Mr. [xxxxx] of harassing and threatening you (a claim I find to be ludicrous at best), and then you threaten to forward his rather innocuous correspondence to House officials, for no other reason, apparently, than to intimidate him and flex what authoritative muscle you think you possess.

Nothing he wrote even comes close to constituting even perceived threats or harassment. I've read his e-mail several times now, and the worst part I can see is where Mr. [xxxxx] suggests you get educated about firearms a little more before pontificating fruitlessly on the subject, lest you end up, and I quote, "looking like a complete buffoon".

I'll say this, if calling an elected representative of the people, or other government official, a "buffoon" were to fulfill the legal definition of "threatening", I'd have been locked up years ago.

My guess - please tell me I'm just being paranoid here - is that you were planning on offering additional testimony in support of HB1354, citing all these "threatening" and "harassing" e-mails you've received from us "gun nuts" as evidence of the need for this bill to become law.

At least, now, if you were to try to do something as ridiculous and disingenuous as that in the near future, we'd all know what definition of "threatening" you were using - the one that includes the phrases "hurt my feelings" and "exposed my intellectual and philosophical shortcomings".

Now, if you would care to point out to me those elements of Mr. [xxxxx]'s e-mail that you found to be harassing or threatening, I'd greatly appreciate it. I'm still trying to find them.

Oh, one more thing. I honestly don't care, at all, what "personal issues" you have with "handguns in general". That's your problem, not mine. If you need to hire a psychiatrist or two to help you come to terms with your fear of inanimate objects, then so be it.

But, since you seem intent on using your "personal issues" as a legislative tool for depriving me of my constitutional right to keep myself and my family safe, I will now be doing everything I can, within the bounds of the law, to see you removed from office as soon as possible for this blatant disregard for the rights and liberties of the people whom you are supposed to represent.

That, sir, is not a threat.

It's a promise.

Bruce [last name]


Of course, any response received will be posted here in its entirety.


Sunday, February 17, 2008

Nanny State Dems Still Trying to Kill NH (vol. 23)

Make no mistake about it. These people represent are a cancer that will take over and destroy this beautiful state unless we take action and get them voted out of office at the first available opportunity.


The cigar tax: Burning down the house


DAVID GAROFALO of Londonderry, owner of the Two Guys Smoke Shop chain, moved his shop from Boston across the state line to Salem after Massachusetts put him out of business with a cigar tax in 1996. Now New Hampshire is about to do it to him again.

"In 1996, Massachusetts was going to pass a tax on cigars from zero to 15 percent. As the biggest retail store in Boston at the time, I said you are going to force me to move," he said.

"They did it, we moved up here to Salem, N.H., and our business thrived."

Massachusetts doubled that tax to 30 percent in 2002, and Garofalo's business increased again.

Having no tax on cigars is helping New Hampshire's economy. There are 27 cigar shops in the state, store owners say. And more are on the way. Garofalo plans to open one in Nashua in April. But not if House Bill 1510 passes.

"We will be out of business the day before the tax goes into place. That's a promise. We can't pay it."

HB 1510 bill would impose a 60 percent tax on the wholesale price of all cigars. You read that right: 60 percent.

The tax would apply to all inventory, not just each cigar sold. So a dealer such as Garofalo, with an 8,500-square-foot store and thousands of cigars in stock, would suddenly have to hand tens of thousands of dollars to the state for the privilege of continuing to do business.

Roy Kirby, a former employee of Garofalo's, opened a Two Guys Smoke Shop in Seabrook. He took out a loan on his home to open the 3,000-square-foot store. He cannot afford to pay a 60 percent tax on his inventory, he said.

"I'll go bankrupt and be out on the street," he said.

New Hampshire cigar shops thrive on business from Massachusetts residents who come here to buy their cigars or stop on the way to or from other attractions such as skiing or hiking. A 60 percent tax would push the price of cigars sold here higher than the price of those sold in Massachusetts, with its 30 percent cigar tax and 5 percent sales tax.

New Hampshire cigar shops are booming because the absence of a sales or cigar tax gives them a competitive advantage over their Massachusetts counterparts. This is the very definition of the New Hampshire Advantage.

And yet legislators are proposing to hand that advantage to Massachusetts cigar shops. Many, if not most, New Hampshire shops would immediately go out of business. The additional revenue legislators hoped to soak from them, as well as the business tax revenue they currently generate, would disappear with them.

It is our Legislature's job to protect the New Hampshire Advantage, not destroy it. If legislators continue to attack businesses of which they disapprove, they will soon find the state even shorter on cash, and on businesses from which to extract it.


Oh, no! Local businesses are thriving! More companies are choosing to relocate to New Hampshire. New Hampshire residents are finding gainful employment as a result of it! And, families are running the "risk" having more disposable income!

AAAAGHHH!!!

This must be stopped at once!!!

UPDATE: From the NH General Court website (with links added to provide contact info for the sponsors of this horrendous bill)...

HOUSE BILL 1510-FN-A

AN ACT redefining tobacco products and increasing the tax on tobacco products other than cigarettes.

