March 10, 2009

Exploding Whale Obamanomics

The parallel to Obamanomics?

Those in charge are completely unprepared to handle the task at hand, but desperately decide on an untested "big bang" approach to try get rid of the stench, even though even the smallest amount of foresight could have predicted the results.

They proceed anyway against all common sense, and the resulting mess coats everyone in foul-smelling crap, threatens the citizenry, crushes the automotive sector, and depresses real estate values.

Now they find themselves in a far worse situation, where the clean-up of the fallout from a hastily made decision will last far longer than it would have if more measured, common sense clean-up efforts had been taken in the first place.

Can you think of a better metaphor?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:54 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 09, 2009

Dear World, I'm Sorry....

Actually, no I'm not. And I won't be, unless I'm forced to join you on the breadlines.

You wanted this guy to be our President, even though you were warned about the fact he was largely an unknown, selling a self-edited pipe-dream far removed from his actual radical associations and the disturbing lack of anything substantive on his résumé.

"Hey, he was a doorstop of a state legislator laughed at by his peers who fumbled his way into becoming the most radical and least experienced member of the U.S. Senate—Let's make him President!"

And inexplicably, you did.

But he isn't a leader; he's a dare gone horribly awry.

He's a radical deep in dorm-room philosophy and etherial in substance, brilliant in presentation but devoid of character and substance.

But gosh darn it, he sure looks pretty!

I hope that comforts you, considering the fact that the rest of world realizes he is now in over his head.

(h/t Hot Air)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 08, 2009

Hustled: How Obama Deceived America About a Drawdown in Iraq and a "Surge" In Afghanistan By Playing With The Lives Of American Soldiers

This post from milblogger Greyhawk is a must-read.

It is relatively rare when we see a situation where people from both ends of the political spectrum and all points in between can unite for any reason, but using the lives of soldiers as political props is certainly one of them.

Here's the summary:

President Obama, apparently seeking to keep the anti-war left firmly under his spell, announced that he was drawing down American forces in Iraq, and was instead diverting forces who had trained specifically for an Iraqi deployment to Afghanistan.

Less than a month later, another unit's scheduled deployment to Iraq is sped up, in order to keep the same number of Stryker brigades in Iraq as there would have been if he hadn't shipped the other unit to Afghanistan.

The President ordered a unit that had trained for ten months specifically for the Iraqi mission to another part of the world that speaks a different language and has entirely different cultures. There is no easy way to determine on a Sunday night how many tens of millions of training dollars and man-hours Obama wasted by shifting this Stryker brigade, but if the Iraqi theater really didn't need them, it at least could have been understandable.

But the Iraqi theater clearly did need a Stryker brigade, and he planned on sending one all along.

We know this because just as soon as the Obama White House sold the drawdown story to the media and the anti-war left, he immediately and quietly ordered that another Stryker brigade—one that is no doubt capable, but one that didn't have the specific, intensive training of the unit diverted to Afghanistan— rushed to Iraq months ahead of schedule in order to keep the same number of Stryker brigades (two) as there has been the entire time.

There is no drawdown of Stryker brigades in Iraq.

President Obama lied to the American people.

He tried to con those who are against the Iraq war into thinking we were actually drawing down our capabilities there, when all he actually did was use a street-hustler's sleight-of-hand, having us watch one hand moving a unit out of Iraq, while using his other hand to deftly slide in another.

To borrow a phrase: you been lied to. Bamboozled. Run amok.

By a hustler who's been playing you the entire time.

And for those of us who know people in the military, be they friends or family, you should be absolutely livid at the callous disregard with which our punk of a President used the lives of two entire brigades of soldiers and their families as pawns.

The military life is never easy. Not ever. Our troops and spouses know that, and the kids, well, they learn to cope as best they can. There is always pride, but always uncertainty, and little things can make a difference for both the morale of the soldiers and those who carry on in their absence.

Knowing that our soldiers are highly trained for a specific mission makes them feel more confident of success, and more confident they'll have a better chance to come home. Having nearly a year's training wasted—and then finding out several weeks later that all that training was wasted because of political theater orchestrated to benefit your selfish Commander-in-Chief—well, I can only assume that hurts morale. Not just the morale of the troops, mind you, but that of their families, to see how little he cares about those he commands. And that's just the 5th Stryker Brigade.

The 4th Stryker Brigade's soldiers are being rushed to Iraq to keep two Stryker Brigades there. Did they get in all the specialized training they needed? They'll no doubt rush to get it done. But are those soldiers and their families being cheated of time together because Barack Obama is using them to play a cynical political game where he tries to lie to America about the wars we're fighting?

Absolutely.

Anyone who has done any research into who Barack Obama is, instead of who he likes to claim who he is, can't be very surprised that he would so cynically manipulate others for personal political gain.

What is surprising is how brazen his abuses are, and how quickly they've come.

Update: "It looks as if the Obama administration is so self involved, the only game it’s playing is a shell game with itself and the American people."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:17 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 07, 2009

Obama Spurs Interest in Outdoors

A friend from high school told me via Facebook and later in email that she and her family in Tennessee are going to be buying a small farm as a fallback in case of economic collapse. Neither she nor he husband have experience farming, but feel that having land and a farmhouse where they can grow and stock food is perhaps the best insurance they can have to ensure their kids have a roof over their heads and food on the table if things get really bad.

I've talked to one or two other people who are also thinking about or developing "worst-case" scenarios, both short and long term, but most people are quiet about their preparations. But preparing they are.

They are obviously not alone. This book, The Survivors Club: The Secrets and Science that Could Save Your Life, is #18 on Amazon's Best Seller list this morning, and Emergency: This Book Will Save Your Life is #29.

And as you already well know, both firearm and ammunition sales have skyrocketed, and more popular guns and the ammunition for them cannot be had in many locations, at any price, due to scarcity and hoarding.

