Both Are Despicable

While we wait with great anxiety for the SCOTUS ruling on Obama Care, there"s something I think needs to be said.

The individual mandate comes not from the Democrats, but from the Republicans.  If you will trouble to sift through all the writing talking and arguing concerning Health Care "Reform" in the US, you will find that the idea for the individual mandate stems from the so called "conservative" reply to state controlled medical care.

I think that this idea stems from the cozy  corporate relationship that the Republicans enjoyed at the time with the financial and insurance industries.  It's not at all unlike the move to privatize Social Security--Corporate bean pushes saw money they didn't have a finger in, and lobbied for this mandate, and their bought an paid for Congressthieves made it happen.  It's an example of how the US is not a capitalist country, but a mercantilist country, using law to manipulate the conditions of the market.

The Democrats, most especially the far left elements which have taken over that party, saw a chance to further their own special interest group agendas, particularly that of the 'feminists" who think abortion is the cornerstone of women's freedom.  (They think this, I am convinced, because they hate being women, want to be men and hold in contempt those women who embrace the whole of femininity, beyond the aspects of concupiscent sex.)  Add in the fact that the Left Wing Feminists hate the traditional family, and hate Christianity they found a way to strike a blow at both. Through their insistence on coverage for abortions and contraception, they seek to force on us a material cooperation with evil, thus breaking down the practical solidarity that the Catholic Faithful (as opposed to the Catholic -in-Name-Only Crowd, whom they court) find so necessary to our identity.

Both are despicable.  Both are Responsible.  Both are the enemy of Liberty in America.  Until we get passed the idea that either party is working for justice and realize that they are working for power, and the ability to loot the public fisc for their own interest groups, we shall be oppressed in increasing degrees, until America as an exceptional nation, a unique entity in the political organization of the world, is a dead letter.

Tell your Congressthieves, both House and Senate, that you want them to work for you, and that their is nothing sacred, or even legally established, about the two party system.

Yes, They Will Round Us Up

Rachel Maddow Calls Out Obama, in 2011

Here it is, in living color, froma Mainstream media outlet.  Yes, Obama wants dictatorial powers.  Yes, he wishes to do away with Habeus Corpus.  Yes, he tries to dress this up in some sort of rhetoric that evokes the constitution, while negating it's protections for the individual citizen.  Yes, he is evil.

The thing to remember is this--His Administration has attempted to brand as potential terrorists, people who protest taxes, who own guns, who go to gun shows, who are pro-life, who worry about religious liberty, who have food put by for emergencies, who are returning veterans and, through their ad about "see something say something, are white middle class people.

If this doesn't disturb you, or if you have some how not noticed the movement towards a government not bound by Constitutional Limits on power, I submit that you are part of the problem, and the true enemy of America.  Wake up!

American is not a region, it's not a nationality, it's not a system.  It's an idea.  The radical idea--radical when formulated, and radical now--that freedom isn't granted by the state, but carved out from the possibility of state interference by the people.  This nation wasn't concieved to be about getting rich, or getting material security, it was concieved in the idea of Liberty.  Our wealth came about as the product of two factors:  Natural Resouces and Liberty.  As the Government has increasingly intruded on Liberty, our wealth has declined.  The state can't give us prosperity, but it can surely destroy it.

So quite liking Obama for what he gan give you--he can give you nothing, he can only take.  He can only take Liberty, Wealth, and Property, and award it those groups who will support him, sapping the vitality of the nation in the process.

And now, he's trying for--and getting--the power to take our very freedom of association and movement away, by locking us up when we won't play his game.

An Answer to Steve "Scotju" Dalton's Question

He asked "Why is a Mosin-Nagant such a great rifle to me".   That's a fair question, and deserves an answer.

First, there is simply the historical value of such a rifle.  It was one of the first rifles of it's kind to be adopted by any nation.  It has a five round internal magazine, is a bolt action rifle, and fires an excellent round.

The round it fires, the 7.62X54R (the R stands for "rimmed", not Russian) is comparable to the venerable American 30-06--but predated it by 15 years.  It was one of, if not the, first bolt action, 'small bore" high velocity rounds designed from jump street to use smokeless powder.  It's the military ammunition with the longest service life still in service, being used in sniper rifles and machine guns to this day. 

The sniper use is telling--7 of the 10 highest scoring snipers in history used this rifle and round--one of them with iron sights!  It is potentially very very accurate. 

The Mosin-Nagant is used extensively for hunting in Russia, and is considered more than adequate for big game--such as moose and the Siberian Brown Bear--which is a variant of the Grizzly and Kodiak bears of Alaska!  In fact, there is virtually no market for modern "magnum" sporting rounds in Russia, as they have found the 7.62X54R perfectly acceptable for all game encountered.

The rifle is stone dependable.  My Son-in-Law has one over 100 years old, and it still shoots and groups well.  They simply don't wear out.  The bolt is not the easiest to use, and the area of the receiver that engages the locking lugs is hard to clean--it's awkward--but those are things that skillful and attentive use and maintenance can correct.  Mine was made in 1943, and after cleaning ut the cosmoline it was stored in, the bore is as bright as new, with clean rifling.  I didn't order a select grade or anything like that.  I just picked it up off the milsurp rack and bought it.