SPONSORS: Rep. W. Chase, Ches 1; Rep. E. Merrick, Coos 2

COMMITTEE: Ways and Means

ANALYSIS

This bill redefines tobacco products for purposes of the tobacco tax and increases the tax on tobacco products other than cigarettes.

The bill also establishes a tobacco use prevention and cessation program fund and designates the increase in the tax on tobacco products other than cigarettes to such fund.


Because some things bear repeating...

Behold, the biggest load of crap ever to be smeared over the eyes of a public all to willing to lap this shit up - this "promise" that a small tax of X percent is needed to fund program Z, a program which, without fail will be geared toward helping The ChildrenTM, feeding homeless kittens, saving the planet from a fiery death, or whatever the PC cause celebre du jour happens to be at the time.

After a year's time (well beyond the memory capacity of the average voter) that X percent tax will become X+Y percent, and when the voters are told that this tax increase will be needed to offset budget shortfalls brought on by Programs A, B, and C, no one will so much as bat an eye.

And, why should they? None of them will even remember what Program Z was in the first place.


And, I'm tempted to call this so-called fiscal analysis of theirs a ragged old sack full of goose droppings, but that would only be insulting to goose droppings. And ragged old sacks.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Department of Revenue Administration has determined this bill will increase state general fund unrestricted revenue by $426,787 and state restricted revenue by $4,468,000 in FY 2009 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on county and local revenues or state, county, and local expenditures.


So, by taxing these local companies out of business, putting their employees out of work, and driving all their customers into Massachusetts for their tobacco products, the state will miraculously rake in an extra five million bucks a year.

Step 1: Steal underpants.


Friday, February 15, 2008

...In Three Words or Less

Waiting to die.

Boy, if only there was a mandatory waiting period in Illinois for the purchase of hand...

Oh, wait.

Never mind.


What Would You Do?

Yeah, yeah, I know. Not another "what would you do" post. Sheesh.

Hey, humor me. It's Friday.

Scenario:

You're in a clothing store inside a shopping mall with your wife and kids (or a group of friends, for you single types). It's the middle of the day, on the weekend, and the mall is filled with shoppers.

Suddenly, you hear what sounds like gunfire coming from somewhere in the mall. You look out the door of the store you're in and see a crowd of people screaming and running in every direction in sheer panic.

There's no way to know where the gunshots are coming from, exactly, how close the shooter is, or in what direction he might be moving. There's no fire exit in the store you're in. There is an office in the back, but it's locked because the manager is out on her lunch break.

You have a .38 in your jacket pocket, loaded with five rounds, a cell phone, and a folding pocket knife.

What would you do?

UPDATE 2/16:
Well, that's odd. There wasn't a single response that included the phrase "play Rambo", or any that involved a victim-filled crossfire zone. That's what we'd all do, according to those who don't believe in allowing people to defend themselves and their kids from violent sociopaths.

To them, we're all just a bunch of trigger-happy rednecks, just itchin' to unload in a public place, regardless of the consequences.

It's interesting, though surprising to no one here, how all the responses boiled down to taking cover if escape wasn't possible, calling 911 to provide the police with information, and using the firearm as a last resort option, only when under direct threat.

Why, it's almost as if the delusional, bleeding-heart members of the Insufferable Gun Ban Society have no idea what they're talking about.

Who knew?


Rule #1 Violators In the News

Seems a couple scumbags in Texas brought knives to a gunfight.

Police said one man is in the hospital after an elderly North Texas man took action into his own hands when confronted by two armed brothers inside his home Saturday night.

Police said they believe the brothers went to 80-year-old James Pickett's home with the intent to rob him, and even possibly kill him. However, Pickett - a World War II veteran, former fighter and lifelong John Wayne devotee - wasn't about to let that happen.

It all began Saturday night when Pickett said he opened his door and two men barged inside.

"He just come through that door stabbing and beating," he said.

However, Pickett said just before he went to answer the door, he had first placed a pistol into his pocket.

"And he jumped and turned, and I shot him there," he said.

The two brothers, Paul and Holden Perry, ran, but didn't get far before calling an ambulance. One of the bullets just missed Paul Perry's spine.

"He's my hero," said one neighbor of Pickett.

"Well, I ain't got no business being a hero, by no means," he said.

Both brothers face assault, burglary and robbery charges. Deputies assured Pickett they aren't likely to get out of jail anytime soon. However, he didn't seem that worried anyhow.

"I think I'm a ten times better shot than he is," he said. "... But, they best not come back."


GUN CONTROL: Because the right of a couple scumbags to break into an 80-year-old man's house and murder him by stabbing him repeatedly in the head is more sacrosanct than the right of the 80-year-old man to prevent them from doing so.

The money quote from this story comes from the WFAA anchor reporting on the story in this "must-see TV" video clip.

...and tonight, one of the suspects is in the hospital.


OK, it's not much on paper, so to speak, but watch the clip to see and hear the smile on her face and the sheer happiness in her voice when she delivers that line.

