Wednesday, October 28, 2009
I was pointed to this video by WRSA. Also provided was a link to the copy of the treaty document.
Now, I consider myself a simple but smart fellow, and the way that treaty is written is certainly to discourage simple folks from trying to decipher it. However, when it came down to it, I was able to find some stuff I don't need a lawyer to comprehend. Here are some quotes directly from the document, page number noted at the end of the quote if you want to check me.
2. Recognizing that the right to development is a basic human right that is undeprivable. (p58)
Okay, am I missing something, or did they just say that it is an undeprivable human right for a nation to develop? First off, the reason most of these nations are not developing is because of their own governments, not the United States. The people and their countries are being held back by their own leaders. Get rid of the poor leadership, and you will have development. Welcome to Free Enterprise 101, a class on the very principle which developed America.
Now, another thing, this is coming from the same group of mo-rons who don't believe the right to defend one's family and property is an undeprivable right. Not only that, but a right which must be taken away!
3. Recalling that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first andoverriding priorities of the developing countries. (p58)
See above class listing for Free Enterprise 101 and also Advanced Free Enterprise: Keeping Business Booming By Keeping Government Small.
Now, before looking at this next section, consider that this is a bill about "climate change" which means cutting off non-renewable resource use (eg. coal).
1. Recognizing the special difficulties of those countries, especially developing countries, whoseeconomies are particularly dependent on fossil fuel production, use and exportation, as a consequence ofaction taken on limiting greenhouse gas emissions,2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those thatare particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those Parties, especiallydeveloping country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under theConvention, should be given full consideration. 23. There is a need to undertake a global transition to a low-emission economy in order to tackleclimate change. Although this transition presents a major opportunity for all countries to follow a cleandevelopment path, it can also pose challenges for all Parties, in particular the most vulnerable countries.Parties should work together to ensure that this transition is congruent with sustainable developmentprocesses in all countries.4. The difficulties of assessing the complex issue of potential impacts of policies are compoundedby the fact that some of these impacts are unintended and often unanticipated. Wider economic andpolitical factors can play a role in the vulnerability of socio-economic sectors and can amplify ordiminish the impacts of policies.
Okay, so let me understand this. We want the nations to have their right to develop by regulating the very opportunity for their development. Yeah, cause that will work. Then, let's imply here (maybe directly state elsewhere, it's the notion I've gotten, but again, trying to work through legal BS) that the developed countries will have to lend a financial hand to the developing countries whose way to wealth we have just regulated into dirt.
Here's the great part, let's give ourselves an out when it all comes crumbling down by saying that "some of these impacts are unintended and often unanticipated." Well, dad-gummit, passing a law that may have unintended consequences . . . I'd of never expected the day to come (eyes rolling). . .
Oh, wait, here's that part about us giving more money to the countries whose industry we are crushing:
16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressedby proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economicdiversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries,paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developingcountry Parties.]Alternative to paragraph 16:[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means,including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding,insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affectedcountries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storagetechnologies.]17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [AllParties] [shall] [should]:](a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lostopportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmentalrefugees;(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated forenvironmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of responsemeasures. (p122)19. [The permanent [forum] should also formulate/implement a work programme that [includes][addresses inter alia] the following components:](a) [Insurance and financial risk management;](b) [Modelling, analytical and methodological tools;](c) [Economic diversification;](d) Early warning and systematic observation;(e) Disaster management and preparedness;(f) Compensation procedures and actions including funds;(g) Funding;(h) Other related matters.](p123)
Knew it had to be there somewhere. And again . . . (perhaps with an extra word thrown in there of my own doing, you'll recognize it.)
