Ted Cruz - Keeping up the Pressure!

I hope someone caught this today.  I missed it, but watch the videos.

Cruz Addresses Debt Ceiling, Second Amendment and

Potential Hagel Nomination on Fox News Sunday

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) today sat down with John Roberts on Fox News Sunday, addressing issues related to the debt ceiling, the Second Amendment and President Obama’s expected nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Below are excerpts of Sen. Cruz’s comments and links to video clips of the interview.

Debt Ceiling:

“I am happy for there to be lots of new revenue. I am not happy for there to be new taxes. The best avenue for new revenue is economic growth. If the economy is sputtering along at 1%, 1.5%, 2% GDP growth, tax revenues plummet, people hurt, people are out of jobs.

“If we get the economy up to the historical level since World War II, the average has been 3.3%. In the fourth year of Reagan's presidency, our economy grew 7.2%. If we can get GDP growth up to 3, 4, 5%, that will be dramatically more revenue to pay off the deficit and debt, but the way to do it is through pro-growth policies, not new and additional taxes.”  

...

“I do not support default on the debt. We should never default on the debt. And the only players in Washington who are threatening default on the debt are President Barack Obama and Harry Reid.” 

...

“There is plenty of revenue to service the debt and any responsible President would have stood at that podium and said, ‘Under any circumstances, whatever happens with the debt ceiling, we will always pay our debt. We will never default on the debt.’ 

“And the reason the president isn't doing that is he is trying to scare people. He is trying to raise the specter of a financial apocalypse.” 

Video

Guns:

“Every parent was horrified by what happened [in Newtown]… it takes your breath away. But within minutes, we saw politicians run out and try to exploit this tragedy, try to push their political agenda of gun control. I do not support their gun control agenda…

“I don't think the proposals being discussed now make sense.  Look, are there things we can do? Sure.  One of the things we could do is we could improve the quality of the federal database [for background checks]. Right now a lot of states, a lot of local jurisdictions are not reporting criminal convictions, not reporting mental health, barriers to ownership - and so the federal database is not nearly as good as it should be.  That would be a common sense improvement…

“Sen. Dianne Feinstein's bill would create a national gun registry. I don't think the federal government has any business having a list of law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. “

Video

Hagel as Secretary of Defense Nominee:

“If Hagel is nominated, it is very difficult to imagine a circumstance in which I could support his confirmation.

“It's interesting. The President seems bound and determined to proceed down this path despite the fact that Hagel's record is very, very troubling on the nation of Israel. He has not been a friend to Israel, and in my view the United States should stand unshakably with the nation of Israel, and he has consistently advocated weakness with respect to our enemies… 

“The job of the Secretary of Defense is to be a serious, credible strength and deterrent, and unfortunately, I think weakness in a Secretary of Defense invites conflict because bullies don’t respect weakness.”

Video

You'll Shoot Your Eye Out, Kid!

Here in the post-holiday depression season, I'm reminded of the classic movie, "A Christmas Story," the tale of Ralphie and his quest for the ultimate Christmas present: a Red Ryder BB rifle.  All through the story, Ralphie tries everything he knows to convince those around him that he must have that rifle.  

And all through the story, the common retort from authority figures is the same: "you'll shoot your eye out, kid."

This story is an analog to our government's current crusade, where we're being told what's good for us.  We're being told that, "hey, we got this - we're your elected officials, and as such, we know better than you what's good for you.  Guns?  You'll shoot your eye out, kid."

So what?  So what if I shoot my eye out?  Bad news for me.  But I won't shoot my eye out.  I won't shoot anything but cardboard or steel in all likelihood.  I won't shoot another person, unless they're in my house when they don't belong there, or if they try to steal my car, or they try to rob me, or they attack my loved ones, or...well, hopefully you get the point.  

The government's concern for whether or not I shoot my eye out is nothing in comparison to my clear and present desire or need, and my inalienable right to own the firearm of my choice.  Go solve some real problems.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's Proposed Gun Ban

On January 22nd, 2013 or thereabouts, Dianne Feinstein plans to introduce a new "Assault Weapons" ban.  If you haven't taken the time to examine this legislation, you need to.  You may think that just because you don't own an "assault weapon," that you've got nothing to worry about.