Priceless.

Also, check out the handcannon our hero used to send the little bitches screaming out the door.

Yep. That's a .22 Mini-Revolver from NAA.

Rule #1: Bring a gun.


HB1354 - House Committee Executive Session

Finally got the video up. Here's part 1 of 2. with subtitles added (as best I could) for some of the good parts.



Suffice to say, the bill's only supporter on the committee, Representative Nickolas Levasseur, is woefully ignorant on the topic of handguns and their legitimate usage by law-abiding citizens.

I'll have more to say about him later, I'm sure.

The sound quality isn't the best, but I'm offering a money back guarantee for anyone unhappy with my production work.

UPDATE: Here's part 2 of 2.


Thursday, February 14, 2008

Stop Me If You've Heard This One Before

Five dead at Northern Illinois University outside Chicago.

Perhaps, if the "Gun-Free Zone" signs had been posted in 167 different languages and dialects.

Using a larger font size.

In bright, vibrant colors.

Bold and underscored.

With pretty pictures.

Because, someone hell-bent of mass murder and suicide really gives a flying you-know-what about the University's feel-good, do nothing, "No Icky Guns Allowed" policy, or the State's feel-good, do-nothing "Guns Are Bad (for Commoners)" gun laws.

Morality can be legislated.

Animals can be reasoned with.

And, the tooth fairy is real.


Another Battle Won

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

By a margin of 9-1, the New Hampshire House Legislative Administration Committee voted this afternoon to ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) HB1354, the bill that would have barred the carrying of firearms by law-abiding, licensed individuals in the New Hampshire State House and Legislative Office Building.

I will be posting the video of today's Executive Session meeting, including the comments made by the one dissenting committee member, later on this evening. Stay tuned.

Related posts here.


Speak Softly...

...and carry a big stick double-barrel shotgun.


Chocolate Ammo

When you care enough to send the very best.

Note: Please buy fake ammo for your loved one only on this silly, made-up holiday we call Valentine's Day. For the remaining 364 days of the year, real ammo only, please.


Wednesday, February 13, 2008

But, Of Course!

Cold wave in India attributed to global warming

UPDATE: OK, when can we start rounding up some of these people and having them involuntarily committed before they hurt themselves?

Global warming is now being cited as the cause of death of the Loch Ness Monster.

After I posted that first link, I was thinking of starting a contest asking readers to submit their most outrageous "_________ Caused by Global Warming" headline, but now I see that any such effort would be pointless.

You simply can't top the crap that's already out there.


Most Predictable Oscar Snub Ever

I just finished watching my freshly-burned DVD of Evan Coyne Maloney's latest, Indoctrinate U., which I downloaded yesterday in conjunction with the filmmaker's free offer for bloggers who want to post a review of the film.

All participants in this promotion have agreed to postpone publishing their reviews until the end of the blogger review program is announced, so you'll have to wait to read mine. Maybe a viewing party/range trip for folks in the area is called for.

Here's the trailer, if you haven't seen it already.



Stay tuned.


Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Reader Survey - B.M.W. Awards

Who's the Biggest Moron of the Week?

Barack Obama's Houston campaign workers

Oh, my. Barack Obama may want to call his new Houston office and suggest some decorating ideas. Take a look at the flag flying in the office at the moment:

No, that's not a Texas state flag with a picture of Obama on it. It's the flag of the Castro-led Cuba regime, with Che Guevara's face superimposed on the side. A Fox report from Houston captured this image as it showed Obama supporters celebrating his momentum after Super Tuesday.


Chelsea Clinton

She also noted that her mom, as she referred to Hillary Clinton throughout the question and answer session, was the "most fiscally conservative candidate running" and "the only candidate who tells you how she'll pay for everything."


This 13-year-old kid from Roseville in California

It's an age-old childhood prank that has taken a very dangerous turn. It's called Doorbell Ditch - where kids ring the doorbell and then usually just run away. Police say some kids have added a potentially deadly twist to the prank: a fake gun.

When Roseville resident Brian Stark opened his door Sunday night, he found a 13-year-old boy pointing a gun in his face.


Michael Bloomberg

"Terrorists kill people. Weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill an enormous amount of people," Mr. Bloomberg told reporters after addressing the U.N. General Assembly, but "global warming in the long term has the potential to kill everybody."


With four such stellar candidates vying for the honor of Biggest Moron of the Week, this one promises to be a close race.

Who is the Biggest Moron of the Week?
Obama's Houston-based Che Guevara Fan Club
Chelsea Clinton
The dipshit kid with the Airsoft
Michael Bloomberg
Free polls from Pollhost.com


Voting will be open until I feel like not paying attention any longer.


Monday, February 11, 2008

Continuing the Theme

Did you know that a landmine kept in the home is 43 times more likely to blow up a family member or acquaintance than it is to blow up a Humvee full of infidels?

A landmine blew up in the home of a religious cleric in southern Afghanistan, killing the mullah, two of his sons and two other men who had been preparing an attack, police said today.


So sad.