Individual families are preparing, but they also know many people aren't, and so they are stocking up quietly. They do not want to become targets for those who either can't afford to prepare, or who refuse to out of some variation of "it can't happen here" groupthink.

Incidentally, Atlas Shrugged, which was written by an author who saw communism take over her country and the damage it wrought, is also once again selling well on Amazon, at #37.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:15 AM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 05, 2009

Obama Gunning For Presidential Record

Over at Hot Air Ed Morrissey duly notes that two more prospective would-be nominees have preemptively fled the albatross of being associated the Obama Administration.

Officially, Obama is just one flubbed Cabinet appointment away (at three, and counting) from equaling a dubious record of incompetence, a record currently held by the tenth President, John Tyler, who had four.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:53 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 04, 2009

Serfs Up

Americans seem confused that Barack Obama is taking step after step that sends the stock market plunging ever lower and our Republic careening toward financial ruin. It confuses them, that this gifted orator would institute policies so obviously flawed. They have it in their hearts and heads that this President would want to stop the recession.

But why would he? Ever significant mentor Barack Obama has ever had, from Frank Marshall Davis to Saul Alinsky to Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright, has been driven by the thought of punishing America, of ripping it apart and reforging it to their liking.

Should it be any surprise at all than a man so shaped would function exactly as he was led?

The more Barack Obama can wreck the economy, the more he can turn individuals—and some states—into destitute big government dependents. As his Chief of Staff noted, they have every intention of seizing the opportunity that comes with this financial crisis.

Sadly, for all those poor souls who thought gifted teleprompter reading skills made the most radical liberal and least experienced Senator competent to be President, it is forcing them into dependency that he needs more than their goodwill. Its only going to get worse folks, and it's going to get worse by design.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:00 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 02, 2009

Our President Is Out of His Depth

Not that most of you haven't already started coming to that conclusion yourselves.

I don't know why so many people have put their blind faith into a man who has phenomenal public-speaking skills, but who has never had a prominent real-world job.

Barack Obama has never been in charge of anything even as substantial as a Cub Scout troop den, and it shows.

Perhaps Americans are in denial, clinging to an illusion to simply avoid taking responsibility for allowing themselves to be duped into voting for a man big enough for a television screen, but woefully too small, too inconsequential in substance, for the Presidency.

The market is less forgiving.

And we're all paying the price.

Update: How petty. Not to mention a transparent sop to the netroots to keep them distracted, so they won't turn on him for his obvious and growing inadequacies.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:47 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 01, 2009

History Repeating

While the "tea party" protests against the new administration and spending-crazed Congress are certainly getting a lot of attention in the conservative blogosphere and in isolated news stories, I suspect these small, but growing nationwide protests are masking a far deeper disenchantment with our arrogant young President and his allies in the House and Senate who seem to have one massive tax-and-spend (or more accurately, spend-and-spend until the economy completely crashes) bill after another lined up.

What am I talking about?

I wrote a blog entry in 2007 correcting a poorly researched Associated Press story by Estes Thompson. Thompson apparently decided before writing his article that he was going to blame a police ammunition shortage he had heard about on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would fit in nicely with the years-long anti-war bias prevalent in most "professional" media.

Not surprisingly, Thompson was too lazy to go to the source, and only spoke to several police departments and their immediate suppliers, people in a position to appear to have credibility, but who were not far enough up the supply chain to have any idea what the real cause and effect were. I did the work Thompson was too lazy to do, and actually contacted the ammunition manufacturers themselves, and they explain what was really going on.

I followed up on that 2007 article yesterday in a post at Pajamas Media, explaining why the current ammunition shortage we are currently experiencing is even worse than that which hit in 2007. I'd suggest you go read it for a more detailed explanation, but the gist of it is this: demand that spiked in 2007 never abated, and the election of a President with a anti-gun record with cronies pushing aggressive firearms and ammunition laws on the local, state, and national level, combined with a global recession spiked demand even higher.

The firearms and ammunition industry are clearly recession-proof thanks to our new President's agenda.

It is next to impossible to find a gun store that stocks the kind of military-style semi-automatic rifles and pistols that our Founding Fathers would have recognized as the exact kind of weapons that are best suited for duty in the modern version of the citizen's militia, one they so strongly advocated to be built from individual citizen-soldiers as a defense against tyrants, both foreign and domestic.

I spoke with a contact of mine at a major firearms manufacturer several days ago about acquiring a new AR-15 type carbine that his company just recently brought to market for a T&E (testing and evaluation) loan as he had done for me in the past with handguns. Demand was so great, and their backorder so large, that he estimated it would be 6-8 months before I could get one. When I asked him what was causing such a massive run on his companies AR-15-type rifles, you might guess his one-word response.

Merely adding to the anecdotal evidence I've compiled from manufacturers is that which I've gathered from retail merchants, from mom-and-pop gun shops to big-box retailers.

Late last night I visited one of the local Walmart stores and swung by their ammunition counter to see if supplies at one of the largest retailers was as scarce as individuals around the country has related on various Internet forums.

"We just a got a shipment in!" the gentleman behind the counter told me. The shelves were still at least two-thirds empty, but he did indeed have several thousand rounds of 7.62x39mm and .223 Remington rifle ammunition, along with an equal amount of 9mm, 40S&W, and 45ACP pistol ammunition. He told me it would be gone by sunrise.

He claimed that since late October demand had gone up, and that since Obama won the election, it went through the roof. When he has ammunition to sell, he's pushing out 10,000-15,000 rounds per shift late at night. Two Saturday night's ago, he sold 5,600 rounds to one customer.

I've been focusing on looking at why we've been having shortages from the supply side of the equation; I haven't done as much research into why demand is so high from individual purchasers. Obviously, that is because building an accurate picture is going to require a level of in-person interviews that a single person can't easily manage. That said, I am seeing anecdotal explanations in the comments to my posts on the subject and in reading comments on firearms blogs and other internet forums.

