War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

- John Stuart Mill, English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

The First A-Team Trailer

The moment you all have been waiting for is here.

The first trailer for the new A-Team movie got released today and in a word - it looks AWESOME.



A few happies:

1) Liam Neeson looks to be a great Hannibal (cigar and all)

2) Sharlto Copley from District 9 as Murdock

3) Rampage keep the BA Baracus hair-do

3) The A-Team van!

If this is half as good as the trailer looks, then this will more than make up for GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Via con dios, Jed

Patrick Swayze
1952-2009

Honoring 9-11

I read the below on Breitbart's Big Hollywood blog and thought it was worth re-posting here. A good portion of our crew are current and/or former military, with 3 of them having server in the GWOT and one on his way.

Honoring September 11th: They Wants Us to Forget
by Mark Tapson

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” – William Faulkner

“We will write our own future, and the future will be what we want it to be.” – Barack Obama

In a quiet and seemingly innocuous gesture, President Obama has designated 9/11 as “The National Day of Service and Remembrance.” Personally, I liked the ring of “Patriot Day,” and what does “service and remembrance” mean, precisely ? The idea is to get Americans to “engage in meaningful service to create change…in four key areas”: education, health, energy/environment and community renewal. None of these seems to have anything to do with honoring 9/11, but that seems to be the point: in the Huffington Post, Muslim-American playwright Wajahat Ali wrote, “In the US, we are trying to move away from focusing on 9/11 as a day of horror, and instead make it a day to recommit ourselves to national service.” An excellent Spectator article provides a blunter translation: “Nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.” Why? ”They think it needs to be taken back from the right.”

In other words, they resent the surge of patriotism and righteous outrage stirred up by the attacks, sentiments that empower the political Right. In order to advance the leftist agenda of dismantling American exceptionalism and recasting ourselves as the villain in our history books, they need Americans to put 9/11 behind us, forget the victims, forget that our enemy danced in the streets in celebration, forget that Islamic terror plots on our very shores continue to be disrupted, and forget that our rights and freedoms are under assault by a subversive civilizational jihad.

It seems impossible to believe that that morning could be forgotten – just as it was once impossible to believe that our government could erase “jihad” and “Islamic” and “terrorism” from our national lexicon, preventing us from even naming the enemy, or that an American President could proclaim us no longer a Christian nation, but rather one of the world’s largest Muslim countries. There was a time when screenwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh’s extraordinary 2006 ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11 was going to be shown in schools across this country and be aired every 9/11 anniversary – until the Clinton administration, wanting you to forget their flaccid response to the growing threat of Islamic extremism, and fearing the show would tarnish their political legacy, pulled out all the stops to suppress it; it very nearly wasn’t aired, and today you can’t even obtain it on DVD. (This whole story has been related fascinatingly in John Ziegler’s must-see documentary Blocking the Path to 9/11). It’s impossible to forget that morning only if we fight to keep its memory alive.

Americans can commit themselves to public service any or every other day of the year; 9/11 should be reserved for solemn remembrance and renewed commitment to preserving American security, values and sovereignty. A day of greening your neighborhood? I’m all for planting trees, but what does “green” have to do with 9/11? Only that it’s the color of Islam. But if the President insists, allow me to suggest some service appropriate to the day:

Education? How about this: educate yourself and your children about 9/11 and about the continuing Islamist threat – not only of overt acts of terrorism, but the insidious dangers of “stealth jihad” and “creeping sharia.”

Environment and community renewal? Okay, beautify your block by flying the Stars and Stripes. It sends a simple but unmistakable message to the enemy and their useful idiots that, unlike our post-American President and his fawning media, you are proud to be American; you believe in American exceptionalism; you believe that making this day about installing fluorescent light bulbs trivializes the memory of 9/11’s victims; and you will never let their deaths be in vain or erased from history.

Eight years ago, nineteen fanatical Muslims turned hijacked aircraft carrying hundreds of terrified passengers into missiles targeting symbols of American might. Nearly 3000 innocents died horribly that day, including hundreds of courageous, selfless first responders making a superhuman effort to rescue their fellow citizens. The hijackers are regarded by their fellow Islamists as heroes and martyrs in the cosmic war against the Great Satan America. That war is by no means over, and thus, in the Faulknerian sense, neither is 9/11. We owe it to the victims to keep this day alive in our hearts and national consciousness - and not allow the Left to bury it.