You'd be wrong.

Let's look at a few of the things that will make a firearm fall into the category of "assault weapon." Source: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

1. Any type of grip on a rifle.  "grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip." Also, the new bill adds "forward grip" to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as "a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip." Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
2. Any "semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," except for tubular-magazine .22s.  Read that carefully.  No more than 10 round detachable magazines for any rifle, period.
3. Any "semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds," and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.  No more than 10 round magazines for any modern handgun.  
4. If you currently own an "assault weapon," you'll be required to register it as an NFA weapon.  The National Firearms Act of 1934 was for the regulation of machine guns - fully automatic weapons.  Now your hunting/sporting rifle will be classified as an NFA weapon, requiring a $200 tax stamp, registration, fingerprint and photo, and approval from a local law enforcement official to possess it. That's your rifle, handgun, and presumably your shotgun.
5. If you have to do this, your firearm becomes non-transferable.  That means that when you die, the government must seize it. You can't sell it, you can't give it away, nobody can inherit it.  It becomes property of the government, and they can come and take it.  And you can bet they'll have more than 10 rounds in their guns.

Chances are good that you own a firearm that will somehow fall into this category.  This legislation cannot stand.  It circumvents not only the 2nd Amendment, but common sense.  You'll note the use of the term "semi-automatic" to specifically address certain firearms.  Feinstein knows there's a difference between semi and full, but she just doesn't care. 

She wants your guns.  Period.

Contact your representatives today, and tell those people that work for you to stop this nonsense now, today.  Use this handy link:

http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots/write-your-reps.aspx 

"Assault Rifle" - Ignorance and Apathy

I'm so sick of the ignorance regarding so-called "assault rifles."  An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, the same as any other sporting rifle.  It is NOT a machine gun.  It is NOT fully automatic.  The same applies to the civilian variant of the AK-47.  Not a machine gun, people!

Just because a rifle looks like its fully-automatic cousin, it doesn't make it one.  Not any more than an Airsoft rifle is a real rifle.  It's a toy that looks like a real rifle.

The problem is that most people don't know the difference, and they don't care.  They won't care until it's too late.  Ignorance and apathy defined.

As I discussed in an earlier post, fully automatic weapons are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Non-military/law enforcement people cannot purchase an automatic weapon manufactured after 1967.  You can purchase one manufactured before that date, but they're very expensive ($10,000+), and require a tax stamp ($200), fingerprints and photos, and approval from local law enforcement.  As a consequence, very few people possess fully automatic firearms. 

The legislation being put forth in various states and now at the federal level want to treat your semi-automatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles the same as automatic weapons.  Look at that again: your Beretta shotgun, your Ruger pistol, your Remington rifle would be treated like machine guns, and restricted like them.

What's worse, the proposed legislation would make these firearms non-transferable.  When you die, the government gets your gun.  How's that grab you?

That leaves you with revolvers, pump shotguns, and bolt-action rifles, and those will be next.

I suppose the toy fully-automatic Airsoft rifles are next after that.  

Contact your congresspersons ASAP and voice your opposition to any restrictive legislation whatsoever.  Do it now, and use this link to make it happen: http://capwiz.com/gunowners/home/

Part 6: Calibers and Ammo

Someone asked me to elaborate on the topic of ammunition.  I reload my own ammo, and it's a real money-saver for me.  I just buy the components, do a little nerdy research, put it all in a nifty Dillon Precision progressive reloader, and bullets come out.  But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Let's talk about popular handgun calibers and stuff like "stopping power."  First off, let it be known that I wouldn't want to get shot with any caliber of bullet.  Now that we're clear on that, let's enumerate some popular calibers and some of their characteristics.