2. Objective and scope6. The provision of financial resources shall be guided by the principles of [SOCIALISM]the Convention and thepriorities of developing country Parties, and arrangements shall be made for financial resources to bemade available to enable developing country Parties, especially those particularly vulnerable to theadverse impacts of climate change, to take nationally appropriate mitigation and adaptation actions, inthe context of sustainable development priorities.7. The objective of the provision of financial resources is to promote equity and justice throughfurther enhancement of the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention and the BaliAction Plan, so that the ultimate objective of the Convention can be achieved.8. Parties agree to establish, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, the FinancialMechanism of the Convention with a structure that meets the specific requirements laid down underArticles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Convention. The Financial Mechanism shall enable, enhance and supportmitigation and adaptation actions by developing country Parties to meet the objective(s) in accordancewith Article 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Convention through the provision of financial resources to meet theagreed full incremental costs of such actions, including the full cost of adaptation activities, technologytransfer and capacity-building.(p126)
The rest of the document is pretty much saying how they are going to take our money and technology and give it to the tyrannical governments of the countries which haven't developed yet because of the very government to whom the money is being given.
And now for the punchline of the entire thing: page 15 says that all of this will be based on "sound science." Doesn't "sound science" take away the whole purpose of a climate change treaty, given that global warming has already been thoroughly debunked, if that's what the treaty is truly about? I would venture to say, yet again, this UN treaty isn't about the issue which is being stated; it's about bringing America to its knees by whatever means possible in order to create a fake Utopian communistic world order.
Read the fine print. It's about sovereignty. We must fight these things peacefully while we can. Concerned American wrapped up their post quite well with these words:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- John F. Kennedy, 1962
- John F. Kennedy, 1962
Alright, so here's my situation. I have an opportunity to purchase a NIB S&W M&P15 in 223/5.56. Due to a promotion S&W is running, if I make this purchase before Dec. 31, I also get 5 free 30-round magazines. My cost, paying cash, would be $891, tax and background check included.
Here's the catch - in order to get it, I would have to sell the first two guns I ever bought, a Rossi 223 with a 20 ga exchange barrel, and a Springfield M6 Scout in 22lr/410. Both of these guns are single shot. I do not own a semi-auto rifle, and my only other rifle is a Mosin M38 Carbine.
So, thoughts and some input on what I should do?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Due to a little piece written over at Sipsey Street Irregulars, I will start moderating comments. Unless there is something tremendously screwed up about your comment, you can expect it to show up. Anonymous posts will bear more scrutiny, because I think if you are going to say something, especially in the negative, you should be mature enough to sign your name to it.
Anyway, on to writing!
Currently my mind has been called to dig a little and write an essay about whether or not a Christian can go to war with their own government and maintain a moral footing. Now, being a Christian, and also being very opinionated about what's happening in our country now, I find this important. I cannot give many details about the thoughts currently swirled together in my head, because that would lead to a long post which I do not have time for, given that I have to leave for business in half an hour.
I would like to open up a forum in the comments of this post regarding reasoning one way or the other in order to help me consider things more fully as I write the essay. So, please leave me some feedback on the issue, and send some respectable folks my way to leave their thoughts as well. Thanks to all!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Sipsey Street Irregulars posted about Steward Rhodes of Oath Keepers being on "Hardball with Chris Matthews. Here is a transcript.
I was rather angry, so following is the e-mail I sent to Chris Matthews, if he even reads it.
Mr. Matthews,Doubt if the point will get across, but I'm past the point of sitting idly by . . .
I would like to offer you some encouragements as far as your "investigative journalism" goes.
In your October 20 segment on Oath Keepers, your bias showed through as clearly as day. Your questions to Stewart Rhodes were not really questions, but pre-formulated statements in question form. You constantly referred to the Oath Keepers as "armed people" and even called them "vigilantes". When Rhodes tried to answer your questions, you constantly interrupted, then went on to ask him the same questions over and over again, because you didn't want the answers he was giving you. You wanted the answers you had already formulated in your mind. However, when you allowed Mark Potok to answer, you did not interrupt him, but let him speak freely except for, I believe, one time.