Make no mistake, no matter how the current administration tries to downplay the threat of radical Islam or change the lexicon of the GWOT to make its language more palatable to the PC-minded, what we face is a culture war - the progressive, free-minded, free-markets vs. the last bastions of anachronistic monarchy, oppression, and closed-mindedness.

If you doubt, ask any woman who grew up under the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or Christian expartriates who live and work in the Saudi kingdom.

There is no timetable for a pull-out.

There will be no Paris Accords or effective mutual withdrawal.

We will be fighting this war until the end of time.

Potential Update on the A-Team Movie

Daytime just sent me over this info on the ever-in-discussion A-Team movie:

The "A-Team" is certainly gearing up for what one would call an A-list cast (though I'm quite fond of George Peppard, Dirk Benedict and Mr. T). According to Variety, it was confirmed that "Hangover" star Bradley Cooper is in negotiation to play Lt. Templeton "Faceman" Peck. And now, Variety is stating that none other than Liam Neeson (who just starred in the ridiculously entertaining "Taken") is in negotiations to play John "Hannibal" Smith. Joe Carnahan is set to direct, with Ridley Scott producing. OK, great. But where's Mr. T in all of this?

The source is here.

I would have never thought of Liam Neeson as a good Hannibal (of course Faceman would need to be played by a pretty boy, so no surprises there), but after seeing him in Taken, I would certainly like to see his interpretation of the role.

Now of course the big question for me (aside from the concern of Hollywood destroying all of my childhood icons in the name of making a buck, i.e. Transformers, GI Joe, etc.) - is where in time will they set the story?

The A-Team is fundamentally a 1980's post-Vietnam story, but I am not relying on Hollywood to keep the story in context.

I am sure that the A-Team will have been accused of a "crime they did not commit" - some kind of robbery of a big bank in Iraq or Afghanistan. But to make the story politically correct for modern times (and Hollywood), it'll turn out that the bank is being run by an evil military contractor - who was really defrauding the government for its own nefarious purposes.

I wonder if they will push the envelope and make the team mercenaries during the conflict - certainly believable in our contractor-based neo-warfare model - or if they will be a real US Army A-Team (Special Forces) that is assigned the infamous task? If they are US troops, then of course Mr. Neeson would have to do something about that accent . . .

Or . . . they could go all UN-style like Streetfighter.

Just kidding . . . seriously. Don't do it, Hollywood!

Ok - so the Transformers movie wasn't that bad . . .

Swine Flu - Some Perspective

This article was written by Dr. Larry Miller (former head of Emergency Medicine at the Baptist Health System in San Antonio and Medical Director for several EMS Systems). I think it provides some great perspective on the current situation and gives an alternative viewpoint to all of the media hype.


Swine Flu - The Journalistic Scaredemic
April 28, 2009

Swine Flu is a new strain of influenza that has yet to cause a death in the USA. That being the case, why are Americans in a state of panic over the Swine flu?

The answer is that the media (CNN, ABC, NBC, USA Today, along with other publications) have stirred the public into a virtual frenzy. They are bombarding us with hysteria. They love it. Nothing turns them on more than to sensationalize mountains out of molehills. In the case of the Swine Flu, the media is guilty of causing an epidemic of panic. They are guilty because they relentlessly hype this dubious threat into a certain deadly pandemic.

Let's look at the facts:
Seasonal influenza causes thousands of deaths every week during flu season in the USA. The CDC estimates that seasonal flu causes over 36,000 deaths per year (200,000 hospital admissions) and over 500,000 deaths per year in the world. Does the media discuss these statistics? No. Why? Because these are boring facts - not sensational news that bolsters their ratings and increases their revenue.

How is Swine Flu different than regular seasonal flu?
It has become the "boogie man", used by the media to terrorize the public. And they are getting away with it. Yes, the Swine Flu will eventually kill people in the US, but the chance of it becoming more dangerous than seasonal flu is unlikely. Unfortunately, the media is even scaring medical and public officials into irrational behavior. Why are they closing schools for Swine flu (that has yet to kill anyone) but not for seasonal flu (that kills thousands every week)?

