The Liberty Zone

This gives me an itchy, uncomfortable feeling

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:39:00 +0000

NOTE: This will be my last post on Blogspot. It's been a fun ride, but I figure it's time to let it go. All the recent posts are mirrored on my new site, so please visit it. www.thelibertyzone.com Comments will be turned off here, but feel free to comment on the new site.

************************************************************************************
Maybe it's my naturally suspicious nature, but the idea of a Sharia compliant Master Card gives me an uncomfortable feeling. On its face, it seems like little more than a debit/ATM card that is accepted anywhere major credit cards are.

The EonCap Islamic Debit MasterCard is basically a debit card with ATM functions as well. It also works on PayPass systems, which enables a person to swipe it on a terminal without the card leaving the cardholder's hand. It is referred to as blending traditional purchasing power with modern technology and is Shari'ah compliant.

Well, what the hell does that mean? Does it assure no Jews are involved in the banking transactions? Does 2 percent of every transaction go to purchase weapons for Hezbollah? Will the card automatically explode in your hand if you try to purchase pork, alcohol, hookers or a dildo? What, exactly, is the difference between a Sharia compliant debit card and one that isn't?
I know Muslims supposedly aren't allowed to pay interest on loans, which, to me, is monumentally stupid. If you don't have enough money for a purchase, don't make the purchase. If you decide that you want to make the purchase despite the fact that you don't have money for it, you may borrow it from anyone who is willing to lend it to you. But that money belongs to the lender. Let me say that again - THAT MONEY BELONGS TO THE LENDER!! That means it doesn't belong to you. It also means that the lender is doing you a favor by providing you the resources to purchase something that you would otherwise not have been able to purchase. It also means that they have every right to charge you for it. Muslims seem to think that their faith somehow entitles them to a free lunch. But hey - if there are banks willing to give them interest-free loans, more power to them! They're not MY banks! I don't care. My question is this: a debit card only allows you to withdraw as much as you have in your bank account. No more, no less. That's the nature of a debit card. So, there's no loan, and there's no interest rate. So what's the difference between a regular debit card and one that is compliant with Muslim law?

Someone enlighten me please!

Here's why I get this itchy, uncomfortable feeling. Electronic financial transactions have this tendency to be easy and convenient for threat financing. It is estimated that only $10,000 was needed to carry out the attacks on US embassies abroad.

Take for example eBay and PayPal.Terrorist could establish accounts, fictitiously sell merchandise on eBay and transfer small amounts of money, less than $3,000, via PayPal.These transactions spread across three or four accounts would be enough to fund another embassy-scale terrorist attack.This non-traditional means of transferring money is the most difficult to detect, monitor and trace.

And if confronted by law enforcement authorities about possible suspicious activities within their banks, are these "Sharia compliant" banks going to hide behind religious freedoms to withold information about possible threat financing?

Are we getting the picture here?

Is anyone else getting a prickly feeling in their shorts from this?

Sure fire way to piss me off

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:37:00 +0000

So I'm sure I've talked about this before, but I'm going to again, because it's funny. Brad's eating habits. They're revolting, but like a monkey on crack, I can't help but fixate on him in morbid fascination every time he buys a McDonald's hamburger with nothing on it but a tiny, thin, gross, greasy patty, takes off the top of the bun, covers the burger in greasy french fries, puts the top of the bun back on and eats it. It's disgusting, but fascinating. For a 41 year old man, who eats nothing but Cheetos, cheese balls, burnt meat that looks and tastes like shoe leather and McDonalds, Brad is remarkably healthy. He can run faster than most people I know (although he hates running), he has low cholesterol, he's incredibly strong, and yes... he's even won a wrestling match with me (or several).

So what's the quickest way to piss Brad off at McDonald's? Order something sanctimoniously healthy at a chain that is known for its foul, greasy fare, complain to the minimum-wage earner behind the counter that you don't have enough dressing for your salad, and then get all huffy when the person who is just trying to eke out a living and has nothing to do with setting McDonalds' prices, says you have to pay 27 cents extra for extra dressing.

When Ms. Healthy's plastic bad-for-the-environment bag of salad was given to her, she opened it and with a scowl on her face, informed the employee that there was only one package of salad dressing in the bag and she needed two more. (So much for that salad remaining healthy) The employee, following years of training and wanting to keep her job, told the woman politely that extra packages of dressing are 27 cents each.

Lets think about this logically for a moment. My McDonalds has not raised its prices as everybody else has during the gas hike. As a matter of fact, you can still get a large Sweet Tea for only $1! So if they want to charge 27 cents for people who want extra dressing, I can live with that. It's called free market, supply and demand.

And what was the reply from Ms. Healthy? A stunned look, a scowl, and a huffing walk away. As she walked past me, she actually said "That bitch wants to charge me 27 cents?! Who does she think she is?!"

I know my Bradley better than most. There are very few quicker ways to make him angry. I'm surprised he didn't go over to the self-righteous bitch, pull her innards out through her nose and plop them onto her McDonald's tray!

My buddy Rachel Lucas also posts about things that piss her off on occasion. She does it with such flare and style, so as to make me spew whatever I happen to be drinking at the time onto my computer screen. Note to self: DO NOT READ RACHEL'S BLOG AT WORK!!

Well, you guys know what pisses me off: gun-grabbing lunatics, socialists, racists, fundamentalists, morons, authoritarians, tyrants, ignorance and statists, just to name a few.

But that's politics... You know what pisses me off in real life? Leaving work early, only to be stuck in traffic on I-66, because some asshat decided to slow down or break down on one of the most crowded highways in the United States? Worse yet, whoever designed the interchange at Gainesville must have been smoking a REALLY BIG BONG! The far left lane is HOV. For those who don't know what that is, it's a morally repugnant idea fomented by enviro-nazis where the left lane of one of the busiest highways in the country is reserved for hybrid cars and vehicles with more than one person in them.

Now, here's an aside about HOV: It's a crappy idea. It's repulsive and unjust. It's meant to encourage people to consolidate their vehicle time, so that we don't pollute or some such. Here's my take: my taxes pay for highways and roads just like others'. Hell, I probably pay more than many, because by the socialists' standards, I'm rich. Hey, whatever... But my money pays for these damn roads, and I WANT FULL USE OF THEM! No, I don't have another person in my car. A: I hate other people, and aside from Brad, there is no one I would want in my vehicle at 0500 hrs. B: Even if I wasn't a misanthropic bitch, there aren't many psychotic asshats in the world who would make a 90 mile commute to a job they loved at 0500, so that their kids could live in a nice neighborhood, attend schools where they receive a modicum of individual attention and remain in a small community with numerous friends. OK? It's my choice to drive 180 miles EACH day to and from work. I spend enough on gas to choke a rhino. Why, pray tell, do I also have to be barred from using the friggin' left lane on I-66 so I could pass the idiots who actually drive the speed limit?

OK, back to my point. The left lane is HOV. That lane ends at the Gainesville exit. At the same time the far right lane ends as well. That's right. One of the nation's busiest highways goes from four lanes to two at that particular exit. You can imagine how pleasant that is at rush hour!

Now, aside from HOV restrictions, here's what I hate: believe it or not, I actually abide by the restrictions. I have no desire to be ass raped by the Old Dominion if some overzealous state cop stops me for being the only one in my vehicle in the HOV lane. So I suffer, along with thousands of other misanthropes who refuse to rideshare. That's fine. I deal. What really pisses me off is the asshats who decide they're too good to abide by the restrictions, who drive their SUVs in the HOV all alone, pass all of us slugs who are sitting in the bottleneck, and then try to shove their fat asses in front of me when the HOV lane ends. They violate the regs just so they can butt in front of the rest of us and cause me to slam on my brakes so they can sneak in front of me when the lane ends.