It Must Be True

A baseball bat kept in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to bludgeon a family member or acquaintance than it is to be used in a game of baseball.

I read it on the internet.


Quick Question

Am I supposed to know, or care, who Amy Winehouse is?


Sunday, February 10, 2008

Quote of the Year - Rabid PSH Edition

This one comes from (who else?) New Hampshire State Representative Eleanor Kjellman, via part 3 of 3 in the Ridley Report's video coverage of the HB1354 hearing that took place last Tuesday.

(parts 1 and 2 are here and here)



Rep. Kjellman:

I think that many people...[garbled]...we're gonna be overwhelmed by the well-organized gun owners. They've all gotten the e-mails from the gun people. They've all gotten the, you know, cries about the Constitution, et cetera, and...which I totally reject.


Setting aside the immeasurably offensive nature of such a comment, here's what makes that one of the most arrogant and hypocritical things I've heard come out of a politician's mouth in along time.

From Rep. Kjellman's own webpage:

Political Experience

Elected treasurer of Merrimack County Democratic Committee, then Secretary, and currently Vice-Chair, doing grass-roots organizing, encouraging others to participate in the democratic process. Currently serving on the bi-partisan Henniker Route 114 Development study sub-committee of the Henniker Planning Board. An active participant in the New Hampshire primary process.


Yes, in her deluded little corner of the universe, engaging in grassroots efforts to encourage others to participate in the democratic process can only be done by people who agree with her.

When her side does it, it's democracy.

When our side dies it, it's just a bunch of crazy "gun people" babbling about this outdated concept of Constitutionally-protected rights and individual liberty. That she belittles and demeans so readily our grassroots efforts speaks volumes as to where her head is at.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Merrimack County Democratic Committee uses e-mail distribution lists to send messages to its members, alerting them of pending legislation and the public hearings related thereto.

You know, just like those nasty "gun people" do.

This woman is something else. I'm trying real hard to keep my commentary here on a civil plane. After all, I wouldn't want to be accused of trying to threaten or intimidate anyone with any imprudent choice of words.

Oh, speaking of threats, be sure to watch the ending of that clip, where Dave talks about Kjellman's threat to have her son (a Army Reservist, who spent a year in Iraq) hack his website if his coverage of her fails to portray her in a light she deems favorable.

Very nice.

(previous posts on HB1354 here, here and here)

UPDATE: Robb Allen suggests in the comments that by only posting the first half of the quote, it might leave the reader with a false impression of what she was trying to say. I see it as her clearly saying she rejects the "cries about the Constitution", not the constitution itself. Though that interpretation wouldn't be too far off the mark, as far as I'm concerned.

So in the interest of fairness, here's the full transcription (as best I can do) of what she had to say in that portion of the interview.

I think that many people...[garbled]...we're gonna be overwhelmed by the well-organized gun owners. They've all gotten the e-mails from the gun people. They've all gotten the, you know, cries about the Constitution, et cetera, and...which I totally reject. This is...I don't believe that this is an unconstitutional, um, bill. The, um...many, many statehouses have similar bills, and they're constitutional. It's con... You know, it's not against the second amendment to, uh...


There you go.


Thursday, February 07, 2008

Yep...Another "Gun-Free Zone" Shooting

Gunman Opens Fire at Missouri City Council Meeting

KIRKWOOD, Mo. -- A gunman opened fire at a city council meeting in this St. Louis suburb Thursday night, hitting the mayor and several city officials, a newspaper reported. There are reports that six people, including two police officers, have been killed.

Police shot the gunman, who had hit Kirkwood Mayor Mike Swoboda, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which had a reporter at the meeting.

Also shot were a police officer, council members Michael H.T. Lynch and Connie Karr, and Public Works Director Kenneth Yost, said the reporter, Janet McNichols.

The victims were taken to St. John's Mercy Hospital, but Kirkwood police told The Associated Press no one was available to provide information. St. Louis County police did not return several calls.

The reporter said the 7 p.m. meeting had just started when the gunman rushed into the council chambers yelling and opened fire with at least one weapon. He started yelling "shoot the mayor" while walking around and firing, hitting a police officer first, the reporter said.


"You see, you don't need to be armed in here. We have armed police officers in here to protect you."

Note, that is the same "logic" being used by NH State Representative Eleanor Kjellman in her quest to disarm everyone visiting the State House in Concord. The shooter knew that the biggest threat to his ability to carry out his murderous rampage was the presence of another armed individual. And, since that person was a police officer, and not a citizen carrying a concealed weapon, he was an easy target for a the shooter to identify and shoot at first.

Yet, she would have you believe that a "welcome desk" with a sign-in sheet and a "No Guns Allowed" sign would have prevented such a violent act from taking place.

Yeah, on her home planet maybe. Not here on Earth.

McNichols also said the shooter fired at the city attorney, who tried to fight off the attacker by throwing chairs. The gunman then moved behind a desk where the council sits and fired at council members.


I'll bet that guy wished he had more than few pieces of furniture with which to defend himself.

Now, this next item will truly shock your socks off.

