Buy a car, get a free AK-47

I wouldn't normally have posted about this, even though I love the idea. What really made me want to write is the interviewer's attitude. Perhaps she's just trying to balance the opinion of the interviewee, but then again, this is from CNN, so it's likely she feels free to express her opinion rather than engage in unbiased journalism.



The hostility and condescension in her tone and questions is bad enough, but the ignorance only makes it worse. I won't address the religion aspect of this interview, though I love how the gentleman turned it back on the interviewer with, "You don't have a problem with God do you?" Brilliantly done, sir.

I'll address the firearms aspect. The interviewer seemed to be very taken aback by the idea of anyone obtaining an AK-47 style rifle (reporters, not knowing guns from garden rakes, often call anything remotely resembling a Kalashnikov design an AK-47) and considered a giveaway potentially reckless.

To understand how ludicrous her attitude is, you have to know what a legal AK-47 is. A legal rifle sold in the United States can only be semi-automatic. With a special license in some states, you may obtain a fully automatic weapon, but that's not common. So, even if you're buying an AK-47, it's a one trigger squeeze, one bullet fired system. In fact, it's identical to any semi-automatic rifle used for hunting, defense, etc. The interviewer is objecting to the gun because it looks mean. It doesn't operate differently from any gun she would deem perfectly acceptable because it doesn't look mean.

For a complete understanding of this and a great demonstration, have a look at this video, which I've posted in the past:



As a post script, when an intruder does break into one's home (or 7!) you'll want the most effective weapon possible to protect your life and the lives of your children. An semi-automatic AK-47 is very effective. The fact that it looks mean may make the difference in convincing a criminal to flee rather than attack. In the hands of a lawful citizen, there's nothing wrong with a scary looking firearm, because they'll only point them at people who should be scared.

Harry Alford accuses Sen. Barbara Boxer of being "racial"

The first time I heard this clip, I heard only the short version, and felt that Harry Alford, CEO of National Black Chamber of Commerce might have been overreacting. Then I saw and heard the entire clip. You should have a look, though it will take a few minutes.



What's condescending or racial? Sen. Barbara Boxer (full disclosure, I think she's lacking in intellectual ability and often call her Boxofhair) chooses to only cite African American groups to Mr. Alford, apparently trying to change his mind by quoting "his people." That's deeply offensive, as most of us believe people are people no matter what color their skin may be. The National Black Chamber of Commerce objects to Boxer's environmental legislation because it will hurt the economy, African American businesses right along with everyone else, and that's his only concern, not how other groups who happen to share skin tone feel about it.

What's worse is Sen. Boxer's very condescending tone. She feels these African American groups should be "proud" to be read into the official record. Is that a pat on the head or a gold star on the chart for the nice African American man you permitted into the Senate chamber, Sen. Boxer?

The defensive statement about her husband having served in the military is ludicrous. It's amazing to me that a senator would turn a discussion essentially into a pissing match. It's also notable that her husband paid for her senate seat, something that California voters should help to rectify by selecting a better representative for our state as soon as she's up for reelection.

Oh, and I wonder why Barbara Boxer didn't object to Mr. Alford calling her Ma'am.

The NRA issues a statement on Judge Sotomayor

Most people disagree with some points of any organization's agenda. One reason I respect the NRA is that they are clear in purpose: they do not care if you are liberal or conservative, Republican, Democrat or independent. They care only whether you believe in upholding the 2nd Amendment or not. That's it. They issued a statement on Judge Sotomayor today:

Joint Statement On Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination To The United States Supreme Court

Friday, July 17, 2009

WAYNE LAPIERRE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION

AND

CHRIS W. COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION - INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION


Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate’s role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee – if confirmed – would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America’s 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year’s historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual’s right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms – it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

- NRA -

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Copyright 2009, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683

Joe Biden's even dumber than previously thought

I just heard some comments by Joe Biden, and I was amazed that he thought he could say what he did and not be challenged. As reported in the Washington Post:

"To those who say that our economic decisions 'have not produced jobs, have not produced and simply have not worked' I say, take a look around.

"I say, 'Don't let your opposition to the Recovery Act blind you to its results. Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired, factories reopened, cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, progress toward getting our economy back on the move.'"

