N4RFC.COM

Sometimes, just sometimes, something happens that I consider to be poetic justice.  I finally got a small dose of what I consider justice.  What you ask?  Arlen Specter was defeated in his race for re-election as Senator from Pennsylvania.

Both as a Republican or a Democrat, I never thought much of Senator Specter.  He always seemed like a big blow hard to me.   He reminded me of the cartoon character Foghorn Leghorn.  As a Republican he was really a RINO (Republican In Name Only) most of the time.  Most of what I saw of him was his grand posturing in Senate hearings as he brow beat some poor schmuck who was trying to testify.  And the occasional appearance in an interview on one of the news programs.

But it was very obvious to me that it was all about “the power” for Mr. Specter.  When he saw the poles showing that he had little chance of beating Pat Toomey for the Republican nomination he decided to jump over to the Democratic party.  He said that it was  because his ideology had changed and now he was more aligned with the Democrats values, but that was just Bovine Scatology.  Well, for one thing, Democrats don’t have any values, unless you consider selling out America to our debt holders or apologizing to the entire world because we have become the worlds most powerful country.  I don’t consider those values.

The real reason is that he wanted to hold on to “The Power.”  Geez-Louise, the man is 80 years old and and has been in the Senate for something like 30 years.  I don’t think our founding fathers had it in mind that serving in Congress would be a lifetime profession.  I think they expected to serve a few terms and then go home and become a productive member of society.

I saw a sound byte the other day where Mr. Specter make the comment that he was doing some important work in Washington and he needed another term to get this important work completed.  Well, I guess he better get cracking, because he doesn’t have much time left!

In another sound byte he made the comment that he had done his best “Getting as much as he could for the people of Pennsylvania.”   Is that what our members of Congress are supposed to do, get as much as they can out of the Federal Government for their constituents?  I thought they were elected to represent us in Washington and get the best for the country.  I didn’t realize that the goal was to loot the Federal coffers for everything they can.  But then, that’s how you hang on to the power isn’t it?  The idiocy of that approach is, all that “stuff” that Congress gets for us, we have to pay for in higher Federal taxes!  What kind of deal is that?  The other problem is, the general public doesn’t seem to understand that, all they see is they are getting more “stuff.”

Arlen, it’s time to hang it up and take that gold plated retirement plan you’ve earned “serving” the people of Pennsylvania.  Well, so long Arlen, it’s been real, it’s been fun…..well, not fun for us, but certainly for you.  Have a nice life!

What do you think?

My friend Bob (http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/) sent me this link.  This is the first of a kind, that I have seen,  from MSNBC.  Rachael Maddow is actually questioning Obama’s motivation in a speech that your President delivered at the National Archives!  I didn’t think that it was possible that a news reader on MSNBC ever questioned anything your President said or did!

Listen to what your President has to say about “Prolonged Detention.”

Some of us, mostly conservatives but I think even some Democrats, have figured out that your President is dangerous with his Marxist-Socialist policies.  But has MSNBC finally discovered what we already knew?

Although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he implies that they are trying to find a legal basis to use “prolonged detention” on US citizens that the government considers to be a danger to the US, read – Government.  The same administration that wants extend constitutional rights to enemy combatants, give them trials in US Federal Courts instead of in Military Tribunals, now wants to create a legal basis for prolonged detention for US citizens.

Don’t you know that Obama would love to use prolonged detention against dangerous and outspoken individuals like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity!

Earth day turns 40 today. On the first earth day there were predictions made about the future and our environment. Most of these predictions came from “experts” in their fields. Check some of them out:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.

Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Keep these predictions in mind when you hear the same predictions made today. They’ve been making the same predictions for 40 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.

Last week President Obama traveled to Florida to speak to a group of NASA employees about his plans for the space program and NASA.  Seeing some of the sound bytes from his speech on the news I was wondering why the audience was so relatively quiet and there was little reaction to what he had to say.

Come to find out this is another of Obama’s staged events.  The audience was not people from the NASA Space Center, but a invitation only group of high level people from out of the country!  A contributor for MSNBC, Doug Ross, pointed this out on in a remote interview.  Check out the reaction by Jay Barbree.

Jay Barbree is a schill for Obama, as are most of the reporters on MSNBC.  She goes directly into “cover for the Administration” mode as soon as Doug Ross turns it back to her.

A search of the MSNBC website doesn’t bring up anything on this, imagine that!  But thank goodness someone caught the video and saved it so all of us can see!

That’s why I don’t watch MSNBC, or NBC for that matter!

Interesting take and one you don’t hear much. . . . . .

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter….

The Gun is Civilization

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.