What other biological threats do we encounter every day?
Tuberculosis, Streptococcus (flesh eating bacteria), AIDS, Hepatitis, Pneumonia, Influenza, Staphylococcus, E Coli, Salmonella, Shegella, and the list goes on and on. Thousands die every week from these infections; some are incurable and untreatable. I would much rather be infected with Swine Flu which is susceptible to several antiviral agents, than to have MRSA that often cannot be cured.

As EMS leaders what should we do?
We already have protocols that address exposure to dangerous biological threats. As long as we practice our usual and customary universal precautions we will not contract Swine Flu or any of the far more dangerous biologics we encounter every day. We do not have to change any policy, protocol or procedure. We do have to use common sense and notify supervisors or medical control if we are concerned about a particular incident.

We live in an environment of danger from infectious diseases. Swine Flu is only one of them. How do we stay healthy? Most folks have a strong immune system that protects them. In medicine we work in the midst of such infections, but rarely contract them because we use universal precautions (gloves, masks, and gowns) to keep us safe.

What we in the medical field need to do, more than anything else is to remain calm and reassure our patients that the sky is not falling in. Be understanding and prepared, but do not get caught up in the hype and hysteria. We need to be a voice of sanity in an insane world.

During the last great war, Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." That has not changed.

As a rational scientific community, we should reprimand the media for their irresponsible behavior. Force them to develop a balanced approach to a potential problem. As it stands today, they have inadvertently become the problem. They are the Epidemic (Scaredemic).

Larry J Miller MD
miller 'at' gvtc.com

April 21, 1836 - The Battle of San Jacinto

The battle of San Jacinto was the concluding military event of the Texas Revolution. On March 13, 1836, the revolutionary army at Gonzales began to retreat eastward. It crossed the Colorado River on March 17 and camped near present Columbia on March 20, recruiting and reinforcements having increased its size to 1,200 men. Sam Houston's scouts reported Mexican troops west of the Colorado to number 1,325. On March 25 the Texans learned of James W. Fannin's defeat at Goliad, and many of the men left the army to join their families on the Runaway Scrape. Sam Houston led his troops to San Felipe de Austin by March 28 and by March 30 to the Jared E. Groce plantation on the Brazos River, where they camped and drilled for a fortnight. Ad interim President David G. Burnet ordered Houston to stop his retreat; Secretary of War Thomas J. Rusk urged him to take a more decisive course. Antonio López de Santa Anna decided to take possession of the Texas coast and seaports. With that object in view he crossed the Brazos River at present Richmond on April 11 and on April 15, with some 700 men, arrived at Harrisburg. He burned Harrisburg and started in pursuit of the Texas government at New Washington or Morgan's Point, where he arrived on April 19 to find that the government had fled to Galveston. The Mexican general then set out for Anahuac by way of Lynchburg. Meanwhile, the Texans, on April 11, received the Twin Sisters and with the cannon as extra fortification crossed the Brazos River on the Yellow Stone and on April 16 reached Spring Creek in present Harris County. On April 17, to the gratification of his men, Houston took the road to Harrisburg instead of the road to Louisiana and on April 18 reached White Oak Bayou at a site within the present city limits of Houston. There he learned that Santa Anna had gone down the west side of the bayou and the San Jacinto River, crossing by a bridge over Vince's Bayou. The Mexicans would have to cross the same bridge to return.

Viewing this strategic situation on the morning of April 19, Houston told his troops that it looked as if they would soon get action and admonished them to remember the massacres at San Antonio and at Goliad. On the evening of April 19 his forces crossed Buffalo Bayou to the west side 2½ miles below Harrisburg. Some 248 men, mostly sick and ineffective, were left with the baggage at the camp opposite Harrisburg. The march was continued until midnight. At dawn on April 20 the Texans resumed their trek down the bayou and at Lynch's Ferry captured a boat laden with supplies for Santa Anna. They then drew back about a mile on the Harrisburg road and encamped in a skirt of timber protected by a rising ground. That afternoon Sidney Sherman with a small detachment of cavalry engaged the enemy infantry, almost bringing on a general action. In the clash Olwyns J. Trask was mortally wounded, one other Texan was wounded, and several horses were killed. Mirabeau B. Lamar, a private, so distinguished himself that on the next day he was placed in command of the cavalry. Santa Anna made camp under the high ground overlooking a marsh about three-fourths of a mile from the Texas camp and threw up breastworks of trunks, baggage, packsaddles, and other equipment. Both sides prepared for the conflict. On Thursday morning, April 21, the Texans were eager to attack. About nine o'clock they learned that Martín Perfecto de Cos had crossed Vince's bridge with about 540 troops and had swelled the enemy forces to about 1,200. Houston ordered Erastus (Deaf) Smith to destroy the bridge and prevent further enemy reinforcements. The move would prevent the retreat of either the Texans or the Mexicans towards Harrisburg.