I'm one of those obnoxious drivers who will not let these assclowns in. Period. I will intentionally speed up and ride the tail of the vehicle in front of me so closely, that the driver of that car should ask me to buy them dinner first. I'm a bitch. I want the assholes in the HOV lane who feel they're too special to drive in the regular lanes just like the rest of us to stop and wait until someone lets them in. And let me tell you something... DC area drivers - not a whole lot of them are nice enough to let these shitslurpers in front of them.

I may hate HOV restrictions with the fire of a thousand burning oil fields in Kuwait, but I hate the assholes who consider themselves too special to abide by the regs even more.

There. That's my pet peeve for the day.

It's about choices

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:40:00 +0000

My friend Defiant Infidel sent me an email this afternoon telling me that I have to read this.

Now let me preface this by saying that my children are not home schooled. I do not have the time, the patience or the pre-requisite knowledge about science and math to make them well-rounded human beings. Yes, I work in economics, but my trigonometry and calculus skills leave much to be desired. And science... well... let me just say this - I know that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. I know that di-hydrogen monoxide is H2O, commonly known as water. I know basic biology and basic physics. Beyond that, don't ask me anything scientific, because I will look at you like a monkey doing a math problem.

As you all know, I've had my issues with public schools, but I've always been a big believer in actually giving a damn about what goes on in your child's educational career and following closely what they're taught and why. I don't home school, but I damn well make sure that what my children are learning is accurate and objective - NOT based on someone's ignorant perception of whatever politics dictates at the moment. This is why the Redhead corrected his teacher by telling her that we don't live in a Democracy, but in a bicameral, constitutional republic. This is why my Teeny-bopper can read and comprehend college-level novels, while everyone else around her muddles through teen fiction.

I don't supplement their education because I'm conceited enough to believe that I'm smarter than the teachers. I'm merely realistic enough to understand that with today's "shove as much information they might get on a standardized test down their throat" environment, schools are hardly adequate to produce a well-rounded, well-educated child.

So with that... some fiskage.

I do understand a parent embracing the homeschooling philosophy for several reasons. Control of curriculum and topics, friends, diet, convenience and school shootings to name only a few.

I don't know any parent that home schools their children because they want to "control their friends." As a parent, I do make sure that I know my children's playmates' parents and that when they go play, it's an appropriate environment, not a slovenly pigsty where you're afraid to sit down for contracting a staph infection and the smell is so rank, you vomit in your mouth every time you inhale.

Contrary to popular opinion, school shootings are actually a rare occurrence and have been on the decline for quite a few years. If I had decided to home school my kids, school shootings wouldn't be on my list of reasons to pull my children out of public schools.

Convenience?? Being cooped up in the house, not having a career of your own, and spending every day educating the munchkins instead of having any semblance of a life? That's convenience? Don't get me wrong. I love my kids to pieces, but if I had to spend 24/7 with them without having the incredibly cool career that I have, I would lose my mind! Parents who home school sacrifice a metric f*ckload to ensure that their children aren't completely doofused up by publik edjukashun! I applaud and honor their commitment and sacrifice! Convenience? I don't think so!

The issue is the controlling aspect of what children are taught and the arrogant nature in which a parent deems their curriculum better or of a higher standard. While public schools are struggling, for the most part I think education today is better than it has ever been.

Oh? Our children are taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery, that we live in a democracy, that there's no difference between "your," "you're," "their," "they're," "to," "two," and "too." As John Stossel points out:

To give you an idea of how competitive American schools are and how U.S. students performed compared with their European counterparts, we gave parts of an international test to some high school students in Belgium and in New Jersey.

Belgian kids cleaned the American kids' clocks, and called them "stupid."
[...]

The Belgian students didn't perform better because they're smarter than American students. They performed better because their schools are better. At age 10, American students take an international test and score well above the international average. But by age 15, when students from 40 countries are tested, the Americans place 25th.

I came here from the former USSR as a child of eight. I attended first and second grades in the Ukraine. In those two years, I studied a foreign language (French), could write compositions in cursive and did algebra. When I came to the United States, I came to third grade. We were cutting out shapes from construction paper and learning how to tell time by looking at little drawings of clocks. I didn't start learning a foreign language until seventh grade! In other words, education today and yesterday sucks dog schlong!

Yet, we continue to complain about American competitiveness on a global scale. Breeding little compete-mongering children is not a good formula for society. It creates a mean kid atmosphere and quite frankly kids should spend more time in the "being nice" classroom and less time in the academic classroom.

Wrong answer! Whether we like it or not, globalization is a fact. Technology has connected this world like it never has before. Industry is global. It's more competitive. And our dumb kids, who barely know what goes on in their own nation, let alone what goes on in other countries, who don't care to know, who can barely speak their own language, let alone any foreign one, will not be able to compete for work or innovation. Competition breeds achievement, and achievement breeds new discoveries, developments in technology, medicine, art and science. Without competition we stagnate. It doesn't preclude "niceness." It augments it.

At any rate, home schooled children are taught a strict philosophical view that is controlled by the parent.

Why is that a bad thing? Taking responsibility for your children's education and their worldview is somehow negative? And what is it, exactly, that makes you believe that children who are home schooled aren't exposed to a variety of views? Isn't it a bit of an ignorant generalization to claim that all parents who choose to educate their children at home are narrow-minded?

Also, home schooling parents act superior to the public school system, and I think a community should support its local schools.

The community does support its local schools - through the taxes that are extorted from every individual, whether they have children in public schools or not. And why shouldn't home schooling parents feel superior to public schools? Fact of the matter is that public schools are failing. Much like lack of competition breeds complacency and stunts progress, lack of competition in public schools, due to the fact that they're a monopoly breeds a lack incentive to succeed. And it's NOT a lack of funding that's the problem. According to Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute, "At the end of World War II, public schools in the United States spent a
total of $1,214 per student in inflation-adjusted 2002 dollars. By the
middle of the 1950s that figure had roughly doubled to $2,345. By 1972
it had almost doubled again, reaching $4,479. And since then, it has
doubled a third time, climbing to $8,745 in 2002." Obviously throwing money at the problem is not working.

I don't think that the social aspect is too much of a problem, but I do think I would feel isolated as a kid from the camaraderie of school spirit and school pride. Its a huge part of childhood that home school kids miss out on. Nothing better than a pep rally before a sporting event.

I don't know about other places, but our school sporting events are open to EVERYONE in the community. Additionally, the county Parks and Rec Department has football, baseball, cheerleading and other sports county residents can participate in. Don't assume that just because a parent chooses to educate their children at home, that they isolate them socially. Home schooled children still have friends and participate in sports and other activities.

So what is the purpose of home schooling? Is it so parents can micromanage what goes into the impressionable minds of their kids? If so that philosophy stinks. What is it they think about the outside world? Are they better? Is the world so evil that the education that comes from a secular institution is sub-par?

The purpose of home schooling is to give children a better education. Better by whose standards? Just take a look at the performance of home schooled kids vice ones who are shuffled through publik skools nowadays. My 18 year old decided she was going to skip school the entire fourth quarter. She just didn't go. She failed nearly EVERYTHING. Straight Fs. Except for one D- in English. And because the only requirement for her to graduate high school was to pass four years of English, the D- did it. She's practically illiterate. She couldn't have done worse on her SATs if she had written her name down and left the test. And yet, the school shuffled her out. Tell me again how great public schools are? It's not that they're secular. I'm a Pagan-leaning agnostic. I want my kids taught facts and science, not faith and creationism. If I want them to have a spiritual education, I certainly won't leave it to public schools.