From the City of Kirkwood's PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS:

ARTICLE XIX - WORKPLACE VIOLENCE POLICY

Overview:

The City of Kirkwood is concerned about the increased violence in society, which has also filtered into many workplaces throughout the United States, and has taken steps to help prevent incidents of violence from occurring at the City. In this connection, it is the policy of the City to expressly prohibit any acts or threats of violence by any City employee against any other employee in or about the City’s facilities or elsewhere at any time. The City also will not condone any acts or threats of violence against the City’s employees, customers or visitors on the City’s premises at any time or while they are engaged in business with or on behalf of the City, on or off the City’s premises.

Objectives:

In keeping with the spirit and intent of this policy, it is the stated commitment of the City of Kirkwood:

1. To provide a safe and healthful work environment;

2. To take prompt remedial action up to and including immediate termination, against any employee who engages in any threatening behavior or acts of violence or uses any obscene, abusive or threatening language or gestures;

3. To take appropriate action when dealing with customers, former employees or visitors to the City’s property who engage in such behavior. Such action may include notifying the police or other law enforcement personnel and prosecuting violators of this policy to the maximum extent of the law. The City intends to use all reasonable legal, managerial, administrative and disciplinary procedures to secure the workplace from violence and to reasonably protect employees from harm;

4. To prohibit employees, former employees, customers and visitors from bringing unauthorized firearms or other weapons onto the City’s premises; and

5. To establish a procedure for reporting a complaint of workplace violence and investigating any complaint of workplace violence.


Well, that all worked just swimmingly, didn't it?

I'm sure they'll be mentioning the "gun-free zone" aspect of this story on the Today Show tomorrow morning. Just like I'm sure my "Get rich quick by shitting gold bars" plan will be coming to fruition soon.

UPDATE: More from CNN.com:

The shootings began shortly after 7 p.m. just outside the Kirkwood City Hall when a man approached a police officer in the parking lot of the Kirkwood police station and fatally shot him, Panus said. The officer died at the scene.

The suspect then went into the City Council chambers and killed a second police officer before fatally shooting three city officials who were attending the meeting, Panus said.


Boy, if only they had a welcome desk with a sign-in sheet.

Gun Control: Because someone intent of murdering two police officers in cold blood would never contemplate stealing a firearm or buying one on the black market. That's illegal.

UPDATE II: Sailorcurt points out that City Council members are allowed to carry a concealed firearm with "a valid concealed carry endorsement", but that ordinary citizens, even if licensed to carry, are prohibited from doing so.

As for psychopathic, loonie-bin fruitballs who want to "go to war" with the city government? Well, I guess that particular ordinance doesn't apply.

UPDATE III: Here's the link to the city ordinance mentioned above. It lists all the "gun-free zones" in Kirkwood, most notably, for the purpose of this discussion:

Sec. 17‑132. Concealed weapons.

(a) No person who has been issued a concealed carry endorsement by the Missouri Director of Revenue under Section 571.094 R.S.Mo. or who has been issued a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state, shall, by authority of that endorsement or permit, be allowed to carry a concealed firearm or to openly carry a firearm into:

[...]

(4) Any meeting of the Kirkwood City Council, except that nothing in this subdivision shall preclude a member of the Kirkwood City Council, holding a valid concealed carry endorsement, from carrying a concealed firearm at a meeting of the City Council provided that it is not otherwise prohibited herein. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;


What do you know, the ordinance really does make no mention of psychopathic, loonie-bin fruitballs. It specifically outlaws the carrying of firearms by CCW permit holders only.

Nice.


Presented Without Commentary

I was going to wait until Dave had a chance to get Part 3 of 3 uploaded, but I couldn't hold off any longer. So, without further ado, here's New Hampshire State Representative Eleanor Kjellman displaying the kind of "logical" thinking we've come to expect from those who would take away our right to defend ourselves.



Part 1 of 3 can be seen here.

I'll post a link to Part 3 as soon as it's up. Dave says, "Prepare to be shocked by the ending." I don't know if he means "shocked" as in shocked, or "shocked" in the usage more commonly employed on this blog.

We shall see.


Score One For the Good Guys

N.H. House kills bottle, container tax

CONCORD — A proposed 1 cent tax on beverage containers in New Hampshire is dead.


Aw...shucks.

The extra penny per container would have been charged to wholesalers. The House voted it down Wednesday afternoon despite exemptions for milk, baby formula, wine and liquor. The tax would have applied to soda, juices and bottled water.

Supporters tried to pass the penny off as a small fee that would pay for programs to manage trash and for recycling efforts by the state and communities.


Behold, the biggest load of crap ever to be smeared over the eyes of a public all to willing to lap this shit up - this "promise" that a small tax of X percent is needed to fund program Z, a program which, without fail will be geared toward helping The ChildrenTM, feeding homeless kittens, saving the planet from a fiery death, or whatever the PC cause celebre du jour happens to be at the time.

After a year's time (well beyond the memory capacity of the average voter) that X percent tax will become X+Y percent, and when the voters are told that this tax increase will be needed to offset budget shortfalls brought on by Programs A, B, and C, no one will so much as bat an eye.