Shortly before noon, Houston held a council of war with Edward Burleson, Sidney Sherman Henry W. Millard, Alexander Somervell, Joseph L. Bennett, and Lysander Wells. Two of the officers suggested attacking the enemy in his position; the others favored waiting Santa Anna's attack. Houston withheld his own views at the council but later, after having formed his plan of battle had it approved by Rusk. Houston disposed his forces in battle order about 3:30 in the afternoon while all was quiet on the Mexican side during the afternoon siesta. The Texans' movements were screened by trees and the rising ground, and evidently Santa Anna had no lookouts posted. The battle line was formed with Edward Burleson's regiment in the center, Sherman's on the left wing, the artillery under George W. Hockley on Burleson's right, the infantry under Henry Millard on the right of the artillery, and the cavalry under Lamar on the extreme right. The Twin Sisters were wheeled into position, and the whole line, led by Sherman's men, sprang forward on the run with the cry, "Remember the Alamo!" "Remember Goliad!" The battle lasted but eighteen minutes. According to Houston's official report, the casualties were 630 Mexicans killed and 730 taken prisoner. Against this, only nine of the 910 Texans were killed or mortally wounded and thirty were wounded less seriously. Houston's ankle was shattered by a rifle ball. The Texans captured a large supply of muskets, pistols, sabers, mules, horses, provisions, clothing, tents, and $12,000 in silver. Santa Anna disappeared during the battle and search parties were sent out on the morning of the 22. The party consisted of James A. Sylvester, Washington H. Secrest, Sion R. Bostick, and a Mr. Cole discovered Santa Anna hiding in the grass. He was dirty and wet and was dressed as a common soldier. The search party did not recognize him until he was addressed as "el presidente" by other Mexican prisoners. One of the eight inscriptions on the exterior base of the San Jacinto Monument reads: "Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive battles of the world. The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Almost one-third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles of territory, changed sovereignty."

From The Handbook of Texas Online

Texas Independence Day - March 2, 1836

One of the most important documents in Texas history is the Declaration of Independence, adopted in general convention at Washington-on-the-Brazos, March 2, 1836.

Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Texas

UNANIMOUS
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,
BY THE
DELEGATES OF THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS,
IN GENERAL CONVENTION,
AT THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON,
ON THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH, 1836

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted; and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression; when the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood – both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, and the ever-ready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants; When long after the spirit of the Constitution has departed, moderation is at length, so far lost, by those in power that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms, themselves, of the constitution discontinued; and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons; and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet. When in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication, on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements: In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation – the inherent and inalienable right of the people to appeal to first principles and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases – enjoins it as a right towards themselves and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness. Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is, therefore, submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.

Full text.


TEXAS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE . . . . The Texas edict, like the United States Declaration of Independence, contains a statement on the nature of government, a list of grievances, and a final declaration of independence. The separation from Mexico was justified by a brief philosophical argument and by a list of grievances submitted to an impartial world. The declaration charged that the government of Mexico had ceased to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the people; that it had been changed from a restricted federal republic to a consolidated, central, military despotism; that the people of Texas had remonstrated against the misdeeds of the government only to have their agents thrown into dungeons and armies sent forth to enforce the decrees of the new government at the point of the bayonet; that the welfare of Texas had been sacrificed to that of Coahuila; that the government had failed to provide a system of public education, trial by jury, freedom of religion, and other essentials of good government; and that the Indians had been incited to massacre the settlers. According to the declaration, the Mexican government had invaded Texas to lay waste territory and had a large mercenary army advancing to carry on a war of extermination. The final grievance listed in justification of revolution charged that the Mexican government had been "the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrannical government." After the signing of the original declaration by fifty-nine delegates, five copies of the document were dispatched to the designated Texas towns of Bexar, Goliad, Nacogdoches, Brazoria, and San Felipe. The printer at San Felipe was also instructed to make 1,000 copies in handbill form.