Why home school? It's about choices. Maybe I don't want my children learning that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all states or that Lincoln was such a hero for setting all the slaves in America free, when in fact, there were two, and they only freed slaves in particular states - the Confederate ones. Maybe I don't want my kids learning that the Second Amendment gives a collective right to keep and bear arms. Maybe I want my children to know the difference between a democracy and a republic and which one the Founders intended this nation to be. I want them to know the difference between "to" and "two."

Self righteous? I wouldn't call it that. I would call it loving one's kids and caring about what they're taught. As a parent you care about what they put in their bodies and what they eat. Why wouldn't you care about what goes into their minds?

Well, I think I'm ready

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:55:00 +0000

I've been monkeying around with the new site for several days now, and while it's not completely finished to my satisfaciton yet, it's acceptable.

If you're a current reader, I urge you to bookmark my new site: www.thelibertyzone.com and start reading there instead.

I think I'll mirror blog posts here at Blogspot until the end of the week, and then bid this platform farewell!

So once again, don't forget:

www.thelibertyzone.com

Hasn't prior restraint been ruled unconstitutional or something?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:01:00 +0000

I received this story in an email yesterday, but it included a link to one of my LEAST favorite sites, WorldNetDaily, that is a rag so biased, that what they print can barely be considered journalism. I generally take everything I read in the Weekly World News of the Internet, as I like to refer to them, with a grain of salt until I find a similar story in a more credible news source. The fact that I am actually linking to a CNN story in the title of this post should tell you how low my opinion of World(Fundamentalist)NutDaily is.

Nonetheless... this particular story appears to be accurate.

Some Connecticut gun enthusiasts are up in arms about a new law signed this week by Gov. John Rowland that gives police the right to seize firearms from the home of a person whom authorities believe may be considering a criminal act.

It's considered to be the first law in the nation that allows confiscation of a gun before the owner commits an act of violence.

I realize prior restraint has been ruled unconstitutional in Near v. Minnesota in 1931. The case itself pertained to prior restraint of the press, when the Supreme Court ruled that the state had no power or authority to prevent a publication from publishing a story, except in extreme cases when national security is at stake. Subsequent cases also dealt with First Amendment issues.

I would think, however, that a constitutionally enumerated and protected right, would also be protected under these decisions. I would think that allowing a government to violate the Second Amendment rights of an individual who has committed no crime would be illegal, much like it's illegal to violate the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations, merely because they might abuse it.

Gun control nutbags have often quoted what they perceive to be limitations on the First Amendment as justification for limiting the Second. "You can't yell 'FIRE!'in a crowded theater," they claim. Well, actually, you can -- if there is a fire. And much like state legislators do not mandate theater managers to duct tape patrons' mouths shut, just in case they might incite panic and yell, "FIRE!" illegally, they also have no right to mandate the confiscation of a gun, just in case an individual may use it in a crime.

So why is it that Connecticut is allowing this clearly unconstitutional law to stand? Panic.

Connecticut passed the law after the shootings deaths of four people at the state's lottery headquarters last year by one employee whose behavior had worried co-workers.

"It gives police the authority when it's clear that someone's become dangerous -- and you know they have guns -- to go in and take the guns before a tragedy takes place," said Rep. Michael Lawler.

One batshiat crazy nutjob acted weird and went on a rampage, and ergo, they feel justified in treating everyone like a potential criminal.

When is it clear that someone has become dangerous? My idea of worrisome behavior may be quite different from the paranoid loon who sits in the cubicle next to me and soils his tidy-whities every time I snap my gum too loudly.

Are the police to act like psychologists now, without actually having the training?

Since when is it right or moral to allow the subjective views of others to affect people's rights?

What prevents vindictive ex spouses, paranoid neighbors, or former friends with whom one has gotten into what one thought was merely an argument from turning one in on the suspicion of "dangerous" behavior?

Look, I don't want dangerous, violent nutjobs walking around armed any more than anyone else does. However, this law makes the average citizen's rights subject to other people's arbitrary whims and irrational fears, potentially disarming the populace and rendering them vulnerable against the very nutbags from whom the state claims protection is needed. Fact of the matter is crazy is crazy (deep, I know), and a violent nutjob will just as soon kill you with a kitchen utensil as he would with a gun, and the former would probably hurt more!

For those "journalistic" types who want to use prior restraint on gun owners, I'd like to see how loudly you howl if your computer was confiscated, just in case you engage in libel.

Who's the racist?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:18:00 +0000

So I was sitting around after work tonight, trying to figure out what I was going to write about. There are times when nothing appeals to me. I'm not as creatively fabulous as my friend Rachel, who can write about the lint between her toes and make it sound interesting in the absence of anything to write about! And yes, I would read about the lint over and over and over again, just because she's got the flair!

So I was talking to Brad on the phone. He's tired. He just got home from work. He's cranky (and yes, that's a normal state of mind for him.) But he asked me if I'd seen the terminally cluef*cked moonbat who appeared on MSNBC recently, claiming that McCain's attack ad on Obama is somehow racist... RACIST!!! Showing a black politician sandwiched between two vapid bimbos who happen to be white is racist??? Most frat boys would call it "fortuitous."

And showing a monument in an ad that happens to hold a certain shape... ahem... is well... yeah. The ignorant douchenozzle in question actually claimed that the phallic symbols depicted in the ad, combined with the juxtaposition of a black politician with two white vacuous bimbos is... um... racist.

Some people just want to see race everywhere.

OK, first of all, it's an attack on Obama's intelligence. Obama isn't the brightest candle on the menorah, but he's far above the barely cerebrally functioning Britney Spears and Paris Hilton!

Of course, I can tell that the retardoid hurling the racism accusation also can't tell the difference between the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the Washington Monument and the Victory Column.

And the always entertaining, always observant Jon Stewart calls him on it.

Just for the record...

Washington Monument

Leaning Tower of Pisa

Victory Column

Alles Klar?

Apparently, to some nimrods, portraying any African American in any negative light is... well... racist.

Twisted cartoon of the day

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:17:00 +0000

Thank you, Oleg!

We've come full circle

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:50:00 +0000

For Mark Marchiafava, it all started with a pair of socks.

His is a story I'd been covering on and off for two years, so I won't rehash it here. Just take a look at some of the links to get the full story. Mark had gone into a store to buy some socks. He was carrying his gun openly, as is legal in Gonzales, La.

Two years after this fateful trip to Tanger Factory Outlet, Mark has been through an arrest, confiscation of his property, its return, a battle through the legal system, and an eventual resolution... sort of... of his case.

I'm pretty happy to have been the one to bring his ordeal to the attention of thousands of people. The story was featured on KeepAndBearArms.com and reprinted in numerous blogs and discussion boards. And I believe it's only thanks to the attention and outrage of the people around this country that the case was resolved and Mark got his gun back, instead of being tossed into a cell.

It all started with a sock purchase for Mark, and today, guess what I received from him and his lovely wife Barbara - in my mailbox, along with my Guns & Ammo magazine!

Yep! Socks!

So we've come full circle. Mark and Barbara bought these socks for me in the same Tanger Factory Outlet where the trouble started two years ago. And yes... Mark was carrying open during the purchase!