Many people are buying significant amounts of ammunition for their personal supply, from thousands to tens of thousands of rounds each, to one person who claims to have built a stockpile over the past decade of three-quarters of a million rounds that seems to fantastic to believe.

Most claim they are building a reserve in anticipation of ammunition prices continuing to rise. Another significant component are buying ammunition as a hedge against uncertain times, both as an investment, and as security measure.

But an increasing number of people are openly expressing that the reason they are stocking up on ammunition is that they fear the actions of our federal government. These are people who have never been radicals, most could generally care less about politics, and many have never even dreamed of owning guns until now.

And while it will no doubt come as a surprise to those who would like to perpetrate the stereotype of gun owners as rural and uneducated—the kind that bitterly cling to their guns and Bibles as someone once scornfully said—anecdotal evidence suggests many new gun owners are minorities, and all social classes are purchasing firearms and ammunition.

While we seem to have a tea party movement growing nationwide as people voice their dissatisfaction with our power-mad, spending-crazed government by calling on the symbolism of the acts of Patriots in Boston Harbor more than two hundred years ago, I suspect those protests are hiding a deeper resentment and fears about the competency and goals of our federal leaders.

If our government continues to make citizens feel abused, and makes an over-aggressive miscalculation in asserting their power—certainly possible with our fumbling Attorney General who was part of the Clintonian Justice Dept management nightmare under Reno—tea parties will be the least of their worries.

They should be more concerned they are convincing many Americans to prepare for Lexington Green.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:42 PM | Comments (48) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 28, 2009

Hope and Chains

In one of his first acts in office as President, Barack Obama turned over the future of America to one of the least effective House Speakers in U.S. history. He allowed her compatriots to compile a wish list of pet projects under the guise of stimulating the economy, which she and her counterparts in the Senate then rammed through Congress without any of them knowing fully what was inside.

After a three-day vacation less than one month into the job, Barack Obama signed this bill, the largest spending bill in world history, into law. . . without reading it.

Then President Obama placed Joe Biden in charge of this massive spending plan. This he did, even though his Senate peers thought so little of Biden's skills over the course of his 33-year Senate career that he was never given a leadership role not mandated by seniority.

Our new President taxes and spends, and the more taxing and spending he proposes, the more the economy nosedives.

Mr. Obama has now issued the first budget he has ever proposed at any level of government. This budget is nothing more than another deficit-spending spree one so vast, so expansive, that its kind has been unseen since the Second World War when we were bankrolling a fight for our way of life. . . a way of life our young President seems eager to reshape.

Obama and his allies in Congress plan to continue raising taxes and increasing both government growth and power, during a time that both history and economics tells us government should be slashing expenses, lowering taxes, and removing obstacles that keep businesses from creating more jobs.

It is horrific and painful to comtemplate, but barely a month in office, Barack Obama has made decisions that have rippled down to cause more damage to the U.S. and global economies than the terror attacks of 9/11.

Yes, I readily admit that sounds melodramatic, extremist, and shrill. And that is why, with somber hearts, we must fall silent in sad contemplation at the unquestioned, factual truth of the damage our new President has wrought thus far.

Our young and charismatic President, in his fresh and glowing glory, is trying to spend his way out of debt with one massive spending plan after another; an act as mad as drilling holes in the bottom of the ship in hopes of letting out the icy dark sea underneath.

We threaten to go under, and he still drills more holes, chaining our wailing children to the deck under the weigh of future debt he piles upon them.

I understand that our President sincerely wants to do what he thinks is best for our country.

But you can't make a nation's economy grow by taxing it into ruin, or spending it into oblivion, and it is madness to think otherwise.

". . . these are the times of dreamy quietude, when beholding the tranquil beauty and brilliancy of the ocean's skin, one forgets the tiger heart that pants beneath it; and would not willingly remember, that this velvet paw but conceals a remorseless fang."
--Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 AM | Comments (45) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 26, 2009

Is Eric Holder Too Ignorant to Be Attorney General?

Sadly, competence is not a requirement for the position of Attorney General, as Obama Attorney General Eric Holder proved beyond the shadow of a doubt:

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.

That someone can be so uninformed and hold the position he does boggles the mind.

The "gun show loophole" is myth. It simply doesn't exist.

According to ignorant people—and sadly, this includes our neophyte President and AG Holder—people can walk into a gun show and face an entirely different set of rules than they would elsewhere.

This is a bald-faced lie.

Whether at his storefront location or at a gun show, a gun dealer must follow the exact same federal laws, which include filling out a form 4473, checking for valid ID, and running a FBI background check.

Private sellers, whether in their homes or at a gun show, do not have to fill out paperwork of any sort or complete a background check.

As for "cop killer" bullets, perhaps the ignoramus in charge of Justice should learn to read. Such bullets have been banned for 21 years. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised as all if these left wing gun confiscation fans in the Obama White House and Pelosi/Reid Congress try to redefine what constitutes "armor-piercing" so that most rifle and pistol bullets fall into that category.

As for assault weapons...

If one was, say, a Constitutional law professor—or even marginally literate—one would note that when the founders created the Bill of Rights and wrote the Second Amendment, they were concerned with making sure that citizens had the right to bear arms suitable for use in the militia. The Second Amendment was not about hunting, nor target shooting, except that those pursuits enhanced the militia's ability to field qualified riflemen for militia service.

Further, what the media and other anti-gun organizations have dubbed "assault weapons" are not actually assault weapons; true AWs are intermediate-caliber, selective-fire weapons, meaning they are capable of automatic fire or single-shots by the manipulation of a selector switch. Contrary to popular belief, automatic weapons, including real assault rifles, have never been illegal in the United States.

