Maybe (NOT!) a Reason to Vote McCain? UPDATED

Clariifcation: This blog entry, with updates, is about McCain's extreme hypocracy relative to the polished turd, known variously as "Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008" or the "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008", H.R. 3221, which was passed by the Senate on Saturday 7/26/2008. This abomination act provides unlimited Federal backstop to the GSEs ("Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac") , among other follies.

Original Post, prior to UPDATE:

From the St. Petersburg Times I see an editorial from Senator John McCain:

Americans should be outraged at the latest sweetheart deal in Washington.
...
Fannie and Freddie are the poster children for a lack of transparency and accountability.
...
We are stuck with the reality that they have grown so large that we must support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through the current rough spell. But if a dime of taxpayer money ends up being directly invested, the management and the board should immediately be replaced, multimillion dollar salaries should be cut, and bonuses and other compensation should be eliminated. They should cease all lobbying activities and drop all payments to outside lobbyists. And taxpayers should be first in line for any repayments.

Even with those terms, sticking Main Street Americans with Wall Street's bill is a shame on Washington. If elected, I'll continue my crusade for the right reform of the institutions: making them go away. I will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.

(Yes I'm outraged, and that's without even talking about the tax break for Chrysler and some subsidy for some Canadian railcar manufacturer that somehow got snuck in.)

I'm not sure I get all that "we must support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" stuff, since Freddie and Fannie are both private institutions with no federal gaurantees, see here and here and here.

So I still can't help wondering if we wouldn't be better off putting them in runout mode and letting the stock and bond holders eat shit. It's probably the fastest way to drop house prices back to where they belong, and nothing good can come out of the housing industry until that happens. ("Where they belong" is where the "typical" buyer can afford the "typical" house with conventional financing - I hope to devote a post to this idea soon.)

Because the way I see it, this economy is in for a lot of pain no matter what the government does; that being the case, we would be better off if we came out the other side without monuments to crony-capitalism like FNM or FRE. Or the rating agencies Fitch, S&P, and Moody. Or Hank Paulson - why can't that less-than-worthless piece of crap leave now, while there is still some sort of economy left?

But barring that access of commonsense, McCain is at least moving talking in right direction on this.

UPDATE:

Good thing I said "Maybe"! SHEESH!

McCain couldn't be bothered to vote against this POS - neither he nor Obama could be bothered to vote.

Further:

Both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), expressed support for the legislation, though neither took a break from the campaign trail to attend yesterday's vote.

"This is not the bill he would have drafted on his own. But it's time for action," McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said.

And also:

When asked about Congress' progress in passing the housing bill, McCain said he would have voted for the legislation.

Message for DipShit McCain: if you as a Senator, think a bill is outrageous, there's something you can do about it: VOTE AGAINST THE THING, moron!

And in the "Damning with Faint Praise" Category....

(This is all over the place on the net, but apparently this (http://freedomsight.net/?page_id=2523) is where you order it.)

And, Yes, I still have no decision on the election.

Oh Noes - Another Election Option!

(The "Orwell/Kafka '08 The Future is Now" graphic is copyrighted by Robert Reed and is available from him as bumper stickers for $5 each. He can be reached at "trebor1415SPAM AT hotmail DOT com" by removing the SPAM).

"We are at war with Sadam Hussein - we've always been at war with Sadam Hussein."

Now THIS is stupid Leftism

Apparently 3/4 of the Democrats in the House thuink that political correctness is more important than properly describing people and organizations which really, really want to kill as many free people as possible.

From the CounterTerrorism Blog we see:

But on July 16, 2008, H.R. 5959 was presented to the full House of Representatives for debate and adoption, including Congressman Hoekstra's amendment to bar the use of intelligence funding for such "terror lexicon" measures. This time the amendment passed by the margin of 249-180 (with 10 abstentions).

Hoekstra's amendment condemned efforts by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), and the State Department to recommend a "terror lexicon" that prohibits use of words such as "Jihad," "jihadist," "Islamist," "mujahadeen," "caliphate," etc. In this amendment, Congressman Hoekstra called for the House of Representatives to prohibit the use of intelligence funding in support of such "terror lexicon" efforts.

The amendment was incorporated in H.R. 5959 as follows:

"None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words or phrases 'jihadist', 'jihad', 'Islamo-fascism', 'caliphate', 'Islamist', or 'Islamic terrorist' by or within the intelligence community or the Federal Government."

Thankfully, with the help of 55 Democrats, this utterly sensible outlawing of "political correctness" over self-defense passed. But fully 178 Democrats (and 2 republicans) voted against this.

I am beginning to understand the total contempt in which the Left is held by the Right-wing blogosphere. This should have been unanimously approved - and more to the point, should never have been needed in the first place.