More.

Just great . . . I move away from Austin and then they have a Zombie Attack

Ok, not really. But just in case, we know the signs work in the event of an undead apocalypse.

Apparently, some local folks hacked a construction sign to warn passersby of zombies in the area.

Construction signs warn of zombies Hackers change public safety message

AUSTIN (KXAN) - Austin drivers making their morning commute were in for a surprise when two road signs on a busy stretch of road were taken over by hackers. The signs near the intersection of Lamar and Martin Luther King boulevards usually warn drivers about upcoming construction, but Monday morning they warned of "zombies ahead."

KXAN Austin News cameras caught many drivers slowing down to read the signs as they approached. Some read, "Zombies ahead! Run for your lives!"

Of course the city didn't think it was too funny. But then again, sending out a false warning of impending zombie doom is never funny. It's just like the old tale of the "boy who cried werewolf." Pretty soon, the angry townsfolk will stop running towards you aid with pitchforks and torches.

More.

I wonder if they changed the password from 1-2-3-4 over to 4-3-2-1? :)

Texas' Original Sin

December 29, 1845

U.S. Congress approves annexation of Texas

On this day in 1845, the United States Congress voted to annex Texas. Statehood was first proposed in 1837, but was rejected by President Martin Van Buren. Constitutional scruples and fear of war with Mexico were the reasons given for the rejection, but antislavery sentiment in the United States undoubtedly influenced Van Buren and continued to be the chief obstacle to annexation. Under President James Polk the United States Congress passed the Annexation Resolution in February 1845. Texas president Anson Jones called the Texas Congress into session on June 16, 1845, and a convention of elected delegates met on the Fourth of July. Both the Texas Congress and the convention voted for annexation, and a constitution was drawn up. The document was ratified by popular vote in October 1845 and accepted by the United States Congress on December 29, 1845. On February 19, 1846, President Jones of the Republic of Texas handed over control of the new state government to Governor James Pinckney Henderson.

http://www.tshaonline.org/

Sha-bam . . sucka!

Well, what goes around comes around, doesn't it?


"But wait . . . gloves . . . didn't fit. I thought that . . . er . . . "

The best things do come to those who wait.

$1000 is the new $500

I went to the SAXET gunshow this morning with some of the crew and was pretty put-off by the amount of price gouging going on with some of the more shady dealers. I expected a little bit of shenanigans due to the recent election, but a quick browse through Shotgun News will show that recent reports of the end of gun ownership in America are a bit premature.

I saw a $700 Golani going for $1100. An Armalite AR-180 selling for $2,599 (not a typo). Wall-to-wall crowds of sorry looking hopefuls trying to find their last chance to get a (gasp!) assault rifle before the laws get passed (no new laws have been suggested).

But the belle of the ball was a Mak-90 (yes - that Mak-90) selling for $1600. The best part was the "faux operator" behind the table (thigh rig, cropped hair cut, 80's aviator glasses) assuring all of the unwashes masses that these were the absolute last ones they could ever hope to get and the The Man was going to come to the show personally by the end of the weekend and collect up anything that hasn't sold.

Sort of a reverse Santa, I suppose.

For shame.

Happy Day of the Ninja!

From the website:

Prepare for the Annual Day of the Ninja. Forget 'Talk Like a Pirate' Day. This will truly be our chance to show the world what ninja are made of.

Every year, December 5th is the Day of the Ninja. Plague your co-workers with ninja-ness and wear a ninja mask to work! Got the day off? Run wild in the streets, or dress like a ninja at the mall! Just show the world that YOU ARE NINJA!

More details here.

More Obama Gun Fun

No sooner had I pulled the trigger on my last post then I realized that there was a veritable full magazine of online articles discussing everyone's fears about gun rights under an Obama presidency.

Gun sales surge after Obama's election

"I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11, Katrina," Conatser said, as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now."

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.