There are roughly 240,000 machine guns in civilian hands. Roughly half of those belong to law enforcement agencies, and the other half belong to civilians just like you and me. Just two have ever been used in crime, and one of those was by a corrupt police officer using a department-issued submachine gun to kill an informant.

The firearms Barack Obama and Eric Holder and their anti-Constitutional friends would like to ban are semi-automatic firearms that look identical to commonly-issued military assault rifles, use the same magazines, and fire the same cartridges. The big difference is that these firearms can only fire one shot per trigger pull, just like every other firearm in America.

Being nearly identical to the M14 battle rifle, M16 assault rifle, and M4 carbines issued to our front-line troops, civilian "assault rifles" are precisely the kind of firearms best suited for militia duty. As such, it is only logical that our Founding Fathers would recognize these firearms as precisely those weapons they sought to protect by their function and utility.

The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets.

The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty. No firearm in America today fits the definition the Founders intended as well as what Eric Holder and Barack Obama would seek to make illegal.

I suspect, sadly, that they are well aware of this, and they will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of whatever it is that they desire.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | Comments (58) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 The Second Amendment was written to protect our country from what nObama and his croneys are trying to do to us now!

Posted by: Rich in KC at February 26, 2009 12:21 PM (siQqy)

2 "I suspect, sadly, that they are well aware of this, and they will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of whatever it is that they desire."

You give them way too much credit.
They are absolutely clueless, or suffer from a mental disorder.

Either way, we're screwed if we don't fight this.

Posted by: EJ Smith at February 26, 2009 01:07 PM (AwOS7)

3 What do Democrats propose to achieve cooperation from criminals?

Posted by: Rick at February 26, 2009 01:41 PM (FWmwx)

4 The Obies are sick of the old rules, even the ones they don't know. Is there any topic, even abortion, that has a greater chance of overturning the Dem House majority than the 2nd Amm? And they are not just tinkering around the edges. They want EVERY Brady Campaign talking point transformed into federal law when possible or policy if not. The Dem legislative majorities rest on a Red to Blue mutation in many districts that is just four years old. Are they so stupid that they think they have been ordained rather than elected? It sure looks that way. These doofs need un-electing and pronto. Your allegedly moderate neighbors are key. They must know of these things. Tell them.

Posted by: megapotamus at February 26, 2009 01:50 PM (LF+qW)

5 "What do Democrats propose to achieve cooperation from criminals?"

expect? Criminals got them where they are today...
And when law abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals will have a field day. Of course criminals will support a ban on weapons, it will affect everyone except them.

Posted by: J.T. Wenting at February 26, 2009 02:33 PM (hrLyN)

6 This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 2/27/2009, at The Unreligious Right

Posted by: UNRR at February 27, 2009 07:03 AM (2D++g)

7 To ARMS! To ARMS!

Posted by: David at February 27, 2009 08:21 AM (MQNAW)

8 The title of this blog post should become the next great rhetorical question right after, Does a bear shit in the woods?

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at February 27, 2009 08:49 AM (Sv4gJ)

9 It's more symbolism over substance. If they pass an unconstitutional law, and a court overturns it, then they can rally the troops to point out the need to get more liberals in the courts. Holder is simply pandering to their base.

Posted by: MrSpkr at February 27, 2009 03:30 PM (bkUsA)

10 I was speaking to someone that deals with HR and this was their response to holder's talk about Race thing- which just underlines his ignorance as an AG!

"And as to AG Holder - the biggest, GIANT thing that jumped out at me about what he said, in regard to "that we should all go into work today and have a frank discussion about race" was HOLY COW! Title 7 (which is actual legislation, something you would think that the AG would know about) specifically prohibits this kind of conversation to be initiated in the workplace, as contributing to a potentially hostile work environment. Although I think it would be interesting to have a frank discussion about race with my friends, I would never, ever broach this as a topic at work. It's illegal. Again, you'd think the AG would know this."

Posted by: Scott at February 27, 2009 06:05 PM (Lj0BN)

11 "Is Eric Holder Too Ignorant to Be Attorney General?"

I'll take that as sarcasm as I consider them to be very intelligent and smart in their political maneuverings. Your surmise that they don't care one wit if the Constitution stands between them and where they want to go is accurate. They'll push right on through, take routes to evade it, or change them, as they do with all the other laws, rules or regulations they don't like. After all, that's writing on paper and they know laws, rules and regulations can't fight back, only other people can.

Just say no.

Posted by: Dusty at February 28, 2009 08:08 AM (4sMx3)

12 May I add a bit of technical information? Words matter, thus have liberals become “progressives.” There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” The term is a cynical and deceptive invention of the gun banners whose internal documents long ago revealed their intention to play on the lack of technical knowledge of the general public by trying to turn every firearm that resembles a machinegun into a machinegun. The correct term is “assault rifle,” which describes a class of shoulder fired, gas operated, detachable box magazine fed rifles and carbines which fire an intermediate rifle cartridge, and which are capable of selective (semiautomatic and fully automatic) fire. Such firearms are not available to the general public, only semiautomatic look-alike versions. The media, never known for their knowledge of firearm technology, to say nothing of honesty where firearm issues are concerned, have gladly played along, often using video of machineguns firing to illustrates stories about semiautomatic firearms. Semiautomatic technology is more than a century old.

The M14, by the way, is part of a class or firearms properly termed battle rifles. These rifles fire a full power rifle cartridge. The first generation of true battle rifles, such as the Springfield, Mauser and Lee-Enfield were bolt action rifles, but those currently in use, such as the M14, FN-FAL or G3 are shoulder fired, semiautomatic, detachable box magazine fed rifles (not carbines). The M1 Garand was something of a transitional weapon between generations. It is the only widely available rifle that fires from a “clip,” the much misused term for “magazine” (pistols also fire from magazines, not “clips”). While a few of these rifles have been produced in fully automatic versions, the overwhelming majority of battle rifles produced and issued have been semiautomatic only because the cartridges are just too powerful, when fired in a standard weight rifle, to be controllable with fully automatic fire. The much larger and heavier guns developed from battle rifles are properly termed light machine guns.

