Monday, August 23, 2010

The NRA, shit creek, and a missing paddle

The NRA, Poop Creek and A Missing Paddle
August 20th, 2010 by J.J. Jackson

The National Rifle Association is not getting a lot of rave reviews from its members lately. In fact, by the looks of things the NRA is willfully taking a long trip up poop creek and doing so without a paddle in hand. What is the whole kerfuffle that has led to this ill advised journey? Well it revolves around Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Harry Reid is in a not so surprising fight for his political future in Nevada. The incumbent Senator is in a statistical dead heat with challenger Sharron Angle. It is a fight that Mr. Reid does not believe he should be in and that he cannot understand. He thinks the people should adore him. If they are foolish enough not to blindly love him then at least he thinks they should show him some respect as a long term representative of theirs in Washington and simply reelect him. Whether or not Mr. Reid deserves such respect after years of trashing individual liberties and our Constitution is of secondary importance. For you see, Harry Reid is a member of the ruling class and he is entitled.

Like most liberals, Harry Reid is a walking gaffe machine. And when he speaks his lack of substance becomes regularly apparent. So it would be a surprise for most to learn that the NRA is actually considering endorsing this man in the 2010 midterm elections. Yes, you heard right, the NRA is actually considering endorsing a man who has been a leader in our charge off the cliff and into the abyss.

The NRA’s excuse? They claim Harry Reid has been a champion of gun rights. On top of that they opine that if Harry Reid is defeated and the Democrats retain control of the Senate someone unkind to gun rights might take his place as Majority Leader.

The NRA further defends this excuse by saying they are a single issue group and that the only important issue to them is the second amendment. What they fail to understand is that for the vast majority of their members other issues are important too. You know, like upholding and defending the Constitution, the whole Constitution and nothing but the Constitution? That is something Harry Reid has never done in his entire career in national politics.

The NRA’s support for the Second Amendment is admirable. But if there is no Constitution left because it has been torn apart by liberals like Mr. Reid how far does such support go? It harkens back to the silly slogan of leftists with regards to how they said that they support the troops but not their mission. The NRA is just as goofily saying that they are prepared to support Harry Reid but not his goal of a socialist America.

Sharron Angle on the other hand, as much as disgruntled Republicans in Nevada who are upset that their candidate did not win the primary and even Harry Reid himself hate to admit, has a much firmer grasp of reality. That includes her understanding of the Second Amendment. For example, Sharron Angle once correctly noted why we have a Second Amendment. She stated that it was to allow the people to protect themselves against government tyranny and perform the role the altering or abolishing government unkind to individual liberties. This is what the founders discussed in our Declaration of Independence. She said, with regards to the continual usurpation of individual liberties and state’s rights by those in Washington, Harry Reid included, that, “If Congress keeps going the way it is, people are already looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.”

Pretty straightforward right? Pretty much in line with the Founding Fathers right? The Reid Campaigns response? To call such talk, “crazy” and denounce her in a campaign ad.
So the fact that the NRA is even thinking about endorsing Reid is perplexing to many. And based on what I hear, it is perplexing to the NRA members too. What I am being told, and my email box is filled daily with notes from Americans discussing their dismay over this, is that the NRA is being inundated with angry responses from their members. These members are threatening to never again support the organization if they choose to endorse Harry Reid. The potential loss of revenue alone would be enough to make a sane person stop and take notice.
I am one of those angry souls who have told the NRA in no uncertain terms that there will be not one solitary penny more coming from me until they stop this insanity. Despite the repeated, and weekly, requests for donations I have not opened my checkbook to them because they have not agreed to not support Harry Reid. The latest request, which I think belies the trouble they are having, even included a $400 credit that I could use towards becoming a life member. This life membership is usually a $1,000 cost. So the markdown to $600 is significant and not something a group having no trouble at all raising funds would be doing. That is, if you ask me any way.

The leaders of the National Rifle Association must be daft to even be considering an endorsement of Harry Reid. They must be even dafter to even make this consideration public knowledge. The smart thing to have done, and it would have only taken someone of marginal intelligence to come up with, was to punt on the Reid and Angle race and endorse neither candidate if they really had their heart set on a liberal like Harry Reid returning to office.
The really smart thing to do in the Nevada race? That would be to endorse Sharron Angle.
And this would have only take someone of slightly higher than marginal intelligence to come up with.

But as it stands right now the NRA is already too far up Poop Creek and missing that ever crucial paddle required to save itself. The cat is out of the bag with regards to how idiotic the NRA’s leadership is. The outrage is swirling among the membership and donations are already being withheld. Sure the NRA is no doubt getting a lot of money thrown their way in a critical election year by people either unaware of their possible support for Harry Reid or people just willing to look the other way. But many loyal members are sitting with scissors in hand waiting for the NRA to commit to Harry Reid so that they can officially cut up their membership cards.
Even if now some semblance of rational thought enters into the brains of those at the NRA and the organization decides to not endorse either candidate or endorse the obvious choice of Sharron Angle, members will forever be wary of the intelligence of those at the helm. If the NRA wants to be a “single issue” organization and support a candidate now or in the future that has shown a willingness to throw out the rest of the Constitution on a whim and even one who calls an accurate and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment “crazy” then I say let them. It is their right to be stupid. And it will be their right to spend oodles of dollars begging all of us that have supported them over the years to support them again. Those dollars however will be wasted and in vain. Because, mark my words, if the NRA endorses Harry Reid officially or unofficially in November there will never be another check from my pocket going into their coffers.