And, why should they? None of them will even remember what Program Z was in the first place.

Revenue from any statewide tax goes to one place only - the fund used to pay down the balance on the state's no-limit, taxpayer-funded Visa card. Where that money actually goes is solely dependent on the whims of those holding office at the time the next annual state budget gets hammered out.

"Pick up your bag from your household waste," said Bristol Republican Burton Williams. "What's mostly in there? Bottles, cans. That's the biggest part of what we're throwing away."

Williams said consumers are paying to throw away trash. The bill simply charges them before they throw, he said.

Opponents had none of it.

"We can put it in a dress. We can put it in a pair of pants, but make no mistake about it, it is a tax," said Londonderry Republican Sherman Packard.

Opponents said it wasn't fair to tax the beverage industry when its products are more likely to be recycled than many others. They said the tax would put New Hampshire businesses at a competitive disadvantage with those from nearby states.

"We don't need to do anything more to help business in other states competing against us," said Merrimack Republican Peyton Hinkle.


One would think.


Asshat Surrender Monkey of the Year

Yeah, I know it's only the first week of February, but I'm calling it.

No more entries, please.

I should preface this post by apologizing, in advance, to gopher cocks the world over for the commentary that follows the opening paragraph to the story linked below. I understand the important role they play in maintaining the world's gopher population, and I mean them no disrespect.

Meet Dr. Rowan Williams.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable" and that it would help maintain social cohesion.


Up yours, gopher cock.


Oh, Brother

Here's your daily dose of PSH, in case you were running low.

Contact 5 was given access to PBSO’s cache of weapons—all of which have been confiscated from criminals.

Sheriff Bradshaw says his men and women are simply being outgunned on the streets.

Most deputies are equipped with nine millimeter guns and when faced with the dangers on the street, they are seeing weapons of higher velocity—some even capable to pierce body-armor.


Of course, what they conveniently fail to mention is that they just described every centerfire rifle available to the general public. And, by labeling common hunting rifle ammunition as "body armor piercing bullets", they only improve their odds of getting an uneducated and easily manipulated electorate to go along with their next gun and/or ammo ban/restriction proposal.

And, trust me, there will always be a "next one".

Always.

Shannon: “You can buy these, body armor piercing bullets, at a gun show locally?”

Sheriff Bradshaw: “Oh absolutely.”

Shannon: “I can buy this at our local gun show?”

Sheriff Bradshaw: “You can buy any of those--a bullet is a bullet.”

This means anyone, even a team of Contact Five Investigators, with no training, and no license to carry a gun can buy bullets—lots of them.

When we stopped by a local gun show in December we spotted the dangerous bullets the sheriff told us about.


Wow! I've got some of these "dangerous" bullets just sitting on a shelf in my closet upstairs. I should go back to the gun shop where I bought them and demand a refund, as they're obviously defective. I haven't heard so much as a peep out of 'em, let alone see them kill anyone.

We paid for hundreds of rounds of ammunition and walked right out the door--without ever being questioned.


Did you then use that ammunition to shoot up a liquor store to show how easy it is to murder and rob people without having to get a state-issued license to do so?

No?

Why's that?

Oh, yeah. Because law-abiding people abide by the law.

I keep forgetting.

REFRESHER COURSE FOR SLOW LEARNERS:

1. A drug-dealing gangbanger behind bars cannot buy so much as a bag of beef jerky at a gun show.

2. A rapist shot dead by a would-be victim will not re-offend. Ever.

3. A violent criminal walking the streets armed with a pocketknife is an immeasurably greater threat to public safety than a law-abiding citizen with a safe full of scary-looking semiautomatic rifles and handguns.

4. Any politician who advocates for the disarming of the American people (Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, Feinstein, Giuliani, Romney, et al) is, by definition, aligning himself or herself on the side of the aforementioned gangbangers, rapists, and violent criminals.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to go out and pick up a hundred or so more rounds of "body armor piercing bullets". Just to make Hillary cry.

Again.


What's Wrong With This Picture?

With the costs of Massachusetts' new healthcare scam skyrocketing, as anyone with half a brain could have predicted years ago, the "progressive" leaders on Beacon Hill are now looking at increasing the tax burden (once again) on Bay State smokers to help pay for it.

The state's top two legislative leaders, faced with the prospect of soaring costs for the healthcare initiative, are considering raising the cigarette tax as one of several funding and cost-cutting strategies.

Both House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray said a tax increase would be discussed as they look for ways to ensure that the universal health insurance initiative succeeds.

Healthcare advocates have proposed a $1 per pack tax increase that would raise an estimated $152 million a year, according to an analysis by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington advocacy group. Neither DiMasi nor Murray, who spoke in separate interviews Monday, has endorsed that specific proposal.



Ignore, for one second, the completely asinine reasoning behind this that says "Smoke more, get less healthy, so we can pay for your healthcare!".