Some blogging news

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:48:00 +0000

I thought long and hard about whether or not it would be worth it to change platforms, get my own domain name and start a new blog that is not at the mercy of anyone who decides to hit the "flag" button. So I went and did it.

www.thelibertyzone.com is now my domain. It's far from ready, and I'll be blogging here until I'm ready to move. But I'll be mirroring posts there until I decide to shut down this site, so please don't go anywhere until I let you know.

When I'm ready to officially launch the new site, I'll do a final post here, so you guys know.

Oh, is that all?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:06:00 +0000

This is why I lean toward believing that a benevolent deity does not exist. If he or she did, the Westboro Baptist Hellhouse, would have been completely engulfed in flames with its sociopatic nutbag members trapped inside, unable to move, burning alive and conscious to experience every bit of pain.

I guess since a horrible, fiery death is not in their future quite yet, I'll settle for this.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports on its Web site that a fence and garage at Westboro Baptist Church became engulfed in flames early today.

Topeka Fire Marshal Greg Bailey said the cause of the fire has not been determined.

However, a spokeswoman for the church, Shirley Phelps-Roper, believes it was deliberately set.

Well, the spokesbeast could be right, I suppose. Enough people hate these ignorant, oozing pustules on the ass of humanity that doing something such as this is not out of the realm of possibility.

However, I have a more plausible theory. These fetid warts have been largely ignored by the mainstream. Their efforts to harm the families of our fallen heroes have been effectively subverted by the Patriot Guard Riders. They just don't have the attention that they were garnering when they first started their twisted campaign against our troops. The shock has worn off. Disgust has set in, and people have turned away.

They needed a headline. They set their own property on fire.

That's what I think.

Coordinated attack?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:46:00 +0000

Last year, when Brad and I were deployed to Kosovo, we wrote a series of blog posts about our experiences to counter certain articles by certain "comediennes" who shall remain nameless, because I don't feel like rehashing old crap, and because I don't feel the need to attract a bunch of crazies here again by the mere mention of her name. This bitch is like Lord Voldemort in Book 7 of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. In it, if someone mentioned Voldemort's name, all charms helping them conceal or outrun the "authorities" were broken, and they were immediately found by Death Eaters or others working for the Ministry of Magic.

She's like that. You mention J**** Gor***, and the next thing you know, pro-Serbian nationalists and Kosovo Albanian defenders storm the castle.

No thanks. That's not why I'm making this post. As usual, I'm off on a tangent, because it's: 1) early in the morning, I'm tired and can't sleep because the dog woke me up, and 2) because I'm me.

The reason I'm making this post is that after Brad and I published our pieces, our blogs were mysteriously reported as "spam blogs" to Blogger and arbitrarily shut down. Interesting...

Yesterday, I learned that some of my favorite blogs, such as David Codrea's War on Guns, a Keyboard and a .45 and others were shut down much like mine and Brad's were last year.

It took me a day to resolve the issue, but I'm thinking maybe I should invest in my own domain. What do you guys think?

My very own T-Shirt!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:37:00 +0000

So, as I've told you all before, Oleg Volk is a genius. And yes, he's my friend! And yes, I'm going to brag about it, because Oleg is quite one of the coolest people you'll ever meet. As I told you guys before, Oleg took a few photos of me when I was visiting him a few weeks ago. He also made a poster, which has now been turned into a T-shirt!!!!

Holy crap! Me? My mug? Me on a t-shirt???? Yes, be afraid. Be very afraid.

This is now a T-shirt!

I do think you guys should check it out. I don't get a penny from this, and I don't want any money from it. This is not for profit in any way. It's just a cool way to promote armed self defense, and I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see someone in Washington DC or another gun control "utopia" wearing it!

Off to the woodchipper with you!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:46:00 +0000

There are certain people in this world whose mere presence in my area of existence (namely this planet) makes me want to shred them apart with my bare hands and mash their face into something painful... the cheese grater from last night's conversation comes to mind. One such varmint (I hesitate to refer to him as anything resembling human) is Keith Olbermann. This is a guy whose mere presence on my television screen makes me want to dismember him with a sledgehammer and feed the remains into a woodchipper (because no one can accuse me of not loving nature and wanting to fertilize the grass).

BLOOD! BLOOD MAKES THE GREEN GRASS GROW, DRILL SERGEANT! (Sorry... basic training flashback.)

But I digress, as I'm sure is no surprise to any regular reader of this blog (all 17 of you).

Brad sent me the Newsbusters story I linked to in the title this morning, and yes, it's once again enough for me to break the dreaded "no blogging at work" rule. I seem to be doing that a lot lately...

It's like Blogger is calling my name... beckoning me to rant, prompting me to put my little fingers on the keyboard and release all that anger...

Oh, never mind. I can't curse at work. *SIGH*

Anyway Brad knows exactly what makes me angry and just how to set me to spontaneously combust in uncontrollable anger. The recipe is easy: combine one part Olbermann, one part gun control, and one part asshatted claim that the Second Amendment somehow grants a collective right to militias. Sit back and watch in amusement.

KEITH OLBERMANN: And our winner, Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court. You've got around 30,000 gun deaths in this country per year, another 75,000 non-fatal gun wounds, half the suicides are by gun; and this clown and his four colleagues decided that the 32-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., and the demand that firearms kept in the home be locked or disassembled was unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment. You remember the Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Despite years of fog created by the NRA and right-wing organizations, that isn`t very complicated: For the purposes of forming a state militia, you're entitled to keep and bear arms. Obviously, those would have to be the kind of arms in use in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was passed -- the musket, the wheel-lock, the flint lock, the 13th century Chinese hand canon. Stuff like that. Scalia, of course, simply decided that the militia part of the Second Amendment is some sort of quaint anachronism that he could happily ignore. And there's the beautiful thing about our country -- they say anybody can grow up to be a Supreme Court justice. And in Antonin Scalia, there's your proof, and tonight's "Worst Person in the World"!

You know what I want to do? I want to take that queer pink tie of his, attach it to a Stryker with Olbermann still dangling on the other end, and set it off to ride around the Iraqi countryside, dragging Olberdouche behind it as he screams in a girly fashion. And, yes, I'm hostile!

Here are a few questions I'd like to ask Olbermann before I fed his festering carcass into a woodchipper.

1 - Does "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" in the first amendment refer to individuals or only formal organizations? Does this mean that you're not allowed to run your fat, ignorant yap unless you're doing it in the capacity of your job as a member of the media? Because I'd love to make you shut the hell up the rest of the time!

2 - When the Bill of Rights was passed, no computers, television, radio or Internet existed. Does this mean you're only allowed to spew your obscene idiocies on paper? If so, you should be prosecuted for half the putrid spew you vomit forth!

3- When you impugn Mary Lou Sapone who "infiltrated" the organizations who are trying to relieve us of our rights, will you also insult Garen Wintemute, who by the way, deserves a woodchipper trip of his own, for his immoral actions in trying to destroy free commerce at gun shows?

KEITH OLBERMANN: The runnerup, Mary McFate, also known as Mary Lou Sapone. Mother Jones magazine reports this today. Ms. McFate is a 60-something woman, a quirky but constant participant in gun control organizations, like the Brady Campaign. Ms. Sapone is a 60-something woman, a former figure in the National Rifle Association and wealthy pro-gun activist. The magazine says they're the same person. As Mary McFate, Mary Lou Sapone infiltrated the executive boards and learned the plans of organizations trying to decrease deaths by gun in this country, and apparently reported it back to organizations like the NRA, which are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country. In other words, she was a Benedict Arnold for the gun lobby.

5 - Do you have any verifiable evidence that the NRA is "trying to increase deaths by gun in this country?" I'm just curious, because it seems to me that a putrifying hole such as DC, which had, for 32 years, banned armed self defense and experienced astronomical murder and crime rates, could do no worse than to restore the right of the citizens to defend themselves.