As for the 178, it includes the repulsive Marcy Kaptur, the clueless Carolyn McCarthy (she has no idea what a barrel shroud is, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up", but it must be banned), the Islamic Keith Ellison. But what the hell are Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Rahm Emanuel, and others thinking?

My Election Dilemma - Solved!

Guess what? More Guns = LESS Crime!!!

That is, when you put more guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens, crime goes down.

Note that gun control takes guns out of the hands of the law-abiding; the criminals keep their guns and so, proportionately, gun control inherently gives more power to criminals.

See Gun Facts for well documented and annotated proof of this, and the debunking of many other myths regarding guns and gun control.


"The right of self defence is the first law of nature."
- St. George Tucker, early Constitutional scholar, writing on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Happy 4th of July.

Daley v World (and common decency)

From ABC news we see:

"I need a handgun in my home," said Chicago resident Colleen Lawson. "It comes down to an issue of life or death."

In fact, Lawson and her husband do own a handgun. But because of Chicago's ban on handguns, it's illegal to keep it in their home. The weapon was locked up outside the city when three men recently broke into their house.

...

Minutes after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s gun ban on Thursday, Lawson and her husband joined others in a lawsuit challenging Chicago's gun ordinance, which has been in place since 1982.

Chicago's mayor said changing the law would be disastrous.

"Why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West? You have a gun, and I have a gun. We'll settle it on the streets," Mayor Richard Daley said.

Well, Richie, here's an amazing concept: as a law-abiding, peaceful gun owner, such a thought never occurred to me. We just don't think that way - it's about self-defense when lives are threatened. As much as I despise your complete corruption and hypocrisy on this issue, it never occurred to me to point a gun at you. The fact that it occurred to you appears to be an example of what psychologists call "projection".

But since YOU, the Dishonorable Mayor Daley, brought it up, bring it on! I am ready any time, any place - I am not the best shooter out here, but I'm sure I can out-shoot an ignoramus like you.

MaxedOutMama: DC v Heller

MaxedOutMama: DC v Heller

For a fun-filled discussion, see MaxedOutMama's take on this. She and I have had our disagreements, but where else can you read about "Gandhi-quoting gun nuts roaming the streets with handheld nuclear missiles frowning at politicians"?

Also, as M_O_M points out, the whole finding is quite readable, with a fine up front summary, followed by pages of eloquent prose utterly demolishing the stupid arguments against the finding.

DC v Heller Decision - At Last!

Holy cow - the Supreme Court can read! And write!

One still is left to wonder why this was not unanimous, as in

Which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" was not clear?

Scalia sounds like he was cribbing from Guncite and the Second Amendment Foundation.


Stevens's dissent is pathetic:

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

Uh, yeah, that's right. That's what the Bill of Rights is for - to limit the tools available to the tools. So nice of you to notice, schmuck.

Me and my buddy celebrated by going to the range and putting 500 rounds through my Beretta 92G. Too bad the only place I can shot the AK is 3 times as far away.

Of the majority, Scalia and Kennedy were appointed by Reagan, Thomas by Bush-41 and Roberts and Alito by Bush-43. (Ironic that W didn't really support this decision.)

Looks like today, at least, I'm a conservative. (But I still think the government belongs in the Board Room more and the bedroom not at all.)

The Dishonorable Mayor Daley in Chicago is fuming - he knows he's next.

Obama is engaging in slimy fancy footwork - while pretending to uphold the Second Amendment, he never met gun control he didn't like and he has met some whoppers.

The Best Things NEVER said by the Founding Fathers about firearms

The truth of what the Founding Fathers and their contemporaries wrote is strong enough, in support of the right to keep and bear arms, without resorting to Known Bogus Quotes.

I will not reproduce them here, for wandering search engines to find. These often show up in the "sigs" of those posting on gun forums, however.

Hollywood Hypocrites (Quelle Surprise!)

Daniel Craig ("James Bond", Casino Royale):

"I hate handguns. They are used to shooting people and as long as they are around, people will shoot each other."

(I say the counter quote to that is: "Nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot."-Clint Eastwood as Harry Calahan, SFPD.)


Jodie Foster (After her co-star was a gun in The Brave One):

''Here's my commentary: I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being''

(Perhaps she feels the "thinking...human being" part grants her an exception?)



Sylvester Stallone:

"until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have... It really is pathetic... We're livin' in the Dark Ages.."

(It turns out according to records that Stallone applied for a CCW permit on September 29, 2004 and was issued a permit on November 30, 2004.)



Rosie O'Donnell:

"You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison."

(In May 2000, O'Donnell's bodyguard applied for a concealed firearm permit in Connecticut. ...O'Donnell added that because of threats, she and her family need protection, which she attributes, ironically, to her "tough gun-control rhetoric". Yeah right - she needs armed security because supporters of the 2nd amendment are going to go after an insignificant bug like Rosie. /sarcasm)

(While researching this, I found this pic that I can't resist copying and re-posting:

Sorry for anybody's ruined appetite.)