I bought it for $119 US, complete with the issue cleaning kit, sling, oiler and bayonet.  And thats something else--you get a powerfu, accurate, reliable rifle for less than most .22s, and the economy continues, because I pay about 19 cents a shot.  30-06 will run closer to a dollar a pop.  My Carcano runs about $2 a pop.  It's a very affordable rifle.

I mentioned history.  George Patton to the contrary not withstanding, this is the rifle that beat Hitler.  This rifle was carried by the red army into Berlin, and beyond.  Russia lost millions of troops in that war, and the our pride and joy--D-Day and the campaigns in France and into Germany in 1944-45 were really just supporting campaigns to the Russian offensives that destroyed the Weremacht and Waffen SS.  By the date of manufacture, the odds are nearly 100% that my rifle was carried in that.  Whenever i pick it up, i am aware that my rifle destroyed Naziism. 

I could give you "range stories' out the wazoo about shooting my rifle (which I named Vassily Fritz-Smiter at my daughter insistence) but that would be a lot of typing and I"m lazy.  So here's just a short synopsis of something that happens about every time I go shooting with him:  The AR/AK fan boys are out there blazing away, missing mostly.  I load up, work the bolt aim and fire.  The report alone makes them look my way.  The effects on the target often times makes them exclaim aloud.  Once, I set out my target and some yahoo with an AR peppered it, and looked at me smugly.  I smiled, and shot one round into his target, shredding the target, the target board and kicking up a cloud of dust, he left. One round, one hit, and positive effects on the target.  In another instance, I used a phone book I found on the ground at the 75 yard berm.  no one had been able to hit it, and it was soaked through by rain.  I shot it, once, and it was converted to paper mache bits that flew into the air.

The biggest draw back is trying for goups at short range--100 yards or less--because the rifle isdesigned for an optimum range of 300 meters.  One has to compensate for the tragectory of the round, because at short range, it's shooting high.

So there you have it--a rifle that one can get for $95-130 bucks, costs lest than 25 cents a shot, is utterly reliable, accurate and powerful enough to hunt any game in North America.  Plus it's historical, comes in over 30 variants, and is collectable--there are many Mosin collectors,  Not to mention, it's just plumb fun to shoot.

I don't believe her.

Emily Yoffe has a column on Slate in which she recounts three instances of sexual assault.  I don't believe her.  I most especially don't believe her accusation against the late Robert Drinan, SJ.

Now I had no use for Drinan--he was a priest, a religious, who devoted his time to politics, not the gospel.  More than that, he was the sort of politician that panders to the left, in ways that are flatly counter to the teachings of the Church.  He was elected to the US House of Representatives, where he amassed a "pro-choice" record.  In fact, he, more than any other cleric, was the reason that we developed the rule that clerics may not run for public office.  His political record exposes him as a liar, who was more interested in his own power and influance than the Gospel or the Sacraments, yet continued to present himself as a Cleric and a Catholic.

But, I do not believe, for one minute, Ms Yoffe's allegation.  One, the timing is just a bit too convenient, for selling columns to be genuine.  She writes in response to the Sandusky conviction.  Her writing this column now does two things:  presents a sensational personal narrative timed and structured to generate the "sympathy of solidarity" among feminists and liberals, and capitalizes on the current heightened public awareness of the problems of sexual abuse and assault of minors.  More than that, it smacks of agenda.  In fact, it reeks of agenda.

The public is aware, at this time, that Sandusky abused boys--that the abuse was, in point of fact, same sex sexual activity.  This coming on the heels of the release of two studies, one by Loren Marks of Louisiana State University, and one by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas--both published studies were subjected to peer review, and both point to the damage done by same sex sexual activities.   Regnerus points out that children raised in Same Sex Unions families were eleven times more likely than those in two sex couple households to be sexually touched by parent or other adult,  flying in the face of the 'there's not difference" meme foisted by the Progressives and their media shills.  The next thing is that Sandusky was, as a college coach, technically and educator.  This is very important--the NEA is one of the most pro-dem and Pro-Obama groups int he nation.  And, the most likely profession to have sexual contact with minors, period, is that of educator.  That comes from the DOJ. 

So the liberal chick trots out an accusation against a priest, the keep the "corrupt catholic perverted church" narrative alive.  It's also not lost on me that this comes just at a time when the Catholic Church is fighting for Religious Freedom.  Against a "progressive" regime.  Let's get something out in the open:  In calendar year 2011, there were 7 accusations of sexual misconduct with minors the Church found to be credible, and the Church's criteria for finding an accusation to be credible includes accusations that the justice system will not prosecute because they don't meat the legal standards of proof needed for conviction. 
We do more to protect kids from predator than the Law, the Schools or any other Church. (Actually, we are the only Church in the US that has Publicly confronted this darkness--but we are not the only one to get sued, and when one adds up the insurance premiums covering liability for child molestation paid by the church, you find we don't pay any more than any other church--the risk factors are no higher for us.  Schools, on the other hand, can't get insurance for this risk.)

But there is one more reason I don't believe Ms. Yoffe:  She didn't name any other perpetrators.  She named only a priest, who is dead, and cannot speak in his own defense.

Yep, I think she's lying.