You did not challenge Potok when he said that the SPLC does not lump Oath Keepers together with white supremacists. Indeed, research the SPLC web sight, and you will find such insinuations. Besides that, the title given to the segment states that the SPLC has Oath Keepers in a blog called "Hatewatch". Proper research and understanding of Oath Keepers and their underlying principles would prove to you that they are not about hate at all.
Now, on to some of your questions for Stewart Rhodes and the answers.
You asked about the firepower to repel the government. Rhodes answered that it's not about firepower, it's about not following orders. Oath keepers is about standing down when unconstitutional orders are given, not fighting.
You asked why he is trying to recruit law enforcement and military, who are "all armed". He said it is because these are the people who will be given the unconstitutional orders. I would like to venture a couple of other thoughts. Number one, you need to stop complaining about these people being armed, because you pay them to protect you and defend your liberties. Another consideration as to why it is these people who are recruited is that these are the ones who took the oath to defend the . Hence the name "Oath Keepers".
You stated that you don't care about the philosophy, you just don't like the idea of these people being armed. See above answer and again remember what Rhodes said; this is not about fighting, it is about non-compliance. Nor is it a "war footing" as you called it.
You accuse Rhodes of creating a mindset. This point I will concede, though I disagree with you as to what mindset he is creating. He is trying to create a mindset of awareness of the Constitution and its provisions, as well as a mindset to resist any orders which are against the Constitution.
Mark Potok made a comment about Oath Keepers being paranoid about militias and the like being labeled as right-wing terrorists. This is not paranoia. The Department of Homeland Security has already issued a document containing such statements. Again, you did not challenge Potok.
You constantly ignored Stewart Rhodes' references to history. If it has happened before, it can happen again. Perhaps you should go take a few more history classes.
You continued during the entire discourse to come back to the idea of armed people. You seem to be a bit paranoid yourself. You forget that it has always been armed people who have fought and died for you to have the freedom to say whatever you want. Some of those people defied the government (think ). Without them doing so, you would not be able to spout such lies and bias as you currently do. You forget that those of us who are legally armed are the most law-abiding citizens, and that there are nearly 100million of us currently. One third of the population.
Perhaps if you would study history and facts altogether, you would be able to do true investigative journalism instead of simply spouting off liberal, bedwetting, liberal lapdog hysterics. Be willing to have your ideas challenged. Grow some balls and act like a real man.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
So, I finally got to do some shooting again today and get two rifles sighted in. Here's how it went:
First, I have finally become proficient enough with my S&W 22A that I can shoot the cap off of a 20 oz bottle at 7 yards fairly consistently. Wish I could do that with my 380.
Second, I got the scope on my Rossi .223 zeroed in at 50 yards. It's a little high, so if I figured it out right, I should be 1.5" high at 100 yards, and about zero at 200 yards. That means with my sniper reticle, I'm now good out to 400 yards.
The zero is set for Remington Power-Lokt 55 gr PSP ammo. It's the only ammo I can get to group less than 4" at 50 yards in that Rossi. It actually groups less than an inch, which I'm pretty happy with considering the rifle is a break-action.
Bad news is, I discovered that my rifle does not like the Federal Fusion ammo. Grouped just as bad if not worse than the FMJ rounds I have, and at more than twice the price. Thankfully only bought one box. This means I'm on my way back to the store for more Remington ammo.
Also got the chance to shoot Big Bertha, more aptly known as a Mosin-Nagant M38 Carbine. I have about 800 rounds of 1976 Polish surplus ammo, but the problem is it doesn't group tremendously well, and it shoots about 6" high at 50 yards, and 10-12" high at 100 yds, so I figure it would zero between 300 and 400 yds. A lot of the Mosins were sighted for 300 meters, even though the sight graduations start at 100. Another problem with that ammo is that I can't use it for deer hunting in TN. No FMJ or military ammo allowed.
So, on to ammo #2. Brown bear 203gr SP. Good news is, the heavier ammo and slightly lighter powder charge puts it about an inch high at 50 yds, which should put it even or a little higher at 100 yds, and probably come to zero again around 150-175 yds, though I have yet to get somewhere I can test that theory. At any rate, that means that any shot I would take on a deer (I don't take chancy shots when hunting, and I'm only confident to 100yds with that rifle right now), it's as good as jerky (or steak, or burgers, or . . . .).
