BulkAmmo.com

For those of you are interested in large amount of ammunition, you should check out BulkAmmo.com. The main difficulty in my getting trigger time is the cost of ammunition, and I have found BulkAmmo.com's prices competative with other online sources of ammunition.

For example, 1000 rds of 5.56 ammo by PMC is going for only $360.

Camoflaging your BOL

If you can't find a BOL,build your own BOL

Responses to Obama calling Palin a Pig

Well, the democratic operatives (I'm a democrat) are out in full force doing damage control for Obama after he made the clear innuendo that he was referring to Palin as a pig.


Some commentators are trying to pan off Obama's comments as not being related to the post on the official DNC website which referred to Palin as a pig. After all, they argue, hardly anyone, including Obama, knew about this post.


Problem is, Obama's entire Palin/pig commentary was scripted from prior stolen material. It was stolen word for word from Tom Toles September 5 Washington Post political cartoon.


Here is Obama's commentary:

John McCain says he's about change too. Exce- and and so I guess his whole angle is - watch out, George Bush - except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl-Rove-style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington.

That's not change.

That's that's just callin' sumpin' the same thing somethin' different.

But you know, you can't, you know, you you can put, ah, lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

Now here is the cartoon:

Obama's comments were scripted from prior (stolen) material word for word, just like his essentially calling Palin a pig comment.

The Palin/pig post up at the DNC website was dated Aug. 30th, while the cartoon he copied from was dated Sept. 5th. Both are within a week of each other and it is obvious Obama was trolling for ideas from everywhere.

That's why the audience laughed; they knew what was going on.

Problem is, everyone else knows what is going on and now amount of backpeddling or spin is going to change it.

Did Obama Call Palin a Pig? You Decide.

Did Barack Obama refer to Gov. Palin as a pig in the following clip?



Notice that when Obama made the lipstick comment, the audience laughed. If they understood Obama to be referring to "McCain's continued policies of Bush" with no innuendo or double-meaning, the audience would have applauded. But the audience did not applaud, they laughed.

Why did they laugh? Because they found something funny in Obama's lipstick comment. Obama was making a double-meaning, innuendo that compared Palin to a pig, in light of her own self-depricating humor lipstick comment during her speech. It was an inside joke. Why else did the crowd laugh? They knew what was going on.

Do I have any evidence of this? Yes. On the official Democratic Party website, there is a post entitled McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig. It is dated August 30, 2008, which if after Palin's speech but before Obama's comments. This post compares Governor Palin to a pig.

The post is entitled McCain's Selection of Palin is Lipstick on a Pig, located here.

The post was written in such a way as to try to claim the lipstick on the pig is the "continuation of Bush's failed strategies," yet leave the clear innuendo that they are referring to Gov. Palin as a pig in light of her "lipstick" comment during her RNC Convention speech.

This is why the crowd laughed when Obama madehis lipstick on a pig comment. They all knew what he was referring to, the inside joke as you will. Otherwise, why would they laugh at a "non-joke"?

The text of what they said is below. I am adding emphasis to highlight what I mean.

Palin does not change one single thing of what the Republicans are offering which is four more years of George Bush. All that McCain did was to put lipstick on the Pig (the Bush Administration whose failed strategies have wrecked our nation). Nothing has changed except for an exciting and sexy dash of lipstick to freshen up their tired old face of more of the same.

The same people who do not like the Bush Administration for what it has done to this nation are not going to be fooled by the lipstick on the pig. And it they think that the American public are so stupid that they will rush over now and kiss their pig of a platform because it is wearing a fresh touch of lipstick, well I think they will be surprised.

Economically, the majority of Americans are at the breaking point. Most American families literally cannot stand another four more years of the same.

That is exactly why we had so many Republicans giving testimony at our convention as to why they were crossing over. The message was the same: They simply could no longer afford to vote Republican. Palin does not change that message. She is more of the same. Judging from McCains choice, he seems to think that our Democratic Campaign is built on the purpose of electing the first black man as President. That is not, nor has it ever been the purpose of the Barack Obama campaign.

The purpose and message of Barack Obama's campaign has always been CHANGE and it remains so--to change this country before conservatives totally destroy it with their tax breaks for the wealthy and for coporate America; to rebuild this nation by creating new jobs and restoring worldwide respect for our nation; to unite our country in a common purpose; to end our reliance on fossil fuel in the next 10 years--not to drill for more.