Before I had a chance to gather the facts, Hot Air did a nice job of rebutting this idiotic statement.

Oh, and Biden? Most teachers are presently on Summer Vacation.

The New Science Czar has no problem with involuntary sterilization

You may disagree with Glenn Beck on some issues, but he has a great research staff. If you don't know about our new science czar, John Holdren, you should take a moment to read about him here. Here is a highlight:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed this would pose some very difficult political, legal and social questions to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements. It must be uniformly effective. Despite widely varying doses received by individuals and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals, it also must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects and it must not affect members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Michelle Malkin also wrote about this here, including an image of the material quoted above.

In other words, it's fine to sterilize people, just not animals. By the way, it's notable that a biogenic spermicidal variant of corn is under development. I thought that might be just a conspiracy theory, but it seems to be true.

While we're on the subject of government imposed Eugenics programs, Glenn spent some time on the progressive movement today, too. It's worth a read and it can be found here.

Chicago Blood Bath: This couldn't have happened

Chicago has gun control laws that make the Brady Campaign's heart glow with pride and warmth. Since I report on defensive shootings regularly, I should also demonstrate the other side.

Since many people are very convinced that gun control works, this story clearly couldn't have happened.

With nations with strict gun control lying to cover the fact that it doesn't work and criminals treating "gun free" zones as target rich, opposition free environments, one wonders if the gun control crowd will wake up and realize lawfully armed citizens aren't the problem. Criminals are.

The National Debt Road Trip

The guys at PoliticalMath did a great job with this video, showing why people are concerned with the rate we're blowing money. How fast is Obama adding to our debt? If you thought Bush was spending too much, get a load of this:

Australian Senator Steve Fielding asks 3 Tough Questions

Australian Senator Steve Fielding recently asked the Australian Climate Minister 3 tough questions. The unsatisfactory responses to them mean he'll vote no on Australia's cap and trade proposal. The questions are worth your time, and may be found here.

The Greatest Board Game EVAR!!

Hat tip, Why Homeschool. Full lyrics at the Youtube page.

Ginsburg Reveals Possible Progressive Roots

Recently, in an interview with the New York Times, Justice Ginsburg gave a very startling and very telling answer to a question. The answer was leaked prior to the article here. Here's the New York Times interview. The entirety is worth a read to understand more of Justice Ginsburg's judicial philosophy.

The section I'm most interested in should be given with some context:

Q: The case ties together themes of women’s equality and reproductive freedom. The court split those themes apart in Roe v. Wade. Do you see, as part of a future feminist legal wish list, repositioning Roe so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh, yes. I think it will be.

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

To understand why that last answer is so shocking, you'll have to know some history. There was a concept popular in the early 1900's called Eugenics. The idea was that undesirables, such as those with genetic defects, members of what were at the time considered "inferior" races, and so forth, would be discouraged from reproducing, while those who were genetically desirable wold be encouraged to have children. The concept was a part of the Progressive movement, and proponents included Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Progressives, of course, believed in enlightened fascism for the benefit of humankind, and the movement was popular until WWII showed the ugly, logical end of their ideology, and it fell from favor with the public.

What's shocking, then, is decades after many ideas of the progressive movement were discredited, Justice Ginsburg still thought Roe v. Wade was about eliminating undesirable populations through abortion. Note at the time she was not a Supreme Court justice, she was teaching at Columbia University, on ACLU's board and was also general counsel. That interpretation of Roe v. Wade is eugenics, and she expected that we would naturally fund abortions through Medicaid to reduce the poor population. If that doesn't sound horrific enough for you, think of it from an elitist authoritarian socialist point of view: "Those dirty lower classes breed like roaches. We really should use tax money to help them murder their young, like drowning unwanted kittens in a sack in order to avoid paying for their social needs in the future."

It is not entirely clear from the answer if the understanding Justice Ginsburg had of Roe v. Wade was because she shared that progressive attitude toward the poor and other "undesirables," but given how she rules as a member of SCOTUS, it seems likely that she does.

If so, it should be less surprising that our last few presidential administrations have incorporated progressive ideas into their governance. Apparently, there's been an unbroken line if progressive ideologists building their movement quietly until its culmination, which may very well be the present administration.