There is also no such thing as “cop killer bullets.” When, more than two decades ago, the gun banners came up with the term (yes, they invented a term, once again, for something that doesn’t exist, just like the “gun show loophole”), their intention was to ban any cartridge capable of penetrating the body armor commonly worn by police officers. This would, of course, encompass virtually all rifle ammunition and some handgun rounds, as well as all truly armor piercing ammunition, which was never the true target of their banning dreams. To thwart them, the NRA worked with Congress to ban actual armor piercing rounds, which ban is still in effect. Only the military and law enforcement may legally possess such specialty ammunition.

It should also be noted the the gun banners did not do this out of respect or fondness for the police. Most police officers (most big city police executives excluded) hate gun banners, and the feeling is mutual. Why? Most cops actually support the Constitution, and when the Brady bunch and their pals invented the cop killer bullet controversy, practical, affordable body armor was becoming commonplace among the police, but that fact wasn’t widely known. By publicizing it, the gun banners informed criminals, who began shooting for the heads of cops. Since then, many officers have died from neck and head wounds. I was a cop back then. Many of my compatriots would have loved to have introduced the gun banners to some “cop killer bullets.” Since the ban of these rare rounds, the number of officers injured or killed by actual armor piercing ammunition remains virtually non-existent. Banning “cop killer bullets” is, and always was, a solution in search of a problem.

So we have an attorney general who is either a gun banner, and thus a liar, who knows nothing about firearm technology, or both. In either case, he, and many members of the Obama administration, seem blissfully willing to violate theirs oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Posted by: MIke at February 28, 2009 12:16 PM (tCJgQ)

13 Great post Mike. But one correction.

"The much larger and heavier guns developed from battle rifles are properly termed light machine guns."

A machine gun firing a "full powered" round would be a medium machine gun. A machine gun firing a round intermediate between "full powered" and pistol rounds would be a light machine gun.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2009 08:40 AM (rHW2R)

14 Dear Matt:

Thanks for the compliment on the post, but by light machinegun, I'm referring to weapons such as the BAR, which fires the same, full-sized 30.06 rifle cartridge as the Springfield and the Garand. Similar weapons have been based on the FN-FAL and variants of the Kalashnikov family. Not true general purpose machineguns such as the M-60, they are all attempts, successful to varying degrees, to provide fully automatic capability with full powered rifle cartridges such as the 30.06, .308, even .303 (the Bren Gun) by increasing the weight and general robustness of battle rifle designs to make the weapons reasonably controllable without the weight and bulk of a general purpose machinegun. MPMG's are the weapon class between light machineguns and heavy machineguns such as the venerable Browning M2. The most common American equivalent is the contemporary SAW, or Squad Automatic Weapon, which is one man portable and fires the .223/5.56mm M-16 family round from a belt, a 200 round battle pack or M-16 magazines. It is merely a continuation of development of light machineguns that use the predominant military rifle cartridge, though certainly not a full powered (battle) rifle cartridge.

Posted by: Mike at March 01, 2009 05:10 PM (tCJgQ)

15 Mike. It is good to find another knowledgeable person on here. It is a rarity when it comes to arms.

Now speaking to the history of the various machine guns the BAR, while a part of it, was more to developing a billet than a rifle. And per the proper definitions, was not a true machine gun. It was classified as an automatic rifle.

The the role it filled is akin to that of the SAW. But the role filled does not define the weapon itself. Form over function. Just because the guy who carries the SAW in a fire team is called the automatic rifleman does not mean he is carrying an automatic rifle.

The M14 is a closer relative to the BAR than any of the modern machine guns.

MPMG can be used to define any machine gun that is multi-purpose. The SAW could be defined as one if you really wanted to because it can be used as an individually served weapon in the fire team, or a crew served in the defense on a tripod or mounted on a gun truck.

The definitions get a bit screwy from time to time.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2009 08:08 PM (rHW2R)

16 The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets.

The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty.

Sounds as though you'd have no problem with bans on handguns, shotguns, and concealed carry laws which certainly have nothing at all to do with military duty. Sounds good to me.

I'm not as sold though on the idea that being an 17-45 male is the equivalent of being in a well trained militia but that may be an argument for another time.

Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 02:45 AM (jHMRy)

17 "I'm not as sold though on the idea that being an 17-45 male is the equivalent of being in a well trained militia but that may be an argument for another time."

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178

Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment.

Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 12:18 PM (rHW2R)

18 You sorry rebish crackers.....you will never admit that a Black man is smarter than you......that is your problem. You are so ignorant about the truth...you post stupid stuff on these confed....%^())$## web sites. That only stupid people like you read.
An assault rifle is no weapon to be in any man's hand. Then you get upset when your kids are wiped out by one of your nutty brats that you raised with the notion that they are superior to everyone. Grow up....read a book....get understanding....stop being a bigot...white is not right!

Posted by: Auntflossie1 at March 02, 2009 01:41 PM (UYut9)

19 Auntflossie.

The only person I see spreading hate or ignorance on this thread is you.

Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 03:22 PM (rHW2R)

20 And for the record.

This is me. http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss57/Matt0921/Matt3004.jpg

Holy crap, a black man that doesn't agree with Nobama.

Oh and here is my wife.
http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss57/Matt0921/NATASHA.jpg

Yup, thats right. She is of middle eastern background.

Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 03:41 PM (rHW2R)

21 George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)


Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178


Thanks for the response and the quotes Matt, Founders intent is certainly key here. To be clear I don't believe either Mason or Lee is saying being an adult male means you are a militia. They are saying the well regulated militias should include participation from every adult male. Turning 16 or 17 doesn't make one a trained defender of freedom, it makes you eligible.