Palin changes nothing in terms of what the Republicans are offering. They are still offering a ticket of more of the same: more tax breaks for the weathy, more disdain for global warming, more war, more disregard for rebuilding our educational system in America, more continued privatization of our nation.

WE NEED TO REMEMBER AND NOT BE THROWN OFF OUR MESSAGE. THE REASON THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SUCH SWELLING SUPPORT IS BECAUSE OF ECONOMICS AND THE WAR IN IRAQ--Palin represent more of the same. She changes nothing.

In a way a Palin is a good thing because now we can focus on the real issues. The REAL issues for Americans do not include whether we elect the first black president of our nation or whether we elect the first woman vice president .

AMERICANS HAVE A CLEAR CHOICE: CHANGE OR MORE OF THE SAME.

Democrats offer change. Republicans offer more of the same.

Palin is a red herring, lipstick on the Republican pig to distract Americans from the real issue that under the leadership of the Republicans the last 8 years, our country is falling apart.

Both Palin and McCain think that Americans are whiners. What do you think? Are you a whiner? Do you want more of the same? If you don't, then get out and register at least 5 people and tell them why they should vote a straight Democratic ticket this year.

Did the post directly call Palin a pig? No. It created a lot of plausible deniability, yet left the strong innuendo that they were referring to her as a pig.

This was the setup, the background understood by the crowd, for Obama's comments.

Was Obama referring to Palin directly as a pig? No, he left plausible deniability. Did he refer to her as a pig in a not too subtle, innuendo, "wink wink, nod nod" sort of way? Yes, he clearly did.

That is why the crowd laughed.

Here are the screenshots from the official DNC website:

The Greatest Man I Ever Met

I count it one of the greatest honors of my life to have (briefly) met Pfc. Desmond T. Doss, Medal of Honor recipient.

If you admire courage, conviction, patriotism, and self-sacrifice, you need to see the documentary The Contientious Objector. Here is a brief clip I found on Youtube.

DC v. Heller Roundup -- SCOTUS Blog

I have been reading up on the DC v. Heller 2nd Amendment decision and found some good posts and links on SCOTUS blog about the topic. Here are some excerpts with links:

SCOTUS Blog -- Court: A Constituional Right to a Gun

The opinion can be downloaded here. Relevant quotes from the majority opinion can be found here, and a replay of our LiveBlog can be found here. Tom’s commentary is here.

Answering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” it added.

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.” [Read the rest of the article here.]

SCOTUS Blog -- DC v. Heller Roundup

Not surprisingly, yesterday’s decision in DC v. Heller (07-290) has generated a lot of interest in both the media and legal blog communities. Below, we’ve linked to a number of the substantive articles and posts currently available.

Nina Totenberg’s coverage on NPR can be accessed here.

Lyle’s broadcast report for WBUR’s Here and Now program is available here. The Washington Post’s in-depth coverage includes Robert Barnes’ summary of the decision and its implications, as well as this article by Dan Balz and Keith Richburg. Today’s Post also includes a piece on community reaction within the District, as well as this poll indicating that 70% of its readers agree with yesterday’s decision (as of 9:00 am). Monica Hesse offers this recap of the “duel” between yesterday’s majority opinion and dissent authors.

Op-Ed columnist Colbert I. King offers this opinion piece, and columnist Marc Fisher provides his take in Raw Fisher. [Link to entire article here.]

SCOTUS Blog -- Commentary: So What's Next on Guns?

If the Supreme Court’s historic ruling on gun rights brings about, as the dissenters said, “a dramatic upheaval in the law,” perhaps that was enough of a task to perform for one day. And, in fact, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the Court conceded that the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller was but a first step, saying: “Since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” And it definitely did not.

Still, it is remarkable how much was left undecided, and, therefore, how wide-ranging the post-Heller litigation is going to be. It is already apparent, from comments that the National Rifle Association was circulating among the news media Thursday, that the Nation will not have to wait long for those lawsuits — probably a flood of them — to begin. Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s dissenting opinion lists a wide array of gun control laws now in force that, one suspects, the NRA will soon challenge. Breyer, in fact, suggests that “the decision threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.” [Link to entire article here.]

Oh Yeah? Here's What I Think of the U.S. Military

I know I have not posted for a long time, but I have spent a lot of time watching the situation with the Marine Corps recruiting center in Berkeley, CA. I finally got fed up and decided to tell the US Military exactly what I think of them. So, if you're a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine, here's exactly what I think of you ...