That was my fun for the day. Anyone have comments on the trajectory for the Brown Bear 7.62x54r rounds that may be helpful for my relative lack of experience with these cartridges? I'm plenty familiar with the Polish surplus, just would welcome help on the other. Thanks to all, and happy shooting!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Another story from work illustrating part of why this nation is in trouble. We are getting LAZY!
Okay, so, this girl walks up to the window to prepay for her gas. I ask her which pump she is on. She doesn't know. So, instead of walking the 50 feet to look at her pump number which she should have seen when she first got out of her car, she takes the time to send a text message to her passenger! Said passenger doesn't respond, so she gets mad and walks the 50 feet anyway.
This would be funny if it wasn't the mindset Americans have on things which are much more important. People don't want to work for freedom anymore. We don't want to really work for anything, which means we have forgotten that anything worth having is worth working for.
We need to get rid of this thinking if we want to keep our freedom. Not only is freedom worth working for, but it's worth dying for. The founders knew this when the signed their own death warrant, also known as the Declaration of Independence. Are we willing to work for, much less die for Liberty?
While working the other day, a customer came up and said "hey dawg" (i think that's the way they spell it). So, I ask my boss when it became a good thing to call someone "dog". That led to some other questions.
Why is it okay for black folks to to call each other "nigger" but it's racist if a white person says it?
Why can they have a "Miss Black America" pageant, but they can't have a "Miss White America" pageant?
Why can you give out a scholarship exclusively for blacks or hispanics, or any other minority, but you can't have one exclusively for whites?
This is really the tip of the iceberg. No, I'm not racist; I'm simply pointing out some of the double standards that we have in this country. No one is better than anyone else just because of their race or any other insignificant reason. What we actually have in the US now is reverse discrimination. Folks can argue with me as much as they want about it, but I've seen too much in my relatively short life. I have too many examples. What we need in this country is to simply be Americans and be colorblind. Give credit to whom credit is due, regardless of race. Stop the double standards.
There are a lot of political double standards too. Apparently it is now biased to criticize both parties equally, but non-partisan to rail against so-called Republicans while exalting Democrats. Plus, it is now considered "domestic terrorism" if you believe in God, guns, and everything the founding fathers believed in.
Folks, we have issues we need to address. How? I am not yet sure, simply identifying a problem that to some has been obvious for some time, and of which others are still oblivious. Let's get on the road back to real equality, what this nation was founded upon.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
I like what Robb has to say here.
Seems to me that everyone who claims to be a 2A activist then condemns open carry isn't much more that a closet activist.
I'll admit, I don't open carry much, but I enjoy when I do. For one, I can't OC at work, and it doesn't make much sense to carry a different holster for when I get off. Retention is also an issue, making sure no one gets an idea to try to take my gun.
Every now and then, I do OC. It is far more comfortable to wear my Fobus paddle holster than my Blackhawk IWB holster. I do also enjoy making a statement, desensitizing people, and starting conversations. Educating people is good.
I'm just glad I live in a state that allows OC. I enjoy seeing it, even if I can't or don't always do so myself.
More info coming at as the Health Bill progresses toward law. Cato Institute has some info now. Seems to me I mentioned something about the idea of insurance companies passing on the higher costs. Now we have it put out by a well-known group.
Get ready, I hear the sound of drums beating . . .
While talking to my aunt over the weekend about our country, we spoke about the national debt.
So, taking into account who has underwritten a large portion of our national debt, let's look at some words of wisdom from a book that says more that Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle ever could have dreamed.
Proverbs 22:7 The rich rules over the poor,and the borrower is servant to the lender.
Okay, I don't know about y'all, but I don't care too much for the idea of being servant to China, especially since they stand against everything freedom-loving Americans stand for. We need to do something, namely overhaul our government.