"I believe the Second Amendment means something. I do think it speaks to an individual right," Obama said in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in February.

With the U.S. economy in a tailspin, however, the president-elect's advisers say gun legislation is not a high priority.

The October '08 issue of Field and Stream had extensive interviews with both Obama and McCain detailing their opinions on hunting and fishing, gun rights, and conservation. The message from Obama was pretty clear,

"I'm more interested in enforcing the laws that we do have - for example tracing guns that are used in crimes back to people who have been using them. I don't anticipate that there's going to be a whole slew of efforts at the federal level when it comes to gun control. "

However this still hasn't dissuaded anyone from considering him an anti-gun politician, and his record of past votes lies in stark contrast to his election promises.

Apparently, no one is convinced that "common-sense measures" aren't a thinly-disguised metaphor for yet another round of new legislation on "ugly guns."

The good news is that none of this legislation ever happens quickly - and the national economy is a far more pressing issue at this time - but one thing that is apparent is shooters generally aren't getting the warm and fuzzy from Obama on gun rights - despite everything he has said to the contrary.

I understand the reason why everyone is running out and arming up - there are more cool innovations in modern weapons technology available now then ever before:

• Civilian legal FN P90s
• Mad amounts of AR upgrades (Go LaRue!)
• USCM-inspired HK G36-clones
• 37mm flare launchers - oh, my!
  

But it is important to also realize that the focus must remain on preserving our rights - not just so we can go to gun shows and exercise the right our Constitution guarantees, but to fight to preserve these rights so that those who haven't yet gone to gunshows or been to a shooting range - will get the same opportunities that we did.

Get involved!
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
The National Rifle Association

You Don't Agree With Me - You Must Be A Racist!

Ah, the good old days.

I remember back in my college days when I would get involved in debates/yelling matches on the West Mall at UT. It was the standard post-high school goodness - you remember these times - you had just left mommy and daddy's house and you claimed you knew everything.

Years later - 10 years into my career and knee deep in families, mortgages and 'real life' action - now I claim I know nothing. :)

Anyway, back in those days, being a young, semi-conservative Christian at a very liberal school, I was assured by my erudite college mates, homeless folks, and other questionable adults who for some reason had the ability to spend all day arguing with kids (still trying to figure out what job that was) - that all of the beliefs that I held dearly were wrong.

The Bible was wrong. Gun ownership was wrong. The right to self-defense was wrong. The Civil War was all about slavery and had nothing to do with the long-running battle over states rights vs. federal rights. For God sakes, even being a "real man" was wrong. Everything I stood for. Challenged, crapped on, spat on - because my rules for living came from a 2000 year-old-book* - not from whatever the latest word was from Hollywood celebs and the MTV-culture set.

The arguments were pointless. It was two perspectives with such a wide delta between them that there was no way we would reach common ground. My basis for belief was scorned (even though most of these folks would also claim to support 1st amendment rights - but not for all beliefs, apparently), but because I wouldn't accept their perspective as dogma, I was stupid.

Here is how a typical "debate" went down:

Angry Man #1: "There is no Jesus."

Me: "Yes, there is"

Angry Man #1: "How can you believe such mythology?"

Me: "Because of faith, and the Bible"

Angry Man #1: "The Bible is wrong. And bad."

Me: "I don't agree with that."

Angry Man #1: "Then you are STUPID!"

That was it - I was stupid. College scores, SAT scores, IQ tests - useless in the face of my inability to turn my back on my beliefs and my God.

But at least back then, I was only called "stupid."

Now, I would be considered racist for not agreeing with the liberal intelligentsia.

Because surely, if I don't agree with the supposition, that in this time - certainly the greatest moral, political, ideological and economic crisis this country has ever faced - if I don't buy their hype and support their ridiculous policies, then it is not because their candidate is unqualified, it is not because I happen to not agree with his politics or his charisma, it is because I am racist.

Calling me racist is an unacceptable lie that denies the legitimacy of my right to take part in the political process - and makes them look like fools in the process.

Please go back to just calling me stupid for not thinking the way you do.

* BTW - Christianity is based on the concept of freewill - the only major religion to do so. Freewill also happens to be the entire basis of Western Culture and democracy.

And just like that . . . the commies won!