In other words, Olbermann, you are a (insert invective you know I want to use, but can't because I'm at work). You know nothing. You bloviate from the very depths of your malodorous rectal cavity, based on nothing but puerile emotion and gun grabber talking points that have thankfully been dismantled by the Supreme Court. You have no facts to back up your long-disproven, ridiculous contentions, and even if you did, you wouldn't recognize them if they jumped up and tickled your taint.

OFF TO THE WOODCHIPPER WITH YOU!

The smarmilarity of McCain

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:01:00 +0000

OK, first of all, yes - I did make up the word "smarmilarity." I think it's an appropriate mixture of "smarminess" and "hilarity" that's just right for John McCain. He's so convinced of his own superiority over the dumb peons in the GOP, that he's flip-flopping worse than a freshly caught trout, and chuckling as the "faithful and loyal" Republicans just line up to drink his Kool Aid.

The more I listen to this guy, the more he pisses me off. The more he opens his ignorant yap about finances, taxes and the economy, the more I want to beat him over the head with a basic microeconomics book. The more I listen to his oily, self-satisfied demeanor, the more I seriously want to grind his face into the asphalt and stomp on it several times. Lately, the guy has gotten so unflatteringly glib, that I mentioned using a cheese grater on his face when I was on the phone with Frank last night, which prompted him to proclaim that my hostility was somehow charming.

Hostility...

Yeah, I'm hostile. I'm downright livid that our choices for President consist of essentially two Marxists - one who proudly admits his communist roots, and the other one who pretends he doesn't have them. You know, while Obama is inexperienced, elitist and ignorant about foreign affairs, at least we know who he is. I've seen very little pandering to conservatives from his end. He is what he is, and we know it. But what really pisses me off about McCain is that not only is he economically ignorant and apt to bite his conservative base in the ass at any point, he is unwilling to change, because... well... goshdurnit, you'll vote for me anyway, because you're too afraid of Obama. He'll do what he wants, and he'll relish the power.

I saw that attitude during his CPAC speech, and I haven't seen much change since then. No, he won't raise your taxes. Period. Well, until it's politically expedient, that is. He didn't like the tax cuts passed in 2001, but hell... now he's promising to extend them. He won't raise your taxes, but how will he pay for economic goodies such as gas tax holidays, new mortgages for idiots who were too stupid to avoid high mortgage costs and too shortsighted to get a fixed rate mortgage, and are now suffering because they are unable to pay the money they owe, and tax breaks *sigh* for families with children... isn't that special?

Well that certainly doesn't sound like any free-market conservative I know! Using my tax dollars to monkey around with the free market, rescue fiscally irresponsible idiots and issue handouts to those who were cool enough to hump like rabid bunnies, but not responsible enough to afford paying for the product of said reproductive activity.

And while I've mentioned his shoddy Second Amendment record before, there are SILL so-called gun rights supporters out there who blindly proclaim that they'll vote for McCain because of the Second Amendment! Wake up, people! Any candidate who would appear in gun control ads, push legislation to lock up your tool of self defense "for the children," of course, and advocate making guns cost prohibitive for those who may need personal protection most - the law-abiding citizens in poor neighborhoods that tend to be riddled with crime - merely because they have the seedy moniker of "Saturday night specials," IS NO FRIEND OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

But you know what? It doesn't really matter, because McCain is convinced Republicans and conservatives will come home to him anyway. NO one is a threat, because the alternative is so horrifying!

The McCain campaign says they expect many Paul voters to come home to the GOP before Nov. 4.

"At the end of the day, Republicans are going to vote for John McCain. He's a Western candidate who understands water issues, land issues. He's a fiscal conservative," said Rick Gorka, a campaign spokesman. "His message is appealing to a broad spectrum of voters."

No. Ron Paul poses no real threat. Neither does anyone the Libertarians put forward. And then there's the Green Party with their psychotic leader Cynthia McKinney, who's got the market cornered on teh crazeeee. She poses no real threat either. But combined, Bob Barr, Ron Paul and yes... even McCrazy... may deflate some of McCain's ego just a little bit.

Here's one thing I'm convinced of: This republic survived 8 years of Cankles and the Hick. It will survive four or even eight (UGH! Perish the thought!) years of Obamessiah. But I am not taking another step in the direction of tyranny. I'm not taking another step in the direction of statism. I'm not taking another step in the direction of socialist authoritarianism, and I don't care WHO is espousing it and whether it has an "R" or a "D" behind its name. Rewarding them with your vote for doing the same stupid, morally corrupt, unconscionable things year after year will leave them with the exact attitude that McCain has right now: You'll give us our vote, because we'll scare you into believing that the alternative is worse.

Well, guess what! No more. I will quote the Emperor Misha here, because he, like I, has seen the alternative.

You THINK you know what continuously voting for the lesser of two evils while ignoring the slow, sure slide toward tyranny is like, but you haven’t got a fucking clue. Sorry, brother. I love you, but you don’t. You have no fucking idea what it’s like watching your country go down that slope is like, nor do you have the first fucking clue what it’s like watching the end destination and knowing that it all happened because you never once stood up and said “OK, this is fucking IT. You can kill me, but I ain’t taking another step in that direction.”

I do. Not because I was around and didn’t do anything, because I wasn’t, but I was around to see the results of what happened when those who went before me did nothing, and I fucking well hated their guts for it. I don’t want the next three or four generations to rightfully hate me for sitting on my arse doing nothing in the name of “the lesser of two evils” Being dead is bad enough. Being dead and despised for all eternity is worse. I’ve fucking well had it. I don’t expect you, or anybody else, to have the same line in the sand drawn at the same point, nor am I presumptuous enough to think that I, of all people, chose the right spot to draw it in. I hope that I am, but I could very well be wrong. Too bad. What I DO know is that I’ve reached my personal limit. What I also know is that I’m not in the least bit afraid of death, at least not compared with the Hell that I know, from personal, actual experience that is the alternative.

You keep cutting that salami in the name of “the lesser of two evils” until you run out of salami, that’s fine. I don’t hold it against you. It’s your decision and I am in no more of a position to tell you what is best for YOU than McSlime and his RINO accomplices are, but I bloody well reserve the right to choose what’s right for ME, for the very same reason.

I've lived that hell. I've festered for the first eight years in the hole that was the USSR. I remember the blind indoctrination from birth about the "great Soviet society." I remember the constant fear that was on the face of every single person I encountered there as a kid. I remember nothing but control over every aspect of the individual during my childhood there - nothing but complete governmental preeminence over every human being. And I remember the dazed, sheep-like reverence with which the populace blindly accepted government dominance over their lives until they ceased being human altogether.

No more.

Your last chance!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:41:00 +0000

Brad blogged about this a few days ago. If you're a Joss Whedon fan (he of Firefly, Serenity, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

If you click on the title link, it will take you to Hulu, which is a great site if you want to see a lot of cool TV series and movies absolutely free and with minimal commercial interruption. I'm told the Hulu video will only be available today. The embedded video is from MySpace, and I don't know how long it will be up.

Enjoy!

Back to court!

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:02:00 +0000

OK, just one more blog from work... just one more.

Looks like Dick Anthony Heller is headed back to court.

Why? Because the petty, tyrannical (insert invective you know I want to use, but can't because I'm at work)s in Washington DC just can't seem to get it through their obtuse little heads that the people HAVE A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

The Constitution doesn't specify what arms. It doesn't distinguish between muzzle loaders and bazookas. It does not prohibit semiautomatic handguns, while grudgingly accepting that perhaps a revolver is OK...