Coincidence or Causation?

Ultimate source currently unknown, this graphic by way of Mish speaks for itself:

Islamic States within European States (and the beginnings? of it in the USA)

The signal failure is governments that will not enforce their own laws equally for all, or who will in fact enforce the non-laws brought to them by the Muslims. Europe is riddled with this possibly beyond repair. And the process is starting here in the U.S. as well.

It is not racism to require that the same law apply to all equally and that all may pass freely. It is simply the minimum requirement of any nation that wants to prevent itself from becoming - by piece-meal - an Islamic regime.


Apparently parts of the UK now qualify as Islamic states.

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham...The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year...."I couldn't believe this was happening in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester was criticised by the Church of England recently when he said there were no-go areas in Britain but he was right; there are certainly no-go areas for Christians who want to share the gospel."...

The news from other parts of Europe seems equally dismal:

This is from Sweden:

“‘If we park our car it will be damaged – so we have to go very often in two vehicles, one just to protect the other vehicle,’ said Rolf Landgren, a Malmo police officer. Fear of violence has changed the way police, firemen and emergency workers do their jobs. There are some neighborhoods Swedish ambulance drivers will not go to without a police escort. Angry crowds have threatened them, telling them which patient to take and which ones to leave behind.”

This is from Brussels:

“The police has been told [by the Mayor] that it is ‘not expedient’ to patrol [in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek] and officers are not allowed to drink coffee or eat a sandwich in the street during ramadan.”

And this from France:

An increasingly commonly thing in European cities is the no-go zone. These are places where the police, medical rescue crews, and other government agents will not venture into. The areas are viewed as just too violent and/or risky to enforce rules. Following the rules of ungoverned spaces, anarchy does not reign for long. A group will enforce their own rule set and the no-go zone will become a microstate.

In France no-go zones are referred to as Zones Urbaines Sensibles (Sensitive Urban Zones). Approximately 12 percent of all French in France live in a Sensitive Urban Zone (5 million out of approximately 60 million French)! Some of the zones are governed under Islamic Sharia law. From these no-go zones Islamic militants are waging guerrilla warfare against French police.

And even in America in Texas:

A public school principal in Texas who arranged for an Islamic instruction presentation for students by an organization whose leaders have been linked to terror groups apparently arranged for that indoctrination after being told not to by her district's superintendent, parents have told WND....There, two women from the Houston division of the Council on American-Islamic Relations instructed students that Adam, Noah and Jesus are prophets, announced "there is one god, his name is Allah," taught the five pillars of Islam, told students how to pray five times a day, and instructed what Islamic religious rules require for dress.

And in Minnesota:

Are taxpayers footing bill for Islamic school in Minnesota?

Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) -- named for the Muslim general who conquered medieval Spain...There are strong indications that religion plays a central role at TIZA, which is a public school financed by Minnesota taxpayers....

TIZA's strong religious connections date from its founding in 2003. Its co-founders, Zaman and Hesham Hussein, were both imams, or Muslim religious leaders, as well as leaders of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN).

Since then, they have played dual roles: Zaman as TIZA's principal and the current vice-president of MAS-MN, and Hussein as TIZA's school board chair and president of MAS-MN until his death in a car accident in Saudi Arabia in January.

TIZA shares MAS-MN's headquarters building, along with a mosque.

MAS-MN came to Minnesotans' attention in 2006, when it issued a "fatwa," warning Muslim taxi drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport that transporting passengers with alcohol in their baggage is a violation of Islamic law.

More info from Minnesota:

Now, however, an eyewitness has stepped forward. Amanda Getz of Bloomington is a substitute teacher. She worked as a substitute in two fifth-grade classrooms at TIZA on Friday, March 14. Her experience suggests that school-sponsored religious activity plays an integral role at TIZA....

"The prayer I saw was not voluntary," Getz said. "The kids were corralled by adults and required to go to the assembly where prayer occurred."....

After school, Getz's fifth-graders stayed in their classroom and the man in white who had led prayer in the gym came in to teach Islamic Studies. TIZA has in effect extended the school day -- buses leave only after Islamic Studies is over.

[Emphasis added.]

How NOT to handle a gun

"Day by Day" by Chris Muir is an entertaining comic, reproduced on many blogs.

However, the entry for 6/7/2008 entry has a serious gun safety issue, so I have to comment:

Frame 1: Her finger is on the trigger, but she isn't shooting. This violates one of the most important rules of gun safety: Never put your finger inside the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot. (The slang expression of this is: "Keep your booger-hook OFF the bang-switch!") See here, here, and here for various versions of the rules.