As an ardent supporter of a free market economy, I - like many other Americans (98% of emails to the White House over the past week or so - according to some sources) - have been appalled by the lack of perspective in some of the government bailout nightmares that have been taking place in the last few weeks.

Some of the recent policies are so socialist in their application that they are making FDR look like an ardent conservative.

Here's the latest piece of hogwash to cross the radars:

US government may take part ownership in banks

WASHINGTON (AP) - News that the Bush administration is considering taking part ownership in a number of U.S. banks helped restore a relative calm over global financial markets Thursday.

The aim of such a move would be to thaw the lending freeze that threatens to push the world's economy into recession. It comes after rampant fear about the global economy sent investors scurrying on Tuesday for safety in U.S. government securities despite an orchestrated round of rate cuts by the world's central banks.

Investors also were hoping that selling, which gave the Dow its ninth straight day of losses, was overdone. Wall Street began the day higher, but then slid after declines in some blue chip names like General Motors Corp. weighed on the markets.

An administration official, who spoke late Tuesday on condition of anonymity because no decision has been made, said the $700 billion rescue package passed by Congress last week allows the Treasury Department to inject fresh capital into financial institutions and get ownership shares in return.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told reporters that Treasury was moving quickly to implement the $700 billion rescue effort and he specifically mentioned reviewing ways to bolster the capital of banks.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93N27U01

Not to be conspiratorial here, but what the hell is going on?

I don't know where we lost our way (but I think it may have happened sometime in the 1960s), but we are not the country we were when we set-off to defeat fascist nationalism in Europe during the 1940s.

Let's take a look and see where we are in the process:

10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

(My emphasis in bold)

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

From wikipedia.

I am not smart enough to know exactly what the hell items 7, 8, and 9 mean, but I can tell there is a general movement in this country to change the culture of America - from the cradle of the industrial revolution and the envy of the world, to the a shadow of its past greatness - where the political focus has moved from being a beacon of light for the rest of the world - to being a giant hand-out machine to everyone who thinks they need to have a suck at the big government tit.

What a world we live in where the Russians are the capitalists and the Americans are becoming the communists!

Some of my more left-leaning friends would have you believe that communism is the most equitable system of government . . . it just has never worked in modern, non-nomadic societies because it hasn't been hasn't been their whiny, disenfranchised version of it.

Congrats to Chief Petty Officer Baker!

The Foundation has to give a shout-out to one of our own who is one step closer to becoming Master Chief. :)

After all of his hard work and toil (and time overseas in some real action), Mike has just been promoted to Chief Petty Officer

Here is a shot of the man himself all adorned with his new rank:


And another one out in the field:


Mike gets extra credit for being one of the few of us with a name on his BDUs that is actually his real name.

Way to go, Mike! You're a real hero!

Jack Bauer Bag Bonding

Coming out of one of our favorite little breakfast joints in San Antonio, an older man walked over to compliment us on our baby. I immediately noticed he was carrying the Jack Bauer "24" bag and mentioned to him that I have the same one.


I started getting the words out of my mouth , but we both spoke in unison:

"It's the Jack Bauer bag."
Immediately we started laughing and shook hands.

It was a true "gear nerd" moment.

Get your own "Jack Bauer" bag for sub-$20.

Tom Clancy Reality

Ok - I am not a big gamer, but I appreciate the ability to walk around and blast 3rd-world uglies and space aliens with little regard for decorum or civility.

And truly the closest I'll probably ever come to a real flamethrower is in a WWII-themed "Call of Duty"-esqe game.

However, as a reformed news hound as well, I thought this was pretty interesting . . .

Georgia-Russia conflict predicted in 2001 video game
Life imitates Tom Clancy

Recent news coverage of the worrying ground war between Russia and Georgia could well leave gamers with a sense of deja vu.

The South Ossetia war, which began on August 7, bears a close resemblance to events portrayed in the 2001 Xbox and Playstation 2 game "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon," the first level of which takes place against the backdrop of a struggle between Georgian rebel forces and the legitimate Georgian government in the South Ossetian region.

Ghost Recon's plot follows these skirmishes with a full-scale Russian invasion of the region, a subsequent evacuation of US forces, and ultimately the fall of the Georgian government. Ghost Recon almost got the timescale right, too: the game's imaginary events begin in April 2008, just a few months before the real war kicked off.