That is my line in the sand. And judging by the looks of things a lot of my fellow Americans are going to proudly stand with me behind that line and tell the NRA to piss off.
J.J. Jackson is a libertarian conservative author from Pittsburgh, PA who has been writing and promoting individual liberty since 1993 and is President of Land of the Free Studios, Inc. He is the Pittsburgh Conservative Examiner for He is also the owner of The Right Things – Conservative T-shirts & Gifts His weekly commentary along with exclusives not available anywhere else can be found at

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Ground Zero Mosque
Vin Suprynowicz

The political silly season and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

In politics, symbolism is often an easier sell than substance.

So no one should be surprised that a proposal to build a Muslim mosque and community center within blocks of the former site of the World Trade Center — blown up by a gang of vicious Muslim thugs and murderers on Sept. 11, 2001 as a largely symbolic attack on the United States (if 3,000 murders can be reduced to a “symbol”) — has become a political hot-button issue.

First, let’s be clear: The organizer of this project is not some clueless cleric, taken completely by surprise by the furor. No, the project was initially named the “Ground Zero Mosque” not by opponents but by the imam Feisal Abdul Rauf himself, and his new and supposedly less offensive moniker, the “Cordoba Center,” honors the location in Spain where the conquering Muslims built a huge mosque on the site of the demolished Christian Basilica of St. Vincent the Martyr, launching an era of persecution of the local Christians under Abd-ar-Ramman II, which included the martyrdom of St. Eulogius.

Get it?

There are already scores of mosques standing peacefully in New York City and environs — whether New Yorkers will permit Muslims to live and worship peacefully in their midst has never been at issue. New York Gov. David Paterson even offered the mosque-builders free state land if they’d agree to build in a less provocative location. They said “No thanks.”

The goal here is an in-your-face declaration the militant Islam is still at war with America. Allow the construction, and its proponents figure it will stand as a monument to the fact that they’re winning, while their opponents are too weak-willed even to prevent their erecting a monument neat the site of their murderous “victory.” Turn it down, on the other hand, and the radicals will have further proof that America’s claims of tolerance and pluralism are all lies, at least when it comes to the Mohammedan faith.

That Democrats — led (off and on — can’t quite make up his mind) by our first anti-American president, Barack Hussein Obama, who as a child attended prayers at the local mosque with his stepfather in Indonesia ( — take the side of the Muslim provocateurs is predictable enough. On this rare occasion, they do happen to be correct: Once someone buys a piece of land and proposes to use it in a manner consistent with minimal, reasonable local planning and zoning standards, no government agency in a free country should stand in their way. It is not the job of municipal governments to prevent anyone going ahead with a construction project just because it’s in excruciatingly bad taste. Else, where would Chuck E. Cheese be?

That said, only three more comments are really called for: First, it’s wonderful to see these leftists re-discover the bedrock Constitutional principle of property rights: Wal-Mart should quickly file applications to build stores in all their favorite upscale neighborhoods before they again change their minds.

Second, if religious freedom truly trumps city zoning concerns, why have the members of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which stood directly across the street from the World Trade Center and was completely obliterated in the 9/11 attacks, been snarled for nine years in municipal red tape frustrating their efforts to rebuild their church; why haven’t our brave liberals spoken up for them?

And third, simply in the interest of confirming imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s sincerity on all this “demonstrating that we can live in peaceful tolerance side-by-side” business, the local Zoning Commission should promptly approve a gay bar and exotic dance club next door to the Ground Zero Mosque — as proposed by TV host Greg Gutfield — and might also ask the imam to promptly begin the process of applying for permission to build a Christian church in Mecca, updating us all regularly on how that’s working out.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Are you poor?
Monday September 3, 2001
The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services both record poverty statistics for the country, but they each have their own calculations for the poverty income level. The Census Bureau numbers are used to estimate the number of Americans living in poverty, while the Department of Health and Human Services numbers are used to determine financial eligibility for many federal programs. However, the two sets of numbers don't differ dramatically.

The Census Bureau determines poverty by looking at money income, plus family size and composition. "Money income" is income before taxes and doesn't include capital gains and non-cash benefits (like food stamps). The bureau does not take geography into account, but it does consider annual inflation levels.
Here are selections from the latest data online for the Census Bureau's poverty thresholds for 2000:
* One person, under 65 years -- $8,959
* One person, 65 years and over -- $8,259
* Two people, householder under 65 years, including one child under 18 years -- $11,869
* Four people, including two children under 18 years -- $17,463
The Department of Health and Human Services doesn't make distinctions based on age, but it does separate Alaska and Hawaii because the cost of living in those two states is "traditionally believed to be significantly higher than in other states."
Here are some highlights of the Department of Health and Human Services' poverty guidelines for 2001:
* One person in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $8,590
* One person in Alaska -- $9,890
* One person in Hawaii -- $10,730
* Two people in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $11,610
* Four people in the 48 contiguous U.S. states and Washington, D.C. -- $17,650
As you can see, the numbers from the Census Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services are pretty close. Basically, if an individual makes less than $9,000 per year and a family of four makes less than $18,000 per year, they're earning below the poverty income level in the United States.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Grandpa survivalist
Bison Survival Blog Friday, April 23, 2010