And if thet is not enough to make it perfectly clear what I think of them, you can see where put my money here. Afterall, talk is cheap.

F-22 Raptor Airshow -- Astonishing

Simply amazing ...

Why I Was Never Late For School

Buddy sent me this and I just had to post it.

Criticisms of the Seventh Day Adventist Church

... or any other Church and/or religion.

Back in 2007 an anonymous Seventh-day Adventist wrote a letter to the Zola Levitt Ministries which was published on page 23 of The Levitt Letter as Adventists Are Now God's Chosen People!?

Dr. Jeffrey Seif rightly responded to the objectionable contents.

Embarassed and offended by what this anonymous Adventist wrote, I called Zola Levitt Ministries (25 Nov. '07) apologizing for what this guy wrote. Not satisfied with only a phone message, I decided to write Dr. Seif an apology via email and published the apology on my blog as a post titled The Levitt Letter. You can read my response here.

Just yesteday a reader, J. Trade, responded to my post with the following comment:

I believe it was a little naive to believe that the letter to Jeffrey Seif was actually from a Seventh-day Adventist. First clue is that it was ANONYMOUS! Secondly, the remarks appear to be intentionally inflamatory (intended to get a negative reaction towards Adventists). Thirdly, the content of the remarks do not reflect what the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches. Put it all together, I would be probably more correct in accessing that it was written by a bitter person who may had some association with Adventists in the past or an enemy of the Adventist church whose intent is malicious.

I agree with you J. Trade and want to add some further comments.

While it is perfectly acceptable, IMO, to critique the views and doctrines of any church or religion, it is NOT acceptable to use deception or mis-characterizations in doing so.

From a Christian point of view, the Holy Spirit does not use lies, deception, innuendo, misrepresentation, or any under-handed means. It is not a mark of being under the influence of Christ to intentionally lie about, or misrepresent anyone.

If someone is a Christian and they are worried a friend is going down the "wrong path" or in the "wrong religion", the Christian (myself included) is not allowed to use anything but fair and honest discourse if they want to dissuade their friend from the "wrong path."

I saw this happen on more than one occasion. For example, I remember back in 1999 (or was it 1998?) when I was teaching at La Sierra University. There were several students on campus who were members of a different (locally popular) Christian denomination. Adventist colleges typically admit students from other faith traditions so long as they abid by the student code of conduct, e.g., no smoking, drinking, etc. However, these "undercover agents" would consistently approach relatively new adventist converts, misrepresenting themselves and their intentions, and use innuendo and deception to try to lead the new converts from the Adventist church.

Mind you, I have no problem with someone being straightforward and honestly representing themselves and telling any Adventist that the SDA church was wrong, and then to honestly argue why one should leave the Adventist church. That is called intellectual discourse and is perfectly fine in my book.

However, that is not what these individuals were doing. They were deliberately using dishonest and/or misleading methods. It even reached the point that these "undercover agents" vandalized campus property as well as papered trhe cars in the parking lot with false and inflammatory material about the SDA church.

To make matters worse, I contacted the pastor of the church the agents attended and informed him of what was going on and what had happened. He said he knew who they were and refused to identify the individuals involved. Basically, he covered their tracks for them. (I eventually figured out who these individuals are, but it was not until about 8 months later, after they had already graduated.)

I am sorry, but if any one tells lies about Mormons, Jehovah's Witnessess, Buddhists, etc. or uses any other form of deception, then your master is not Jesus Christ.

You are using the methods of a different master.

Hilarious

Hilarious!

I am a Liberal!

Yup, that's right, I am an unabashed, unashamed Classical Liberal.

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[2] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods.[6]

Unfortunately, the term liberal has been highjacked by those who are not (Classical) liberals at all. I refuse to give up the term.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. President John F. Kennedy, Inagural Address.

Personal Preparedness, part 3 -- Getting a Trunk Monkey

I have found an excellent all around piece of personal preparedness equipment for my car. I think everyone should have one. It is called The Trunk Monkey and you can see a demo of it in the video below:




I think we all need to have one of these.

Personal Preparedness, part 2

For those of you are interested in personal preparedness, you will be interested in Survival Blog. The author is Mr. Jim Rawles who describes himself as:

... a survivalist author and lecturer. I'm a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer and technical writer. I now work as a full-time blogger and freelance writer. SurvivalBlog is my creation ...