1. .22 caliber.  The most readily available ammunition, even in times of shortage.  Extremely popular for small game hunting (rabbit, squirrel) and "plinking," the term for casual target shooting.  There are variants on .22, from sub-sonic rounds to .22 magnum, and depending on the firearm, the applications are varied.  For self-defense, it's not terribly effective, but again - those little bullets can hurt or kill anyone, depending on placement.  
2. .25 caliber.  Before the .380, one of the most popular "pocket pistol" calibers for very small and concealable firearms.  Again, not my first choice for personal protection, because shot placement would be crucial.  Like the .22, heavy clothing could seriously deter penetration of the round.  
3. .380, also known as 9mm Kurz (German for "short").  This has become a recently popular caliber, popularized by the many brands of personal protection firearms on the market, most of which are quite small and concealable.  They're very popular with the CHL crowd. While the round doesn't pack the power of a 9mm, it IS a 9mm bullet, but with less bullet mass, and less powder behind it.  Nonetheless, with some of the personal protection ammo available, it's an effective self-defense round.  Most 380s are limited in magazine capacity however - it's a trade-off for concealment.
4. 9mm.  This is probably one of the most popular rounds, and there are so many variations on bullet weight, bullet type, and subsequent velocity and penetration that space prohibits detailing much.  Nonetheless, a lot of police departments and our own military use the 9mm.  There are those who disparage the 9mm, but it's an extremely effective round, and depending on the bullet can be a "man-stopper."  You can fit a lot of 9mm into a standard double-stack magazine - 17 in a Glock 9mm, for example.  You want more bullets in a self-defense situation.
5. .40 caliber.  My personal favorite.  Lots of variety on the load and bullet type, good velocity, good penetration characteristics, good capacity.  My competition pistol is a .40, and I can fit 20 rounds in my standard 140mm magazine.  Not bad.  Bullet weights for personal protection loads vary, usually using a lighter hollow-point (as with other calibers), which provides good penetration and expansion.  Good balance of capacity and lethality.
6. .45 ACP.  One of the most popular calibers of all time, popularized by the invention of John Browning's 1911, the most celebrated of handguns.  It's a very large bullet (230 grains, typically), but a bit slower than some of the smaller calibers.  While many tout it as a "man" caliber, its lethality is contingent on a number of factors, including bullet weight and type, power, the length of the barrel, etc.  It makes a really big hole, but you will sacrifice rounds (only 7 or 8 in the magazine) in exchange for a hoped-for "man-stopper."  
7. Anything bigger is just silly, or is only useful for hunting.  Nobody seriously considers a .50 caliber pistol for anything other than hunting or just showing your friends. Not practical for concealed carry, self-protection, home-protection, or pretty much anything else.

As I indicated above, "stopping power" is contingent on a lot of factors, including bullet weight, bullet type, bullet speed, barrel length, distance of the shot, what it's hitting, etc.  Again, movies would have you believe that a handgun can knock someone down, or even blow them through windows, shoot through anything, etc.  Simple physics don't support that silliness.  In fact, if you've ever seen anyone shot in real life (plenty of You Tube evidence), they typically jump, then run away.  Depending on the shot, they will either live or die.  If the placement of the shot is in the right place, the person may drop, but I won't get into that here.

I don't mean to treat the morbidity of "stopping power" in such a cavalier fashion - I realize how serious the topic is.  But these are questions that I'm asked the most, and I'm just sharing what little bit I know about the topic.  Got questions?  Ask away.

Part 5: Personal Protection

Part 5: Personal protection. Here's a quiz: who's responsible for your personal safety? The police? Mom/dad/brother/sister/spouse/non-gender-specific significant other? A sign outside that says "No guns?"

Answer (and you may not like to hear this): Nobody. Nobody but YOU.

I get asked all the time about my opinion on what kind of gun someone should buy for personal protection. My answer is always, "what's your plan?" After a blank look, I explain. Scenario: you're in the study, working from home, when you hear the back door getting kicked in. What's your plan? Scenario: you're asleep in bed, and hear a window break downstairs. What's your plan?

If you can't answer simple questions like this, then a weapon isn't going to do you much good. Of course, I recommend having a firearm for personal protection, but if you don't learn how to safely use it, learn the laws of your state regarding deadly force, and have a plan for the unthinkable, you're not really preparing for anything.