This tax hike would have the most negative impact on the poor, minority population, as well as those individuals who earn a portion of their income by selling cigarettes. Now, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids might have the best of intentions here, but they would have you believe that bumping the price of a carton of smokes up by $10 won't result in even more people driving up to New Hampshire for their cigarette purchases (as well as food, gas, liquor, etc. while they're here).

Now, this would be enough of a "Massachusetts Sucks" story on its own. But, as is all too often the case when discussing current events in the "progressive" paradise south of the border, it gets worse.

Or better, depending on your perspective.

From WBZTV.com:

Living Tax Free: MA Millionaires Ignore Tax Bills

Overall, the money owed in back taxes to the state is a staggering $2.2 billion - more than enough to clear the current deficit with a million more left over as the state faces its worst fiscal crisis in five years.


Yeah, but Habib and Raoul, co-owners of some gas-n-sip in Fall River and their customers aren't likely to be making any major campaign contributions to their benevolent protectors up on Beacon Hill in the next few years.

Guess who the state will choose to mess with first?

The compassionate party of the disadvantaged, my ass.


Wednesday, February 06, 2008

OMG! Gun-Grabbers Proven Right!

Though, something tells me this isn't exactly the kind of Blood in the Streets!!!TM scenario they have in mind, when they peddle their wholly unsubstantiated bullshit about what will happen if ordinary citizens are allowed to possess and carry firearms.

PHILADELPHIA -- It appears an armed robber picked the wrong store to hold up. Police said it's the robber who wound up getting shot.


The "wrong" store? That's a matter of perspective.

"There was a trail of blood and a hat found on the highway, and also a semiautomatic handgun. And the blood led down the street onto North 3rd Street," Vanore said.

Police said the blood trail lead them from the store to the doorstep of Turner's house.


Now, which is the more preferable outcome? A wounded goblin at the end of a blood trail, or a dead shopkeeper in a pool of blood on the floor?

Don't hurt yourself thinking about it.


Hillary Does the Smart Thing

Because a third tear-shedding incident would have seemed staged.


Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Clinton Wins in a Landslide

The people have spoken, and by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, Hillary Clinton sucks more than the Patriots' offensive line.


HB1354 Update

POST UPDATED 2/5/08: SCROLL DOWN FOR MORE

From Pro-Gun New Hampshire:

Room change for HB1354 hearing Tuesday, February 5

The House Legislative Administration Committee changed the hearing location for HB1354 from State House room 100 to LOB (Legislative Office Building) room 104. The change was posted on the docket, but not on the "Quick Bill Search" summary. The date and time remain the same: 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 5, 2008.


Previous post here. Hope to see you there!

UPDATE 2/5/08: I'm an idiot. I left the battery for my camera in the charger when I left the house this morning. It is with great sadness that I must inform you I'm unable to post a video of Representative Kjellman's testimony in favor of HB1354.

It was textbook PSH from the latest edition of Gun Ignorance for Dummies.

Of course, she made sure to reference the Virginia Tech shootings - without realizing that her bill would do nothing but replicate the setting in which those killings occurred.

When asked by State Representative Karen Hutchinson how many attacks there had been inside the State House committed by individuals licensed to carry handguns (hint: the answer starts with "z" and rhymes with "zero"), she replied, "I don't have that data."

When asked how this bill would be enforced and funded, she punted once again, saying that it wasn't her responsibility to address those issues. That was some other legislative body's problem.

After all, it's not "her" money, right?

And, what anti-gun rights endeavor such as hers would be complete without conjuring up images of the Wild West and shootouts at the O.K. Corral? Yes, she went there too.

The hearing began in a meeting room in the Legislative Office Building that was far too small to accommodate all those who showed up. An all too familiar scenario to anyone who attended the SB44 hearing in March of last year. There were all of nine chairs available for members of the public. Not long after the hearing began, however, it was adjourned for 20 minutes so that it could be relocated to Representative's Hall in the State House.

Much better.

The testimony offered by various state legislators, gun rights advocates, and concerned citizens ran overwhelmingly in favor of killing the bill. In fact, Rep. Kjellman was the sole speaker in its defense.

Before the meeting began, Rep. Kjellman notified the committee members that there was an amendment to the bill which she also wanted to submit for inclusion in this hearing, and an unofficial copy was made available to the Committee.

At first, I thought she had somewhat come to her senses, and had tried to "water it down" some, given how much opposition e-mail she must have received concerning this bill, but those thoughts were short-lived.

Her amendment dealt with the penalty for violating her "gun-free zone" statute, and called for violators to be charged with a Class B Felony for knowingly carrying a concealed firearm or deadly weapon past the signs designating where the "gun-free zones" began.

Because, as you're all aware, an individual whose ready to commit capital murder will be dissuaded from doing so from the threat of such a lesser charge being tacked on his or her rap sheet.

Anyway, I'll post an update as soon as I learn of this bill's fate. I'm fully expecting it to be voted "Inexpedient to Legislate".

Stay tuned.

Here are the pictures I did take with my cell phone camera. Click images to biggify.