The Court has been very clear on this, whether I agree or not, and they found an individual right to arms irrespective of the militia wording. I have no problem with that at all, the Court has the final say here and I'm agnostic on the issue.

I was really more curious about the argument that military weapons are the only ones that should be protected under the 2nd, and would love to here from the original author if he thinks pistols etc... lack 2nd amendment protection. It's something I had not heard from a gun supported before.

Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 06:29 PM (GStBc)

22 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe,

Did you miss the part about what they meant by well regulated?

Anyway. I must have read something wrong, because I do not believe anyone said that military type arms should be the only ones protected, because every type of arms can be used to defend yourself against a tyrannical government. Though some are better suited for it than others.

Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 06:41 PM (rHW2R)

23 Hey Matt the point about military arms in from the original post by Confederate Yankee, here is the part I'm referencing:

The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets. The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty. No firearm in America today fits the definition the Founders intended as well as what Eric Holder and Barack Obama would seek to make illegal.


When I read that it sounds as though he thinks the Founders would rather you and I had access to RPGs than a Glock. Maybe throw in an M1A2 as well.

Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 08:34 PM (GStBc)

24 What is the change promised by the annointed one - easy...a chang ein the constitution.
These people swear to uphold the constitution, they swear on a bible but lie through their teeth.
I see a massive tea party in the works!

Posted by: Patriot61 at March 02, 2009 08:40 PM (6VxJD)

25 Jim,

I didn't define what the Founders would prescribe because I can't get in their heads and wouldn't presume to talk for them, but let's go ahead and do that for fun since that is where you seem to want to take the conversation.

I suspect that if faced with the array of modern weapons systems and the factors of modern life, they would probably be of a mind that small arms in the form of individual firearms (not crew-served weapons) would probably be the modern equivalent of what they envisioned for the militia.

That would mean either the battle rifles and assault rifles carried by the militia in relatively "pure" forms (which would include selective-fire rifles and what we now classify as SBRs), or the reasonably similar semi-automatic copies that are legal under our present laws. It would also cover most handguns and shotguns that might have practical military application, and certainly long-range rifles, including those chambered in .50 BMG.

I don't honestly know where they would stand on the idea of individually-portable light machine guns such as SAWs like the M249, and rather doubt they'd be huge fans of rocket-assisted anti-tank weapons and 20mm-25mm anti-material cannons.

As for the big stuff--armor, ships, aircraft, etc... clearly not what they had in mine for a militia, and yet a friend of mine legally owns his own Fletcher-class Destroyer (DD-574 John Rodgers), which they probably wouldn't have envisioned either.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2009 09:56 PM (Fe6uK)

26 a friend of mine legally owns his own Fletcher-class Destroyer (DD-574 John Rodgers), which they probably wouldn't have envisioned either.

Awesome, any chance he offers charters?

Thanks for your response, lot's to think about.

Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 10:14 PM (GStBc)

27 Sadly, I can't help you on the charters. It's presently stuck dockside across from a Mexican Naval Base on the Pacific.

And I've already called "dibs" on the next big ship he's going after as well. :-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2009 10:17 PM (Fe6uK)

28 I can't remember who said it, and I can't seem to find a quote. But essentially one of the framers was asked what arms the people should own. They said those that were not dangerous or unusual. When asked to define dangerous or unusual the framer said something to the effect of. Any weapon a normal soldier would likely be trained to use.

As "normal soldiers" are trained in the use of everything from grenades, and medium and light machine guns, then it is likely that crew serves and what not would be viewed as acceptable.

Posted by: Matt at March 03, 2009 08:54 AM (rHW2R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 25, 2009

What's The Matter with Illinois?

And why do they keep freedom-hating urban Democrats?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:29 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 24, 2009

Obama Administration Supports Hamas Rebuilding, While Shorting Anti-Terrorism Funding in Pakistan

We're still fighting a war against radical Islamic terrorism, and it already appears that our inept President has forgotten which side he's supposed to be on.

The Department of Defense's Security Development Plan for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, like the administration's $900 million Gaza aid plan, is directed at the heart of a terrorist haven. But the DoD initiative is directed at curtailing and/or cutting off terrorists from narcotics funding and undermining their stranglehold on and, to the degree that it exists, popular support of the local populations there. An alternative.

The Administration's Gaza reconstruction gift contains none of these counterterrorism dynamics. Not a one. There is but one ultimate distributor in Gaza: Hamas. The Obama administration can claim that "the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations," but the fact of the matter remains that the Hamas terrorist organization that dominates Gaza stands to gain from every penny. It most certainly will not be hindered. That equation is nowhere in the calculus.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:20 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 23, 2009

Another Unforced Error

President Barack Obama, fresh off the most expensive first month as POTUS in American history, has now tapped Joe Biden to oversee the implementation of the stimulus package.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same Joe Biden that was viewed as being so incompetent that his own Democratic leadership never put him in a single leadership role in a 33-year Senate career that wasn't mandated by seniority?

And now you want him in charge of the most expensive spending plan in history?

Brilliant move, Mr. President.

Let's hope it turns out better than it did the last time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:48 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Brownshirts and Violent Felons You Can Believe In

A bit more on the Obama-trained ACORN thugs that are breaking into homes for people who can't be bothered to be responsible for their own actions, starting with their poster child, convicted felon Donna Hanks.

From CY reader Sherry, who did a public records search that ACORN apparently wouldn't do, and posted her results in the comments of Obama's Brownshirts Begin Breaking into Homes as "Civil Disobedience."