Frame 2: Her finger is STILL on the trigger, even though she is not even looking where the gun is pointed at. (The joke in this frame is funny, I must admit.)

Frame 3: Her finger is STILL, STILL on the trigger, even though she is STILL not looking where the gun is pointed at. Perhaps this position would be good for reading a novel, or getting her hair done? (Also, she states: "I know this has a hair trigger". The stock PX4 has nothing like a hair trigger. Perhaps this PX4 was modified, but let's not feed the anti-gun loons. Otherwise this will get quoted like the insane line about the non-existent, mythical, ain't-no-such-thing Glock made of plastic and/or porcelain to avoid metal detectors.)

Note: Hollywood has been terrible for this too. For an example go to TheGunZones James Bond page and scroll to the bottom. Every one of them with their finger on the trigger.

Pfuck "Pfather" Pfleger

Read it here or hear it here - any way you slice it, it is a complete disgrace. (And yes, I am stunned to find myself linking to David Limbaugh on WorldNetDaily. The Liberal part of me cringes.)

Per Pfleger, white people are guilty of the sins of their ancestors forever. Black people should hate white people forever.

"We must be honest enough to address the one who says, 'Don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.' But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did! And unless you are ready to give up the benefits, throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund,....Unless you're willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation 'cause you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!"

And the God-fearing righteous loving folks in the pews of the Trinity United Church of Christ stand up and applaud this viciously racist, hateful rant.


I'm Jewish, Mr. Pfleger. Don't talk to me about 100s of years of crap. When black folks were slaves, my ancestors were getting the shit kicked out of them by non-Jews all over Eastern Europe. But I got over it somehow.

When black folks were slaves, 110,000 Union soldiers died in action to defeat the Confederacy and keep us one nation without slavery. (275,200 were wounded.) And yes, it took another hundred years to force the damn rednecks to act right and kill the "Jim Crow" laws, but that happened and it happened 40+ years ago.

Don't look here for reparations. You rant about how Hillary allegedly feels entitled because she is white, after claiming that black people are entitled because they are black. Screw that noise.

I hate rednecks - and it seems that there are a whole lot of black rednecks at the Trinity United Church of Christ on any given Sunday. They all can kiss my lily-white ass.

Here is (half of) what Gun ownership is about!

Stories of everyday people using guns for self-defense: Civilian Gun Self Defense Blog

The other half would be about maintenance of a free state. More on that later.

Liberal Values: WTF?

Why is it a liberal value to promote illegal immigration and grant amnesty to 12 million (or is it 20 million) illegal immigrants, many of whom we will then have provide with public aid?

Why is it a liberal value to pretend that taking 12 million (or is it 20 million) illegal immigrants and making them in any way legal is not in fact amnesty? Once their illegal presence is forgiven, the amnesty is granted - the fact that they aren't yet citizens has nothing to do with it.

Those of us here legally will end up paying for people who are now here illegally. That sounds like state-sanctioned robbery to me.

Why is it a liberal value to prevent people from having the means of effective self-defense? Yes, I refer to gun control.

Why is it even more of a liberal value to, in particular, deny poor people the right of self-defense? Often, they are the ones who need it most.

Self defense for all people would seem to be something that liberals would value greatly. What is it that they value more?

In particular, why do liberals, when paying lip service to the Second Amendment, always talk about hunting, but never about defense? The Second Amendment does not talk about hunting but explicitly does talk about defense.

Why is it a liberal value to exalt every culture over the American culture - which, with all its faults (and there are many), has still made more people free and prosperous than any other?

What is it that is conserved by the "Conservative" Bush?

If Bush is a conservative, then I have to assume that being conservative is about letting the world slip through your fingers. What has he conserved?

• Money? No, he has doubled or tripled the debt (not the deficit, but the debt).
• American lives? No, he missed all warning and signs of 9/11, then launched us into a war that is now called a debacle by the U.S. National Defence University.
• Border security? No, he stubbornly resists all efforts to enhance security and does only token enforcement of existing laws against the employment of illegals. "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" has become code for cheap labor and amnesty for 12 million (minimum) illegals already here, and he supports that. (Of course the Democrats are even worse, but it's not their turn right now.)
  
• Jobs? Nope.
• The economy? No, by instructing regulators to sit on their hands during the biggest credit, housing and fraudulent securities bubble ever seen, he has left us in an unbelievable mess. (Mr. Bill Clinton shares much of the blame for this, for signing on to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and other deregulatory actions.)
• Security? No, the Iraq war will be used for years, in the recruitment and propaganda of our enemies as an example of American imperialism. And it will also serve as a sink-hole consuming the lives and limbs of our best, as well as untold money and other resources that could have been used more wisely.

I've voted Democrat for everything since 1980 (though this year is probably another matter entirely). But I think I'm more conservative than George Bush. So what is it that this conservative has conserved?