Original hearing room with all of nine chairs available for public use

State Rep. Eleanor "Why Can't We Be More Like Massachusetts?" Kjellman

Filing in to Representative's Hall (more than nine chairs)


Monday, February 04, 2008

Compare and Contrast

Saturday, in a legislatively-mandated gun-free zone outside Chicago, a lone gunman shot to death five defenseless women in cold blood.

Sunday, in the constitutionally-protected gun-freedom zone of Manchester, New Hampshire, nearly a dozen armed individuals roamed the streets with shovels and pick axes and...

...and...

I'm sorry, it's simply too horrific to talk about. But, I'll try.

They...um...

They cleared ice and snow from the sidewalks!

Oh, the HUMANITY!

Won't someone please think of the children!


Welcome to Liberal News Land

Where up is down...

President Bush's fiscal 2009 budget proposal calls for a 7.5 percent hike in Defense spending and a 5 percent jump in spending for Medicare and Medicaid, but while CBS anchor Katie Couric on Monday night correctly stated that Pentagon spending would “rise” in the Bush plan, she erroneously asserted “spending on Medicare and Medicaid would go down.”


..and Minnesota is Illinois.

On the Monday "Today" show co-host Ann Curry was breaking down the delegate counts for each Super Tuesday state with NBC's political director Chuck Todd but when it came to finding Barack Obama's home state of Illinois on the map, Curry pointed to Minnesota instead.


I blame Bush and the old GOP-controlled Congress for failing to pass the "No Childish Leftist Behinds" bill when they had the chance.


Not the Sharpest Tool in the Shed

Police in Manchester, New Hampshire arrested a woman early this morning who claimed, at the time, to have been looking for a police officer...

...in the glove compartment of an unmarked police car.


Hillary to Voters:

"You're all of bunch of gullible saps."

Baltimore Sun: Hillary Clinton cries in Connecticut

The day before a big primary, too.

What are the odds?

Poor girl.


Of Pots and Kettles

Question: How can you tell when Barack Obama is lying?

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama assured Western voters Saturday he believes in Jesus as well as the rights of gun owners.


15,104.

That's how many yesterdays ago I was born.

Good luck selling that bridge in Idaho, you lying sack of ______ (insert foul-smelling substance of choice here).

Obama urged those at the rally not to believe everything they hear about him.

[...]

"And then there are people who say, `Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state - we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."


Translation: I won't take away the guns you currently have, but I'll make damn sure you inbred hillbillies can't get your hands on any more, and then we'll tax ammunition out of existence for those you already got.

I can't think of a single event that will do more to boost firearm and ammunition sales in this country than a November victory for either of these gun-hating collectivist idiots.

Obama didn't mention that he does support gun control...


NOOOOO!!!!

Really?

...and has a record of voting for it in the Illinois Senate. He backed limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but he made no attempts to ban them. Today, he stands by his support for controls while trying to reassure hunters that he has no interest in interfering with their access to firearms.


I'm not a hunter.

What say you go interfere yourself?

And, how's this for the pot calling the kettle...um...a cooking utensil of color?

A spokesman for Obama rival Hillary Rodham Clinton pointed out that 12 years ago when he was running for the state Legislature, Obama said in a questionnaire that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."


As opposed to Hillary Clinton's more "moderate" position, of course, that the federal government should have the authority to forcibly confiscate, at gunpoint if necessary, all types of firearms from lawful gun owners in times when they'd be needed most for protection of their families and communities.

Boxes of poxes on both their houses.

If we're fresh out of poxes, I'll settle for a couple meteorites the size of Nantucket.

(link via Radioactive Communist Zombies)


Reader Survey

Who sucks more?
Hillary Clinton
Patriots' Offensive Line
Free polls from Pollhost.com


Vee Have Vays...

...of making you get on zee train.

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.


No big surprise there. Every idea that's come out of the wretched mind of this foul piece of garbage masquerading as a US Senator has centered around the notion of taking more money and power from the people and using it to secure more governmental control over our lives.

Now that I think about it, I might have to replace "masquerading as" with "acting like".

Meanwhile, in the land of HillaryCare Jr. (thanks, Mitt)...

The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state's healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.


"No problem", says Governor Hope-a-Dope. "We'll just get the hard-working Americans in the other 49 states to pay for it."

The state has asked the federal government to shoulder roughly half of the program's cost from 2009 through 2011, but there is no guarantee of that funding. Commonwealth Care provides free or subsidized insurance for low- and moderate-income residents.


OK, this is becoming less funny, now that I have a dog in the race.

The administration of Governor Deval Patrick produced the new estimates to launch negotiations for federal funding, and has shared them with some state health leaders at closed-door meetings. Patrick is seeking about $1.5 billion over three years, half the cumulative cost for Commonwealth Care. The administration declined to discuss the numbers or the assumptions behind them, citing the ongoing negotiations.


Come on! What's a few billion dollars between friends? It's not like the Massachusetts government has a record of flushing federal tax dollars down the toilet by the truckload.

And, besides, it's not like anyone saw this coming.