Oh, look! The NRA is finally getting involved!

Three D.C. residents backed by one of the country's most influential pro-gun organizations Monday filed a challenge to the District's ban on semi-automatic handguns. The plaintiffs said city officials are flouting a recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the city's 32-year-old gun ban.

Lead attorney Stephen P. Halbrook and the National Rifle Association, which is financing the case, say the District's definition of a machine gun is too vague and unfairly prohibits residents from using the guns for home defense.

"D.C. has stuck to its position that semi-automatic guns are machine guns," Mr. Halbrook said. "It's a crazy definition of machine gun."

Well yeah, it's crazy! A machine gun is an automatic weapon! How the hell does anyone get away with claiming a gun that expels one round with one pull of the trigger is a machine gun? DC must LOVE getting it's rear whipped in court!

D.C. interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said he expected the lawsuit but thinks the District's definition of a machine gun is acceptable and intends to fight the challenge.

Because the (insert invective you know I want to use, but can't because I'm at work) DC hired to represent them did such a STELLAR job stating his case in the Supreme Court!

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you're right, Mr. Dellinger, it's certainly an odd way in the Second Amendment to phrase the operative provision. If it is limited to State militias, why would they say "the right of the people?" In other words, why wouldn't they say "state militias have the right to keep arms?"

MR. DELLINGER: Mr. Chief Justice, [insert prerequisite DUH!!!! here] I believe that the phrase "the people" and the phrase "the militia" were really in -- in sync with each other. You will see references in the debates of, the Federalist Farmer uses the phrase "the people are the militia, the militia are the people."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But if that's right, doesn't that cut against you? If the militia included all the people, doesn't the preamble that you rely on not really restrict the right much at all? It includes all the people.

More power to you Mr. Heller, Ms. McVey and Mr. Jordan! Let's roll!

Once a lying, flip-flopper with no respect for conservative values...

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:54:00 +0000

There are only a few things that would prompt me to violate my "no blogging at work" rule: any new attempt to destroy our gun rights, and bold faced lies on the part of politicians. Neither one of these two things is anything new or different. I'm not surprised in any way. But they're enough for me to plug blogger into my address window and go to town.

Unfortunately, you won't see any of the usual obscenities that I might toss John McCain's way - not while I'm blogging from work. But you'll see why I'm superbly angry, why I do not trust John McCain as far as I could throw a Buick, why I think he's a lying, ignorant hypocrite who would turn on gun owners and anyone else who stood in the way of his political expediency, including Soldiers whom he claims to respect, and why I'll NEVER give him my vote.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's signal that he may be open to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, despite previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind, is drawing sharp rebukes from conservatives.

Wait! McCain is flip-flopping? Who would have thunk?

First, he opposed the 2001 tax cuts, and now he would make them permanent. First he appeared in gun control ads by gun control zealots, now, he claims he's had a Second Amendment epiphany: NO GUN CONTROL. Right. First he wants to legalize millions of criminals... yes, illegal aliens are criminals, as they have violated the immigration laws of this country... and now, all of a sudden, he's a "secure the borders" kind of guy.

"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."

Yeah, I know I said I wouldn't raise taxes, but I'm willing to break my promise if it's politically expedient and helps me be the top dawg in Washington.

Indeed, McCain frequently has promised not to raise taxes.

At a July 7 town-hall meeting in Denver, he said voters faced a stark choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.

"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."

Um... yeah, well... I lied.

Asked for an explanation of McCain's latest comments, campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said the Arizona senator "has a clear and demonstrated record of opposing tax increases. John McCain is going to cut taxes" and improve government discipline, he said.

Read my lips. No new... wait, what? We need more money to grow government? Hell yeah! Raise them Social Security taxes!

So for those of you who will vote for McCain this fall just to avoid voting for the Marxist twit from Chicago, I ask you this: Do you really feel more comfortable having a guy in the White House who claims to honor your values but will turn around and bite you in the fourth point of contact at the slighest whiff of political expediency, than you would a dimwitted Marxist from whom you at least know what to expect?

Just curious?

Resolution... sort of

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:23:00 +0000

Most of you will remember a few years ago when I blogged about the story of Mark Edward Marchiafava, who was unlawfully detained, had his property confiscated and was subsequently told that his right to keep and bear arms was little more than a privilege subject to the interpretation of the Gonzales, La. police, despite what the Supreme Court or the laws of Louisiana say.

Many of you will also remember a blurb by Say Uncle a few days ago that gave a small preview of the fact that Mark's case has finally been settled - AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEARS!

Well, I've been in sporadic contact with Mark these past two years, and I was gratified to finally hear that this egregious miscarriage of the law has been resolved. Has it been resolved to everyone's satisfaction? No. The police were apparently anxious to settle out of court, and in return they get:

1 - Mark's silence via a non-disclosure agreement
2 - No police testimony under oath
3 - No admission - public or private - of wrongdoing

Mark gets a check for an undisclosed amount for the inconvenience of being abused by the Gonzales PD. I'd say one side is finishing this race much better off than the other.

In the interest of fairness, I did email the Gonzales police department yesterday with several questions about this case. I promised Mark that I would be polite and that I wouldn't use any of my trademark language that endears me to so many people (and makes others want to eviscerate me with a rusty fork). I told them (politely - yes, I was polite, believe it or not. I'm actually capable of said feat) that I understood that they couldn't discuss personel issues with the media, but they could reply to some general questions such as:

In light of their willingness to settle the matter out of court, and in light of the fact that they couldn't hold Mark on any violation whatsoever, how have they changed their policies vis-a-vis open carriers in their town?

Would they provide remedial training to their officers?

Why did it take so long (more than two years) for them to settle this issue?

Why did it take so long and involve so much hassle to return Mark's property?

I also asked if they could provide some general information about whether or not any discipline or at the very least remedial training would be implemented for the officers involved.

I told Mark I doubted any answers would be forthcoming. Much like my first communication with these people, I'm fairly sure my inquiry will be ignored. However, should I - by some miracle of fate - receive a reply, I will definitely post it here. The case is no longer an active case; it's not in litigation or even in the negotiation phase. There's nothing stopping them from providing replies to some general questions about potential changes in policy.

I won't hold my breath. The Gonzales police department hasn't been forthcoming with information in the past, and they STILL refuse to talk about the issue. That, to me, speaks volumes of their intent to honor their citizens' rights. So does the fact that the officer who returned Mark's gun mentioned that the City Attorney and the police department were exploring other means of preventing citizens from carrying their tools of self defense openly in their town. It's quite obvious these "servants of the people" consider themselves to be more their masters.

So, no. I don't think a bit of taxpayer dollars thrown in Mark's direction is a satisfactory conclusion to his ordeal. Mark told me that what he originally wanted was criminal prosecution for the way he was treated. That didn't happen. The refusal on the part of the "authorities" to even investigate this matter speaks volumes about the desire to protect their own, instead of upholding their oath to protect and serve the citizens. As Mark told me, "The officers who arrested me were acting in a criminal manner. As such, I'd like to see the existing laws applied equally." But apparently in the Orwellian world of Gonzales, La., all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. (If you don't get the reference, look it up.)

What these officers did was terrorize an innocent man. Plain and simple. And all this was done to establish their dominance, not just over him, but over the general public. Hell, I'm surprised they didn't hump his leg in an attempt to establish their top-dog status! According to Mark, "The ONLY fear I had was when these rogue cops did a felony action stop AFTER I was let go. Knowing I had committed no crime, knowing THEY knew I had committed no crime, I couldn't understand why I now had weapons aimed at me." I'll tell you why. It was an intimidation technique, and Mark realizes it as well as I do. "Looking back, I now realize it was an attempt to try and discourage me from openly carrying there again," he tells me. I agree.