... I am a Christian, and hold to Reformed doctrine. My view of history is of the geographical determinist school. My view of economics is of the Austrian school. Politically, I am a conservative/Constitutionalist libertarian.

I am including Survival Blog as one of my links.

BTW, I note that you served in the Army. Thank you for your service Mr. Rawles.

Distinctions Between Terrorism, War and Crimes of War

A few years ago I read Dore Gold's book Hatred's Kingdom while reading up on terrorism and Al Qaida.

The book eventually lead me to the paper by Auther H. Garrison entitled Terrorism: The Nature of Its History (Criminal Justice Studies, 2003, Vol. 16(1), pp. 39-52).

It is a summary of the nature of terrorism, as well as the history of its causes, and its rise and spread until today. I am often confused by those who make a moral equivalence between terrorists and the soldiers fighting them. I am sorry, but it is just not true that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Here is a (lengthy) quote from Garrison's paper that I found enlightening and thought I would share it:

Distinctions Between Terrorism, War and Crimes of War

Terrorism should not be confused with traditional warfare. In war, a target is selected because it has military value and will achieve a specific military objective. In modern warfare, a specific target is attacked or destreyed because the action serves a specific military necessity, achieves a specific result (utility) and leads to a specific goal (objective) while limiting colateral damage (proportional use of force) to the civilian population. In terrorism, the target is of little interest, per se. What is important is that the target will realize a certain reaction on the part of the greater society. The terrorist group that plants an altitude bomb on the plane does not target the 270 passengers on the flight. The intended effect on the world when that plane is destroyed over a populated area is what makes the act terrorism. Conversely, an Israeli jet dropping a bomb on an apartment building to assassinate a specific person, for example, a senior officer of Hamas, is not an act of terrorism. The specific goal of the attack was to assassinate the Hamas leader, not to cause fear in order to change behavior in Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinians. The other people killed were collateral casualties. Terrorism is not defined by the fact that life is lost in an act of violence or the amount of life that is lost. Terrorism is defined by the intended effect of the use ofviolence and the purpose of the terrorist act. There is a difference between the use of violence on a target because the target has an intrinsic and specific value, and the use of violence on a target that has no intrinsic or specific value, but is attacked in order to effect the larger audience watching the attack. The former is an act of war; the latter is terrorism.

Some researchers do not agree that there is a distinction between terrorism and war, and assert that terrorism is warfare against civilians, a tactic that has a long history (Carr, 2002). Carr, for example, asserts that terrorism is part of the development of war: Terrorism, in other words, is simply the contemporary name given to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable” (Carr,2002, p. 6).

This formulation makes no distinction between acts committed in war to cause an enemy to surrender and acts committed to intimidate and cause policy change. For example, there is a difference between General Sherman’s march through South Carolina (to cause the surrender of the Confederacy and divide the south in two, thus separating Lee’s army from supplies and aid) and Osama bin Laden sending 19 men to hijack four planes to crash them into the World Trade Center. The former was committed to bring an end to a war and prevent a city from aiding an enemy force; the latter was to cause death and destruction. The 266 passengers and crew on the four hijacked planes were not the targets of the attack, nor were the estimated 2500 people inside World Trade Center building. The goal was to cause massive loss of life and property, and to send a message to the United States and the world, to force policy change in the United States.

There is also a difference between terrorism and war crimes. An example of a war crime is an army invading a town to purge it of enemy forces, and while doing so intentionally killing unarmed civilians and non-combatants. Although this action is both immoral and criminal, it is not terrorism. In this example, people were killed because members of the army lost control of themselves, not to intimidate other towns or the society as a whole to achieve a political objective.

Personal Preparedness

I didn't used to think of myself as a survivalist of any sort, but with the California wildfires that came so close to my home last year, as well as the dramatic increase in food and energy prices, I have decided to do a bit of preparing in case something bad happens.

In case there is another wildfire and I have to evacuate my family, or the economy really takes a downturn and I lose my job, I want to have just enough supplies on hand that my family can be self sufficient without relying on government aid. (Anyone remember the hurricane Katrina fiasco?)

I won't go into the details of everything I am working on, but for those of you who are interested, I found an nice resource on preparedness and want to make you aware of it. It is the LDS Preparedness Manual and can be downloaded for free by linking here.