Go take a Concealed Handgun Licensing course, even if you don't own a firearm. Learn the laws of your state, it's very educational, and a lot of myths get dispelled when you learn them. For example, I've heard people giving sage advice about how if you shoot someone in your yard, drag them inside. Tampering with a crime scene is lousy advice. Go learn the law.

Learn basic gun safety. Learn basic gun safety. Learn basic gun safety.

Learn how to shoot from a qualified shooting instructor. Virtually anyone who has been shooting IDPA or USPSA for a while can offer you fundamental training on how to safely operate a firearm. Beware of poseurs who charge exorbitant amounts for "Basic" pistol training. Ask around - if they've got a good reputation, you'll get good recommendations.

Have a plan. Practice it, even if you feel silly doing it. Where is your mobile phone while you're sleeping? It should be right next to your bed. Where is a firearm if you need it in an emergency, and is it ready to be used? A gun locked in a safe with no ammo in the mag is useless.

Police fill out reports after a crime has been committed. They are not chartered with your personal protection. You need to recognize that your personal protections is your responsibility, and take it seriously.

Part 4: The Bill of Rights

Part 4: The Bill of Rights. There's been a lot of bleating and bloviating from so-called "liberal thinkers" regarding the irrelevance of the Second Amendment. Let's put that particular amendment in perspective with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and see if everyone is still so keen to talk of the irrelevance of an individual amendment.

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

See anything you'd like to give up? What makes anyone think that the Second Amendment is irrelevant when taken into account with the rest of the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anyone rights - it protects the natural, intrinsic rights of all people from a tyrannical government. "We don't have a tyrannical government!" many would say. Damned right, and this is why.

With respect to the Second Amendment, I've heard it argued that the Founding Fathers couldn't have fathomed the types of weapons we have today, so there's no justification for owning "military-style" weapons.

By that logic, the use of this keyboard to express my thoughts and ideas is just as outrageous, and the First Amendment is irrelevant, because the Founding Fathers couldn't have fathomed what the "press" would become in the future, and what devices we would have at our disposal to express free speech and practice the religion of our choice. What makes the Second Amendment any less important than the First??? Many have argued that the Second Amendment helps insure that the rest of the Amendments are unmolested.

Go do some reading the next time you hear some nonsense about the relevance of the Second Amendment. Here's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Part 3: The Myth of Magazine Capacity

Part 3: Let's talk about the myth of magazine capacity. The media has fixated on "high-capacity" magazines as something that is bad or evil. I guess the theory is that by reducing the capacity of magazines to only 10 rounds, crime will somehow be reduced. First of all, there are standard-capacity and reduced-capacity magazines. The call from gun controllers is to reduce the standard-capacity magazines to 10 rounds.

"But you don't need 30 rounds to hunt Bambi!" is the common cry. Pay attention now: the Second Amendment of the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with HUNTING. Get that idea out of your head. Nowhere in that amendment is a clause protecting hunting rights. That's diversionary nonsense. 

Firearms, handguns in particular, are designed by the manufacturers to fit as many bullets into the length of the magazine as is reliably possible. In a force-on-force situation, it's often the person with the most bullets who wins. This is why police departments all over the world have switched from revolvers to semi-auto pistols: more bullets. If you're using a firearm in a self-defense situation, you want more bullets. It's doubtful there will be time for a reload at all.

Watch the video of Travis Tomasie performing speed reloads with a Glock. He only shoots 6 rounds per magazine, and reloads 3 times. He's pretty fast on the reload, mind you, but even an average shooter can reload in a second or two. 


If you'd like a lesson on reloading a revolver, Google Jerry Miculek. He's faster with a revolver than I am with a semi-auto. 

Bottom line: limiting magazine capacity will do nothing to stop a motivated criminal from committing crimes. Nothing.

Part 2: Clips and Magazines - Know the Difference

This is the second in a series, and today I'll talk about a topic that has gained and lost me friends. I'm talking about the difference between a clip and a mag. Why is this important? Well, for starters, they're 2 different things. 

A clip simply holds rounds (bullets, ammunition) in a static position. There's no feed mechanism in a clip. In fact, many clips are used to load magazines. The M1 Garand is a fine example of how a clip is fed into a magazine. When the last round is fired from the magazine, the clip is ejected with a distinctive "zing."