Thought you might be interested in some REAL information related to this foreclosure; Donna Hanks initially purchased her home (315 South Ellwood, Baltimore, MD 21224) on 7/06/2001 for $87,000. At some date between 2001 and 2006 she re-financed the original mortgage for the amount of $270,000 with a mortgage payment of $1,662.00. The FIRST foreclosure on this home was filed 5/31/2006. Donna Hanks filed for bankruptcy 6/16/06 during which a payment plan was approved for the $10,500 she was behind in her payments. This action stopped the original foreclosure. When she did not meet the terms of the bankruptcy re-payment, a second foreclosure action was started in January 2008. At the time she had not made her mortgage payments since September 2007. It should be noted that her salary per the bankruptcy paperwork was $1625 per month and she was working a 2nd and 3rd job (supposedly giving her an additional $1,275 in monthly income - the employers were not listed). Over extended? Also, during 2007 she was renting our her basement illegally (she was taken to court) and receiving rent while she was not making her mortgage payments. The mortgage company "raised" her payment $300 a month - right? Well, not exactly it was $340. The amount that she had agreed to pay back in arrears. Not exactly truthful, but what I would expect from a person with her criminal record (theft and assault 2nd degree and possession of a dangerous weapon with intent to injure). Oh and there is the small matter of breaking and entering. The house at 315 South Ellwood had already been sold at auction on 6/26/08 for $192,000. It just took them until September 2008 to get her out. Nothing like public information - it seems Acorn could have found this same information before they helped this "poor" victimized woman...

Who will ACORN try to steal a home for next... Tawana Brawley?

Michele Malkin has more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:46 AM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 20, 2009

Obama's Brownshirts Begin Breaking into Homes as "Civil Disobedience"

Hope. Change. Home Invasions.

A community organization breaks into a foreclosed home in what they are calling an act of civil disobedience.

The group wants to train homeowners facing eviction on peaceful ways they can remain in their homes.

Derek Valcourt reports their actions are not without controversy.

Near Patterson Park, the padlock on the door and the sign in the window tell part of Donna Hanks foreclosure story.

"The mortgage went up $300 in one month," said Hanks, former homeowner.

She says the bank refused to modify her loan and foreclosed, kicking her out of the house in September.

The community group ACORN calls Hanks a victim of predatory lending.

"This is our house now," said Louis Beverly, ACORN.

And on Thursday afternoon, they literally broke the foreclosure padlock right off the front door and then broke into the house, letting Hanks back in for the first time in months.

What a nice little protection racket they've got running. First they bully and cajole lawmakers into rewriting the law so that people can buy homes they can't afford, and when—surprise!—the "victims" are foreclosed upon, ACORN then teaches them to break back in and claim the homes as their own.

I know this is a radical thought, perhaps from a bygone age, but if you can't afford to pay for property, it isn't yours.

These people are at best ignorant and foolish for attempting to buy homes they could never legitimately expect to afford. Now, they seem intent on adding property invasion and squatting to their resumes.

There was evidence of remodeling at the home in this story, suggesting that the home was being made ready for market or was already sold, but thankfully no one was home at the time.

Who is going to take responsibility when ACORN-trained goons go too far, and start "reclaiming" homes that belong to people who have legally purchased a foreclosed home? What happens when ACORN-trained thugs make a mistake, and break into an occupied dwelling and someone gets hurt?

As Rick Moran notes The American Thinker notes, the Obama-trained Marxists goons at ACORN feel such a strong sense of entitlement that they feel justified breaking into someone else's home and taking over someone else's property to "right a wrong" they specifically helped create.

When a group begins to feel they are justified in simply taking what they haven't earned, a society's freedoms become imperiled. This is your handiwork, Mr. President, from a group you promoted, helped finance, and trained.

Somehow, I can't help but wonder if this is precisely what the most famous disciple of Saul Alinsky had in mind.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:01 PM | Comments (57) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The 11 Most Expensive Catastrophes in History

I received this via email this morning. I apologize in advance for not knowing who the author is, or knowing if it is particularly accurate, or who has the rights to the images, but found it interesting that it was circulating, and thought I'd share.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:32 AM | Comments (44) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 19, 2009

Racist and Stupid is No Way To Govern... Or Maybe It Is

It appears that the manufactured controversy surrounding the Sean Delonas editorial cartoon that used the tabloidesque incident of a chimpanzee mauling a woman in Connecticut as a jumping off point for criticizing the nearly $800 billion Multi-Generational Financial Rape Act—AKA the "stimulus"—has now entered its second day, with New York’s blind governor David Patterson chiming in with an opinion about an image he had described to him, but which he cannot see.

Paterson, who had the cartoon described to him during a news conference in Manhattan, said it is incumbent upon Post editors to explain "what the cartoon was intended to portray."

Images of black people portrayed as primates, Paterson said, "do feed a kind of negative and stereotypical way that some people think."

And indeed, if the point of the editorial cartoon was to portray African-Americans as primates, it should be viewed as racist.

But the simple fact of the matter is, as even leftist bomb-thrower Jonathan Chait noted, is that sometimes a monkey is just a monkey.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock during the past week, one of the biggest news stories in the United States today is the horrid real-life tale of Travis the Chimp, a powerful 200-lb. adult male chimpanzee that went berserk in Connecticut, severely mauling his owner's friend before being shot and killed as he attacked police officers responding to desperate cries for help.

The animal shredded the victim's arms—some early accounts claimed he bit off her hands—before biting and ripping off large portions of her face. The owner stabbed the chimpanzee with a butcher knife in an attempt to save her friend, at which point the wounded animal finally broke off his attack.

After the police arrived, the rampaging, blood-soaked primate pinned one officer in his vehicle, and after ripping off the side-view mirror of the police cruiser with his hands, the chimp opened the door to attack the officer. The officer fired on the chimp in self-defense at point-blank range, killing the enraged animal and ending one of the most bizarre and tragic news stories in recent memory.