While I am not Mormon, this is an excellent resource. It includes everything from monthly shopping lists to develop a year supply of food, to practical discussions on how to be self-reliant in case of a natural disaster.

Rattle Snake Heaven

Well, today my son and I were in our backyard checking up on the garden. I am growing cabbage, peas, garlic, tomatoes, bok choi, collards, and have just recently planted corn.

While walking back to the house, a rattler let us know he was right nearby under our storage shed. We were less than 10 feet from him. I took my son in the house and proceeded to get the shovel to take care of the snake. This is the fourth rattle snake or so I have had to kill, either in my yard or a neighbor's yard.

I finally found him in our neighbor's carport. I am not a big fan of killing anything. However, I have a 4 year old son and the neighbors are elderly, so I had to send the snake to rattler heaven.


Turns out I must have hit him a bit harder than I needed to. The shovel handle broke in my hands as I whacked him a good one. It even broke a third time as I decapitated the snake. Now I have to buy a new shovel.

Here are some vids from the event.

This is just after I let him have it and my shovel initially broke.



After I went in to decapitate him, the shovel handle broke again.





My wife just doesn't like snakes. Even dead ones? Dunno why. Dead snakes are the safest snakes in the world to be around. She couldn't take much of a video of me holding the snake.

At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church

The New York Times printed an article At Expense of All Others, Putin Picks a Church wherein Russia has shifted attitudes yet again and is showing heavy favoritism for the Russian Orthodox Church. You can link to the article here.


Protestant denominations such as Lutherans, Methodists, and Seventh-day Adventists are being harassed. The Jehovah's Witnesses have been singled out for special harassment.


The article says:

Here in Stary Oskol, 300 miles south of Moscow, the police evicted a Seventh-day Adventist congregation from its meeting hall, forcing it to hold services in a ramshackle home next to a construction site. Evangelical Baptists were barred from renting a theater for a Christian music festival, and were not even allowed to hand out toys at an orphanage. A Lutheran minister said he moved away for a few years because he feared for his life. He has returned, but keeps a low profile.

(I am indebted to Mr. Steve Timm of SDANet for bringing this to my attention. This posted is adopted from his original email on the topic.)

Next Season on Survivor

Next Season on Survivor

Have you heard about the next planned "Survivor" show?

Three businessmen and three businesswomen will be dropped in a high school classroom for 1 school year. Each business person will be provided with a copy of his/her school district's curriculum, and 5 classes of 36 - 40 students.

Each class will have a minimum of eleven learning-disabled children, three with A.D.D., one gifted child, and four who speak limited English. Three students will be labeled with severe behavior problems. The remaining students will have an average GPA of 1.35.

Each business person must complete lesson plans at least 5 days in advance, with annotations for curriculum objectives and state frameworks... And then modify, organize, or create their materials in order to adjust for the legal accomodate of the eleven learning disabled students, the gifted student, and the four limited English students.

They will be required to teach students, handle misconduct, implement technology, document attendance, write referrals, correct homework, make bulletin boards, compute grades, complete report cards, document benchmarks, communicate with parents, and arrange parent conferences. They must also stand in their doorway between class changes to monitor the hallways.

In addition, they will complete fire drills, tornado drills, and [Code Red] drills for shooting attacks each month.

They must attend workshops, faculty meetings, and attend curriculum development meetings. They must also tutor students who are behind and strive to get their 2 non-English speaking children proficient enough to take the Stanford, Terra Nova, Diagnostics and MCAS tests. If they are sick or having a bad day they must not let it show.

Each day they must incorporate reading, writing, math, science, and social studies into the program. They must maintain discipline and provide an educationally stimulating environment to motivate students at all times. If all students do not wish to cooperate, work, or learn, the teacher will be held responsible.

The business people will only have access to the public golf course on the weekends, but with their new salary, they may not be able to afford it. There will be no access to vendors who want to take them out to lunch, and lunch will be limited to thirty minutes, which is not counted as part of their work day. The business people will be permitted to use a restroom, as long as another survival candidate can supervise their class.

If the copier is operable, they may make copies of necessary materials before, or after, school. However, they cannot surpass their monthly limit of copies. They most likely will have to spend $100 per month out of their own pocket to pay for supplies and paper. The business people must continually advance their education, at their expense, and on their own time.

The winner of this Season of Survivor will be allowed to return to their job, the losers will continue for 3 years as teachers in their local school district.