A magazine has a mechanism (usually a spring and follower) that pushes rounds up in the magazine so that the next round is ready to be fed into the firearm's chamber. Wikipedia has a pretty good write-up on magazines:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_(firearms)

With the exception of revolvers, virtually all handguns use a magazine. I'm not sure I could cite an instance of a handgun "clip."  Edit: Moon clips for revolvers are a clear oversight on my part.  Good example of a clip.

The image I've attached to this post illustrates some popular magazines (mags) and clips. I realize it's splitting hairs for some people, but it's important that we know what the parts of a firearm are, and what they do. When I hear someone on the news refer to a "high-capacity clip," I know right away that they probably don't know what they're talking about. If they had bothered to educate themselves, they wouldn't use that terminology.

Next time, I'll talk about magazine capacity, and provide some real-life examples of why the "high-cap" mag is a media-perpetuated myth.

Part 1: Automatic vs. Semi-Automatic - A Primer

This is the first in a series of posts to help educate everyone on some of the misunderstood aspects of firearms. Today's topic: Automatic vs. Semi-Automatic. 

An automatic weapon fires multiple rounds (bullets, projectiles) by pulling and holding down the trigger. Because of the automatic's firing mechanism, projectiles will continue to be fired until the trigger is released, or the magazine feeding the rounds is empty.

A semi-automatic weapon fires one round per pull of the trigger. It doesn't matter if you hold the trigger back, it still fires only one round per pull.

Automatic weapons fall into a category of weapons that are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. In essence, a civilian cannot purchase an automatic weapon manufactured after 1987. It's worth your time to read the link I've provided regarding all the rules and regulations. Yes, you can buy an automatic weapon manufactured before 1987, but they're horribly expensive (because they're collector's items), to the tune of $10,000 and up. Add to that the rigorous requirements to own and register one, and it's just not feasible for the average citizen to own, for the most part. Failure to follow the rules will result in Federal prison time.

Semi-automatic weapons are what most people have today. Revolvers have fallen out of vogue for the most part. The average hunting rifle, shotgun, and pistol is a semi-automatic. Magazine capacities vary, based primarily on the size of the rounds (bullets) being used. For example, more 9mm bullets will fit in a magazine than a .45 caliber, because of the size difference. There are several popular calibers for rifles, and the type of semi-auto rifle typically only varies in appearance. For example, the Ruger Ranch Rifle in .223 is functionally identical to the AR-15 rifle, although the AR looks "scarier." Functionally, they are no different.

Questions or comments are welcome. I'll talk about magazines and clips in the next of this series. Hope this helps.

Hello Again!

Looks like I'll need to resurrect this blog. It's time. Look for some new posts soon. 

Intent!

Ahhh, the status of liberals today. This about sums it up for their point of view - it doesn't matter what you actually DID. What matters is what your INTENT was. It doesn't matter that Obama tanked the economy. He intended well. It doesn't matter that Teddy Kennedy killed a young lady by leaving her to drown. He didn't intend for her to die. Illegal immigrants don't intend to hurt anyone, they're just trying to help out themselves and their own families. And on and on and on. We're presented with another example of liberal intent with Rahm Emanuel's run for Mayor of Chicago. It would appear the law says you actually have to reside in Chicago for a year before you run for Mayor. As we all know, Rahm-baby has been in DC hanging out with el Presidente.... But don't let the law get in the way of liberal Democrats:

But Mr. Emanuel’s campaign, which quickly called a conference call with reporters on Wednesday afternoon, says Mr. Emanuel’s intent was always to return to his home on the North Side of Chicago, and that his intent is what should ultimately define his legal status when these complaints reach elections officials and the courts.

Really?? Intent now defines legal status?? So let's say that I get shit faced drunk and kill someone driving home. But I didn't intend to hurt anyone. Or, I'm cleaning a gun, have an AD and kill my neighbor. Oops, sorry, I didn't intend for that to happen. Do you think that would fly in court??