To those who skip the comments section in fear that my minions will be posting weak imitations of my wit and wisdom and can’t be bothered with such foolishness, let me repeat my profuse apologies for the late posting Wednesday. I had auto-posted it and the computer failed to put it up at 7 AM. When you schedule a post ahead of time you put the date and time and then it is on auto. But if you were not finished writing or hadn’t yet scheduled it then it is saved as a draft. For some reason, I can only speculate that it is directed at me personally, it will sometimes go from scheduled to draft all on its own. Then, if I don’t double check in the morning it doesn’t post. Wednesday I forgot to check, sorry. Thursday it did the same thing, and although I tried to check it the Internet connection was screwy. A few snowflakes and our high-tech tenuous hold to the outside is in danger. On other business, I’ve noticed I’ve been drifting towards longer articles. I had been shooting for a thousand words and noticed it lately at 1200. I’m obviously so in love with the sound of my own words that I’ve taken the extra 15 minutes of lunch I now have and used it to write more. I’ll have to watch that. Pretty soon you will get spoiled again and I need to keep you at the cusp between excitement and non-expectant. Today will be on the short side as I’m going to try to publish my most excellent yet underappreciated masterpiece “Life After The Collapse” in paper form. I hesitated this long as it was $100 to buy a ISBN number for publishing. Now, is waiving that fee. If you are too tight to buy a copy in e-book or paper, I have the first quarter of the book posted at my web site for free. I think it brilliantly spells out why we won’t avert a collapse, but then I’m a bit prejudiced.
A minion asked me to address the question of how you can weather the collapse if you are of advanced years. If you are pretty much anything over seventy you have fewer options, but it certainly isn’t impossible. I thought this would be a good topic to cover as I am no where near old but I certainly am no spring chicken. Even the most optimistic certainly will agree that by 2035 we will see oil at a mere 25% of present use. Even if we somehow avoid catastrophe until then it will be a very different world where human and animal muscle does all the work now done by machines. That will not be a great time to be old and feeble. I myself will be seventy years old. If the stress from too many ex-wives doesn’t blow out my heart by then, most certainly it will be one of my asshat readers that tries to kill me off by raising my blood pressure. But even if I escape that fate, seventy years old will be a trial. Obviously I’ll still be riding a bike then as gasoline will be several hundred dollars a gallon ( I’m speaking as if things haven’t collapsed-which of course is simply foolish but I’m catering to the Cassandra’s at this point, just a little change of pace to appease all those exposed to my nuggets of wisdom ) when you can get it by lottery. That will keep me in reasonable shape for that age. The only worries should be a weak sphincter from all the years of holding back loose stools from the all vegetable diet I’ve been forced to embrace as meat is as expensive as gasoline. I’ll be dribbling as I’m peddling.
Obviously, old age hundreds of years ago isn’t the same as now. And our average age will shrink in the decades ahead. But there were still plenty of old bastards back in the day, even if 80 was about the max compared to 100 today. Obviously being old isn’t a hindrance survival wise if you plan ahead for it. You just put yourself in the position where younger folk act as your muscles and eyes. But you must have something to offer in return other than experience ( which is invaluable except that youngun’s think they don’t need it ). Right now I would be taking the filthy lucre you got from my Social Security tax and investing it in bribing younger people during the collapse. Not any stranger off the street but family or trusted acquaintances that have not prepared. You prepare for them in return for a strong group. This obviously goes against your grain, as the worthless pukes are getting a free lunch at your expense. But, hey, you are old and feeble and have no choice. And of course, once they eat your food they will still complain if you don’t do something, so you better have a skill they need. Chemistry or engineering or something. It isn’t fair, but neither is getting old before you can enjoy wisdom.
Before you get too old, but old enough to start slowing down, you can still go the lone wolf route. But you must be in good shape, and strenuously practice preventive medicine, as well as being fully stockpiled and having backup plans for everything. For instance, not just wood heat but an earth bermed shelter in case you can’t haul much wood anymore. Getting old sucks, and an old survivalist must work twice as hard to get things done. But until we are back in a solar economy with three generational households where the old are welcomed for their skill at raising and training the next generation, you are on your own. Plan on that, just as you should be planning on your SS check being inflated away to spit. END
The Official Bison Web Site

Friday, August 6, 2010

Whose vote put Elena Kagan on SCOTUS?

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Elena Kagan of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. )
Vote Number: 229 Vote Date: August 5, 2010, 03:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Nomination Confirmed
Nomination Number: PN1768
Nomination Description: Elena Kagan, of Massachusetts, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Vote Counts:YEAs63


Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Goodwin (D-WV), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
LeMieux (R-FL), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (D-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---63
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Goodwin (D-WV)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)