These are people who don't understand that they serve the public - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! They are not the masters of the populace! They are paid by the citizens, who, by virtue of providing the funds for their salaries, are their employers. They would do well to remember that when dealing with them - especially those citizens who, by the police's own admission, did nothing illegal. "Nicki," Mark writes, "what really stood out was the extremely rude manner in which the lead officer treated me. As I sat shackled to the wall, he strutted around with my .357 in his hands, sneering "I can't believe you were walking around Tanger Mall with a LOADED .357... Do you reckon someone could teach them COURTESY?"

So to summarize, here are the lessons the Gonzales police need to be taught:

1 - Courtesy
2 - Laws of the Land
3 - Laws of the State
4 - To whom they should be held accountable

Luckily, their intimidation tactics don't work on everyone, and they certainly haven't worked on Mark. He told me that while he was in the process of receiving his property from the police, the officer told him never to come back to the Tanger Outlet armed. "I immediately told him he had no lawful authority to make such a statement," Mark says. "Only the owner or authorized agent (a very specific legal term) could bar me from the premises." Mark is correct, and he will be going back. No doubt.

For those of you who think this is a bad idea, bad PR, provocation, etc., I call BULLSH*T! The man was abused for doing nothing more than exercising his rights. He was intimidated, harassed and deprived of his property for several weeks for doing NOTHING illegal. Do you think it's bad PR to counter these actions with what amounts to be a PERFECTLY LEGAL form of protest? Hell, if it was up to you people, Rosa Parks and Irene Morgan Kirkaldy would still be sitting at the back of the bus! I, for one, am gratified that there are still people left out there who treasure their rights enough to stand up for them.

Provocation be damned.

There's a reason why Oleg hates TSA

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:46:00 +0000

When I was visiting Oleg in Tennesee two weeks ago, I discovered that Gremlin (his kitten) is incredibly spoiled. Cute enough to have captured my heart, but spoiled nonetheless. Oleg is such a kind soul, that I can't imagine him disciplining even the four-legged, yapping toilet brushes some people misclassify as dogs, let alone a sweet, furry kitten like Gremlin when he innocently jumps on the table, claws at the couch or sinks his little teeth into your extremities.

Many people who have met Oleg agree that he is the kindest, sweetest guy on the planet. This fact led to a conversation between Dave, Frank and myself about what it would take to make Oleg dish out some discipline (not the BDSM kind, you perverts!) to Gremlin. We all agreed that all we needed to do was buy a miniature TSA uniform for Gremlin and stand back as Oleg transforms from a kind, mild-mannered, sweet guy to an enraged Catholic school nun hopped up on PCP.

Why, you ask?

In Chicago, people like Robert Perry are subjected to exhaustive security checks. He was patted down, his wheel chair was examined and his hands were swabbed, all in public view in a see-through room at the security checkpoint. Perry, 71, is not alone

"It's humiliation," Perry said.

Perry was also taken to a see-through room by a TSA agent when his artificial knee set off the metal detector.

"He yelled at me to get the belt off. 'I told you to get the belt off.' So I took the belt off. He ran his hands down over and pulled the pants down, they went down around my ankle," Perry said.

At that point, Perry was standing in his underwear in public view. He asked to see a supervisor. That made things worse.

"She was yelling 'I have power, I have power, I have power," Perry said. The power to stop him from flying to Florida with his wife that day to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.

"It makes you feel like you have no rights," Perry said.

Perry said he always alerts TSA agents about his metal knee and wonders why they can't just check his leg.

There are more horror stories in the above-linked report, including one about a teenaged cancer survivor and amputee who must endure a full-body patdown from the crackerjack TSA.

I understand the need for airport security. I really do. However, I must say forcing someone to not only show nipple rings, but remove them, patting down amputees and forcing people to drop trou in public is going above and beyond safety and into the realm of downright abuse of power.

Additionally, there's really no limit to terrorist ingenuity when a bunch of virgins and heaven are at stake. Does anyone honestly believe that making a guy with an artificial knee strip down to his underwear, while assiduously ignoring swarthy, Middle Eastern-looking men for fear of insulting a certain race or religion will stop a terrorist attack?

Yeah, me neither.

Wouldn't it be a bit easier to just allow those of us who are able and willing to carry our tools of self defense and transform any terrorist into a bloody pulp if need be?

Do I fit the profile?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:07:00 +0000

Amy McVeigh is female. As she entered the DC Metro PD building in order to register her Ruger .357 Magnum, no one gave her a second thought.

“They looked at me and thought, ‘She doesn’t fit the profile of someone coming in with a gun,’ so they left me alone and I walked right past them,” said McVey, who was the first and only person to register a handgun Thursday when she entered the station with her Ruger .357 Magnum in a blue plastic bag around 1 p.m.

What profile would this be, I wonder? Do the police think that only burly biker-types or men with too-small phalluses who are compensating for lack of girth are the types to have guns?

I wonder if I'd fit their image of a gun-toter...

Female. Red hair. Three screws in right knee from a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Clean record, except for an excessive amount of speeding tickets. Can do about 45 push-ups in 2 minutes (Army regulation type). I have all my teeth. I wear clothes that are whole and my ass doesn't hang out of my too-short shorts. Do I fit the normal profile for a gun toter?

Just wondering...

Here's another thing that crossed my mind today. Back during and after the Reconstruction, another civil right was restricted in a matter similar to this.

McVey took a written test, had her fingerprints taken, and submitted her gun for a ballistics examination. She said the written test was fairly easy and required basic knowledge of gun ownership laws and some common sense.

Hmmmmm... during Reconstruction, blacks were terrorized away from the polls, poll taxes were implemented, and so were literacy tests - all to prevent black people from voting.

Does anyone else see the similarities, or am I just paranoid?

Did I somehow enter Bizarro World?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:06:00 +0000

John Lott linked to this story on his blog, and I'm blatantly stealing it, because I'm floored. Like John, I was always amazed that the ACLU refused to defend the Second Amendment, while defending some of the most repugnant actions out there as being constitutionally protected. But I got used to it. I never expected this:

The Nevada ACLU has declared its support for an individual’s right to bear arms, apparently making it the first state affiliate in the nation to buck the national organization’s position on the Second Amendment.

The state board of directors reached the decision this month after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to own handguns.

“The Nevada ACLU respects the individual’s right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations,” a statement on the organization’s Web site said. “The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights.”

I double checked. I swear this story is not from the Onion.

FURTHER: During my short-lived blogging hiatus that lasted all of a couple of days, John had this story on Fox News. I was actually going to write about the suicides/guns story in Time Magazine, but John does a much better job than I could ever do, so I defer to him.

There are so many different ways for people to kill themselves: people can jump off buildings or crash their car into a telephone pole or head-on into another car.

In a high suicide rate country such as Japan, many people jump in front of subway trains.

Guns are one of the most lethal and effective methods of committing suicide, but how lethal the different methods are has a lot to do with whether someone wants to successfully commit suicide.

For example, the vast majority of attempted suicides by women are apparently not meant to be successful (just calls for help). They usually choose methods, such as taking only a relatively few sleeping pills, that are destined to fail.

But that hardly means that if you take someone who was intent on killing themselves and have them use sleeping pills, that they will also fail.