If Rahm-baby gets in as Mayor of Chicago is will merely solidify Chicago's position as the 2nd most corrupt city in the country, right behind Washington, DC.

Silent no more

I hope the powers that be within the Republican Party are getting the message. The days of supporting "Republicans" who are anti-gun, pro cap and trade, and who vote more with the Democrats than with their conservative base - are over.

We need to get rid of the Olympia Snowes as soon as possible - if they want to side with the Democrats, then by all means, join the Democrat party, like our good "friend" Arlan Specter - but stop torpedoing the country and the people that voted for you just so you can be called bipartisan.

Enough is enough.

Regardless - I sincerely hope the Republican power brokers are paying attention.

Since 9/11/2001

I remember the morning of 9/13/2001 very well. It was the Thursday after the eviscerating attacks of 9/11/2001, and one of the three days a week I go running. I live North and East of DFW airport, due north of Love Field, and just Northwest of Addison airport. Air traffic is common, but hardly noticeable - most aircraft are at altitude.

As I was running through my peaceful neighborhood, it struck me: There were no planes that morning. A single attack had shut down the entire airline industry in the US.

That was my first lucid realization of the changes that would be brought on our world. Today, we willingly subject ourselves to scrutiny at the airport, arriving over an hour in advance of our flights. We dutifully remove our belts and shoes, unpack our briefcases, bag up our little bottles of liquid, and so forth. Screeners randomly pull people from the line for closer scrutiny.

Don't get me started on profiling airplane hijackers.

So what, you might ask? What's so different?

Before 9/11, I used to stop at a convenience store on the way back from Houston once a week, pick up a sandwich and a six pack, then get on the plane and enjoy my dinner on the short flight home. No questions asked, nobody even batted an eye.

Air travel aside, what else has changed? We're at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, pursuing those who would perpetrate such things as the 9/11 attack. We've been largely successful there, save for killing UBL. Our military is the spear tip of our diplomatic efforts, and it's a sharp one.

Our economy has not yet recovered.

But what about ideology? Religion? Tolerance? How has America changed since 9/11?

How much more do you know about Islam now? How much more do you realize that there's been a centuries-old war between Islam and the Western world? Perhaps "war" is a bit strong, because Islam is persistent and patient. Islam will continue to expand where ever it can. Islam's "war" is one of assimilation, acquisition, of subtlety and virtual silence. Muslims are devout and devoted to their cause.

Only the radical schisms of Islam commit outrageous acts of high-profile violence, often to the alleged outrage of more moderate Muslims. Granted, I've seen more outrage in daily traffic, but they profess that this isn't their plan for foisting Islam on the world, and that is largely true.

And what has anyone done to try to stem this tide?

As you reflect on 9/11, reflect on how our world has changed since then. Be careful, though - you're probably not going to like what you see.

Free Speech?

As if hating the Philadelphia Eagles weren't enough, here's another reason to hate on the city of brotherly love:

It looks like cash hungry local governments are getting awfully rapacious these days:

Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50. To [Marilyn] Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.

In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.

More here as well.

So much for free speech...

Max Michel, Jr

As it's shooting related, thought some of ya'll might enjoy my post on my photo blog about Max Michel, Jr at the recent Pro-Am in Tulsa....

Hi.

Just checking in. Been a while. How's everyone? Good? Glancing through the news today, I noticed that the President's Supreme Court nominee will likely make it past the Senate panel. I saw that Lindsay Lohan is going to jail (lead story on ABC "news" this morning). The President is having another vacation. The stock market is teetering on a depression-like pattern, housing starts are faltering, and the artificially-stimulated economic "recovery" is likewise stuttering.

How's that hope and change working out for ya, America?

Of course!

Now THIS is a good expenditure of NASA's funding.

NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with

So much for boldly going where no man has gone before....

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!

I wonder, Mr. President... is that before your manicure, or after?
You gotta be kidding me!! Maybe he means he's gonna send a horde of lawyers in and give everyone a good talking to?

Now if any of the real men I know said they were going to kick someone's ass, step back bubba 'cause it's about to get ugly. But this man??

Totally and completely laughable. He's once again the laughing stock of the world.

What a turd