If Ghost Recon's uncanny trend continues, we can expect the South Ossetia conflict to culminate in a dramatic assault on Red Square and the Kremlin by NATO troops -- spearheaded by an elite US special forces team under the control of a pimply fourteen-year-old with a joypad. Considering that the most recent game in the Ghost Recon series climaxes with an oh-so-narrowly-averted terrorist nuclear strike on the US, we hope the predictive power of the game runs out. Soon.

Too bad life can't imitate a game like Tomb Raider . . .

Oh wait . . . maybe it has. :)

Tropic Thunder – Now with More Retards

Tropic Thunder will open this week to a hail of criticism from various members of the press and polite society. Much to my surprise, it had little to do with Robert Downey, Jr.'s black-face performance of a tough Vietnam-era sergeant, but rather dealt with the copious use of the epithet “retard” oft-used by the characters to describe themselves.

Their indignation caused a bit of a row at the opening of the film, attended by advocate, and openly retarded actor, Tom Cruise. The “beautiful people” were met on the red carpet by a group of protesters coming from across the street.

Dozens of people from organizations such as the Special Olympics and the American Association of People with Disabilities protested the movie-industry spoof across the street from the film's Los Angeles premiere at Mann's Bruin Theatre on Monday. The protesters held up signs with slogans such as "Call me by my name, not by my label" and chanted phrases like "Ban the movie, ban the word." More.

One of the film''s writers recently spoke to the controversy, saying:

"Some people have taken this as making fun of handicapped people, but we're really trying to make fun of the actors who use this material as fodder for acclaim," co-writer Etan Cohen told MTV. "The last thing you want is for people to think you're making fun of the victims in this who are having their lives turned into fodder for people to win Oscar."

Whether we like it or not, I think there are certain offensive words that have crept into our national lexicon – and retard is one of them. It’s become a way to describe things or people, and in the absence of mentally handicapped friends or family, it’s probably something folks say a lot without the hesitation that comes from personal involvement with affected individuals.

Honestly, I didn’t really think much about it until I saw a post on my Facebook page from a high-school friend who is a regional leader of the Special Olympics and has a sister with Down syndrome.

Coming from a family where we have a middle school teacher on staff, our language tends to degrade the deeper we are into the school year. Whereas we would once describe things as being "unfortunate," as time goes on they become “retarded” or “gay”. There is a certain primal element that goes into the use of some of these words and a sense of empowerment that comes with using a mean word becomes a tribal designation to separate “us” from “them”.

We are this, they are “gay” – or whatever the nom du jour happens to be.

That’s not spoken as a disparagement of gay folks, but I think the language also becomes a short-cut to create a funny reaction in folks and the shock-factor of a lot of jokes is more often based on language that creates offense by stereotyping one group or another and putting them into the awkward position where we can point at them and laugh.

It all comes back to asking why things make us laugh, and I think we either laugh at things because they are really are funny or sometimes we laugh at things because they make us uncomfortable – and somewhere up in the cerebrum similar chemicals are being mixed around and it elicits the same “laugh” response.

And speaking of gay and funny, I remember watching Ellen DeGeneres’ bit a few years back at a relatives' house (we still don’t have cable). It was really funny, really clever, and above all – really clean.

We were all amazed later on when recounting the show that it was funny without having the normal potty talk or “seven words” to make us laugh.

It’s a rare comedian that can elicit such riotous laughter without working blue.

But I think there is something more to the protests that the disabilities advocates have hit on.

“I just think Ben Stiller and the people involved in this movie just didn't think it was going to be offensive."

Andrew J. Imparato, president of the American Association of People with Disabilities

I think he’s right. I don’t think Hollywood thinks a lot about what they put together.

Movies are a business – a big business – and Hollywood writers and producers have put together a John Grisham-novel-esqe algorithm for making money on their product.

There is no motivation to try to challenge perceptions of comedy and what makes us laugh because it’s just too risky. If it’s too high-brow no one will get it, or even another group will come out of the woodwork and be offended by the material because it’s considered snobby.

So we’re back to where we started – watching the latest stars push the envelope of what’s socially acceptable and maybe even highlight the hidden biases within ourselves.

At least now we have explosions and cool special effects.