Brad and I have discussed numerous times that correlation does not equal causation. The presence of a gun in the home will not CAUSE someone intent on committing suicide to complete the act, but yes, the act will be more effective and likely more successful if a gun is used.

The actual PRESENCE of guns has no effect on the desire to kill oneself, and ergo there is no correlation between gun control and suicide rates, as demonstrated here. Fact of the matter is that suicides did drop in DC after guns were banned. But non-gun suicides dropped at the same rate as suicides with firearms - even slightly bit faster.

So how can anyone with half a brain cell claim that banning guns will reduce suicides?

Ask DC.

Open defiance, or abject stupidity?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:22:00 +0000

I report - you decide...

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

I actually wanted to blog about this last night, when a couple of astute commenters pointed me to this absurdity, but I was too angry, and it would have been a challenge trying to fit snippets of common sense between the obscenities that would have flowed freely from my keyboard.

I would think that at least one bag of rancid douche in DC would bring up a minor point: According to U.S. law, a machine gun is any fully-automatic firearm, and also for any component or part that will modify an existing firearm into a fully-automatic firearm.

What is a fully-automatic firearm vice a semi-automatic one?

Well, let me break it down to real simple terms for sanctimonious morons like Cathy Lanier, the constitution-shredding DC Police Dominatrix, Adrian Fenty, the Mayor of DC who wouldn't recognize a constitutional right if it jumped up and plucked his short and curlies from the bottom of his scrotum and the rest of DC's city council.

A machine gun or an automatic weapon will fire lots and lots of bullets in a very short span of time, as long as the trigger remains depressed. One pull of the trigger will send lots of little projectiles at your target.

A semi-automatic weapon fires ONE... yes only ONE round with ONE pull of the trigger, but it will automatically chamber (that's put another little bullet inside the gun chamber to load it) a round until the magazine is empty. But again for the terminally retarded: ONE pull of the trigger = ONE round.

It doesn't matter if the weapon loads from the bottom, from the side, from the top, from the middle or if you shove an entire 15-round magazine up your rectum and shi... I mean shoot it that way. ONE pull of the trigger = ONE round.

Simple enough?

Apparently not for DC whose "leadership" has dedicated itself to not only continuing to deny the citizens their constitutional rights, but ensuring that they openly defy the Supreme Court.

And these fvcktards want statehood????

Will someone please shove a napthaline-soaked rag into Nancy Pelosi's yap?

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:33:00 +0000

OK, seriously... I'm not a Bush fan. Never liked him. Too many reasons to actually list. But for Skeletor... Um... I mean Nancy Pelosi to actually possess the testicular fortitude to call Bush a "total failure" is not only the height of irony, but a demonstration of a complete lack of self awareness.

President Bush has been a "total failure" in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. In an interview on CNN, the California Democrat was asked to respond to video of the president criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for heading into the final 26 days of the legislative session without having passed a single government spending bill.

I won't disagree Bush has been a terrible President. Horrid. From immigration to spending to his lack of balls and common sense on guns - he has been crap. But let's examine the following:

Congressional approval rating: 14 percent - the lowest congressional job approval rating in the 34-year Gallup Poll history of asking the question.

Bush's approval rating: 29 percent. Record low for this quarter, but still...

For a politician with the crappiest approval rating in history that is even lower than the approval rating of the other politician she's criticizing to yap about "total failure" is just funny.

This is a numbskull who wants to SUE OPEC - yes you read that correctly - SUE OPEC - for running a "cartel," while stubbornly refusing to allow oil companies to explore sources of oil that are sorely needed right here at home. China and India - some of the world's most populous nations - have experienced an economic explosion, and have increased their oil consumption to the point that supplies are dwindling, but somehow it's the oil companies fault for *GASP!* (Parents, close your children's eyes, and don't let them see the dirty word that I'm about to write!) for daring to... PROFIT! (There, I said it! Parents, you can now allow your children to read this blog again.). And it's OPEC's fault for daring to... oh, I dunno... sell oil at prices determined by a sort-of free market and produce oil at amounts they determine would be best for them. After all, it's their oil... but yes - they need to get sued.

And this is the same numbskull who's pushing for the destruction of the First Amendment even more than McNitwit whose legendary collaboration with Russ Feingold to shred the Bill of Rights in order to protect the elite incumbency in Washington has angered conservatives to such a degree, that he's suffering from what the Associated Press calls "an excitement deficit" and what I call nausea.

Yeah, she has room to talk about Bush being a "total failure." Someone buy that woman a mirror and a dictionary! She sorely needs an education about the definition of "total failure" and a lecture on self awareness.

I wonder what kind of punishment awaits this one...

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:28:00 +0000

If Sydney Davis can get arrested and charged with possession of an "offensive" weapon for trying to scare a band of violent, sub-human vermin away from his home and family with a piece of wood, what will happen to 55 year old Anne Withers?

A gang of would-be robbers armed with hammers was sent packing by a grandmother wielding a broom. Anne Withers, 55, attacked three hooded men with her 4ft brush when they raided the convenience store where she works.

The thieves, carrying claw hammers, burst into Premier News in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, as Mrs Withers was opening up the shop with her boss, Guljinder Hayer. They began beating Mr Hayer and demanding cash.

Mr. Hayer says Anne is a real hero. I wonder if the "authorities" in Britain will treat her as such, or whether they will deliver her to prison for possession of an "offensive weapon."

OK, hiatus over

noreply@blogger.com (Nicki) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:03:00 +0000

I was taking a nap, and Brad woke me up to tell me he was on his way to my house. We're spending the next couple of days together since he has military crap to do this weekend. It's a best friend thing. We need a certain amount of time together - first to give each other a good dose of reality after a couple of long days at work, but also to hang out, fight, slap each other around... whatever we choose to do.

In any case... I was taking a nap, but I had asked him to call when he was on his way, so I'd have an idea of when he would get here. He called. I woke up. I saw this story. Now, it's pissed me off enough to end my blogging hiatus.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the Washington DC gun ban violated that right. DC lost. Time to deal with it, Fenty, Lanier and Nickles. They dragged their feet. They pouted. But they have to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Well, they've started.

I find gun registration to be an obscene violation of our constitutional rights. Treating law abiding citizens who, until now, have been completely defenseless, like criminals merely because they choose to exercise their rights is repugnant. But this is more so.

An officer from the gun unit will meet the applicant at the door and take temporary possession of the gun to ensure safety at headquarters.

Officers will tag the gun and run ballistics tests before returning it to the owner. Paperwork indicating that registration is in process will be provided.

Yeah. Good luck with that. I'm sure residents will get them back in a timely manner too... The idea of the "authorities" taking temporary possession of my property wouldn't give me a warm fuzzy - ESPECIALLY when it's taking place in a city where the DC Police Dominatrix regularly takes large, steamy dumps on the Constitution.

I have a lot of dangerous implements in my house... would they like to check those too? Make sure my hair straightener isn't set too high so as to burn me? My handcuffs? They've got to make sure I have the key and that the key is operational. Yes, I have handcuffs. Don't ask. Household chemicals? They might need to make sure that they're safely locked away. Maybe de-tooth my dumb dog. After all, he could bite someone...

Shoot, I'd better not give them any ideas, lest the residents of DC get screwed any deeper by the well-meaning authorities.

And besides... don't they have, oh... I dunno... CRIMES TO FRIGGIN' SOLVE???

I know that to many of us the Heller decision didn't go far enough in restoring our rights. These obscene little tyrants are still able to screw with law abiding citizens. But Heller was a good start. It laid the foundation, confirming that the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect an individual right. Now, having established that fundamental concept, we can fight the rest of this nonsense.