The vividly imagined aftermath of the attack is the physical event cartoonist Delonas portrayed in his cartoon. In and of itself, the art of the cartoon portrays nothing but a current event, as it shown with this modified version of the image, which shows the cartoon, sans text.

Nor was the text of the cartoon itself in any way racist.

It read, simply:

"They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

The text, of course, refers to the largest single spending bill ever rammed down the throats of American taxpayers under the guise of "stimulating" a U.S. economy languishing in a recession.

The legislation was the handiwork of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a rich white woman and stereotypical San Francisco limousine liberal who encouraged a team of Democratic Representatives and lobbyists to cobble together a wish list of liberal spending and handouts to loyal contributors and special interest groups—pure, unadulterated "pork." The legislation was thrown together so quickly that few if any, of the Democrats that pushed it through the House of Representatives under Pelosi's leadership read the bill the voted for, nor did any of the Democrats that rejected the bill, which was so poorly written, and so filled with overt graft, patronage, and corruption that it could not attract a single Republican vote.

In the Senate, the House legislation was lightly modified to provide pork-barrel spending that bought the votes of the two Republican Senators from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania. The legislation passed in the Senate with only the purchased votes of this Republican Senators and without any dissent from Democrats.

The differences between the massive House and Senate bills were hammered between Democrats selected by Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader. Not one single Republican from the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate was allowed to participate in the lobbyist-inspired alchemy that resulted in the final conference bill, which was then rammed through so quickly—and in direct violation of pledges from Democratic leaders—that not one single legislator had a chance to read the Frankenstein's monster of a $787-billion, 1,073-page bill before voting on it in its final form. Unread, and still not entirely understood, it was sent to the President to be signed into law, which he did so Tuesday, also without reading it.

When the art and the text are in its proper context, there is no way any rational person can misconstrue the intent of the cartoon for anything other than what it was; a scathing critique of a stimulus bill so horribly crafted by Congress that it appears it was written by a crazed chimpanzee, a chimpanzee that is now deceased.

Of course, I'm talking about rational people with a reasonable grasp of current events and without a political axe to grind, and not those who are part of a finely-tuned grievance industry in need of a bailout, where everything and anything is "racist," no matter how absurd.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:59 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 18, 2009

Political Cartoons and Race-Baiting Goons

When your standards are this low to start with, the lying comes easy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:09 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Mindless Conformists Suddenly Decide Comparing President to Hitler is a Bad Thing

I don't know who should take the blame for first comparing an American President to the 20th Century's most infamous genocidal fascist, but there is no doubt at all that the odious comparison was perfected by the drones of the far left during George Bush's Presidency, and nowhere was that on display moreso than in the leftist blogosphere.

It is with a great deal of amusement, then, that I see these same angry children up in arms because Michelle Malkin recently took a picture with a guy holding an Obama sign with a swastika in the middle of the "O."

Just. Grow. Up.

"He hit me back!" isn't a valid defense.

If you're going to spend the better part of eight years calling the President a fascist, don't get all up in arms because someone turns your own symbology against you.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:13 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

February 15, 2009

Stimulus Guns

The Multi-Generational Financial Rape Act of 2009 passed in the House of Representatives Friday without a single Republican vote and the loss of seven Democrats, sending the bill to the Senate, where just three turncoats—Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter—could be fooled into voting for a massive spending program no Senator or Congressman has read.

The unexamined legislation forced through Congress with little oversight or review is expected to threaten the nation's credit rating, potentially devalue the dollar, and lead to a spike in inflation not seen since Jimmy Carter's abortive Presidency.

Neophyte President Barack Obama, less than a month into the first professional executive position of his life (the failed chairmanship of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that wasted tens of millions of educational dollars in attempting Marxist indoctrination was a volunteer position), is poised to sign the Bill on Monday Tuesday (because one simply must have a three-day weekend his third week on the job), adding years to the recession, and increasing violent crime and property crime to levels not seen in decades outside of Chicago public schools.

In light of these bold, decisive, and reckless series of decisions of Congressmen and women more intent on catching their vacation flights than helping theri constituents, many Americans have decided that now is a great time to put money back into certain segments of the economy, spurring a run on shelf-stable foods, water purifiers, subterranean concrete construction, and of course, firearms.

While I don't have the necessary background to help people determine the best brand of freeze-dried ice cream or powdered milk, and my knowledge of the right cement mix to use in do-it-yourself bunkers is very limited, I have spent a considerable amount of my recreational time over the years around firearms and ammunition, including a stint selling guns and ammo for a major sporting goods retailer that rhymes with "Pricks."

Without further ado, here are some select choices, broken down by political affiliation

Guns for Liberals
For the hardcore hope-and-changer, nothing says I HEART OBAMA more than the 10 Exciting Power Squirt, just the kind of item New York Times editorialists gush over when they're gushing about the Great Big O. This Indonesian import is colorful, and is guaranteed to leave you soaked. And while it can't really defend you from anyone or anything, gosh-darn it, it sure looks fun!

For fans of San Fran Nan and her all important junket to Italy, we offer the 8mm Beretta CX4. Made of the same space-age polymers and rigid plastics as our Speaker of the House, this ultra-fabulous design looks capable, but when it goes off, the joke's on you.

And last but not least, the perfect Harry Reid gun is obvious, if lacking spark.

Guns For Obamacons
Not quite liberal, but certainly not conservative, Obamacons want a little power in their hands, even if they don't know what to do with it. Nothing could be more fitting for an Obamacon than the powerful new Taurus revolver, the Judge. A pistol designed to fire a .410 shotgun shell, the Judge is a favorite of Obamacons everywhere. We recommend Obamacons use the Judge with 12-gauge shells. True, that doesn't fit, but they can always try to force it and see how that works out.

For Conservatives, both Democrat and Republican
How many are you willing to sell, and at what profit margin?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:39 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.438 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4168 seconds, 246 records returned.
Page size 206 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.