Check out these two links.
Hat tip to Bloviating Zepplin for the links.
While occupied over the weekend, I heard about the whole "Obama Nobel Peace Prize" thing. Yes, I know I'm a little behind, but I wanted to add my thoughts to the mix.
First off, give someone a prize for what they say they are going to do instead of what they did? You've got to be kidding me. Plus, the dude is a politician, and how often to they keep their word?
Second, and here's the big one for me, how can you give that man a "peace" prize. He and his minions have done more to build non-existent racial tensions in this country than anyone I've ever heard of. No longer is it just racist to throw around the "n" word, but now it's racist just to carry a gun, even if you're black! yep, that fella carryin' the AR in Arizona was a black man who is racist against Obama. Give me a break! When are people going to quit being so starry-eyed over a hate-mongering socialist who would just as well hand over our country to terrorists or China?
WAKE UP, WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
So, I was in Kansas City this weekend for a business conference. Thankfully, my team is a very patriotic group of entrepreneurs, and had a guest speaker that got me fired up. David Barton from Wall Builders. He delivered a talk about revisionist history that made me mad enough to think about hunting a few folks down. I'm not going to do that. No, rather I'm going to make it very clear to our tyrants, er, I mean "civil servants" that the status quo has changed. I strongly encourage everyone to take a look at that site.
While at the conference, I also stumbled upon a book by Mark R. Levin, Liberty and Tyranny. The intro and the first chapter really got me going. I'll most likely be making some posts inspired by my reading. Get the book. At $25, it's worth every penny, and I haven't even finished it.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Everyone needs to take a look at this. It gives a great summary of where this nation began, and where it is now. Nowhere near its fathers, for sure.
INSIGHT on Freedom: The Bastardization of America!
Monday, October 5, 2009
So, among so many of the other good things that came with getting to see my family again, I was able to give my little sister a good introduction to shooting. Now, she's grown up around us and guns, but never showed extreme interest, though she did try to shoot with us once or twice. We didn't have the setup back home to give her a good intro to rifle marksmanship, and she can't handle any of our pistols . . . until now. I broke out the S&W 22A again (which now has 1200 rounds through it . . . only had it two months). The grip is almost too big for her, but I had her adjust how she was holding it, and she did very well.
I started her off shooting at 5 yards.
Here she is shooting . . .
And here are her targets:
The first target was after her first set of 20 rounds. The second was a set of 28 rounds (target fell off, so she shot the last two at a steel flapper).
After that, we stepped back to 20 yards to let her try to hit a bigger target (about half the size of a torso target) with 10 rounds. She hit over 50%.
All in all, a great time shooting. She enjoyed it so much she talked about wanting to get a pistol, but one with a smaller grip to fit her hands better. I'd say that's a success!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Amid the debate about this health care stuff, I have had the opportunity to get an insight that many people do not have. My dad has worked at a hospital for about 30 years, and occasionally offers me some input on what's going on in that world. The conclusion I have come to is that what we really need is health insurance reform, starting with the socialist medicare/medicaid (hereafter "government") plans.
You see, government only pays 28% of what it costs to actually perform the surgery/testing/etc. In many cases, the servicer cannot bill the patient for anything beyond that. Obviously, nothing can operate at a loss margin, much less a 72% loss. As a result of that, hospitals/doctors actually charge twice what it costs to do something in order to make up for that loss. In other words, not only do we end up paying for the first 28% through taxes, but also pay for the other 72% through increased costs when we make visits. Therefore, in order to be a viable choice as far as coverage goes, insurance companies create plans to cover more costs, which means they have to raise premiums. All in all, it comes back to us paying more for our medical expenses.
Logically, then, if we eliminate the government from the equation, our costs are lower. Follow my logic.
1) No government means we keep more of each of our paychecks. No more paying for a failing system.
2) Doctors and hospitals will not have to charge double in order to break even/make a little profit.
3) Insurance companies will not have to pay as much in order to be a viable choice since cost of visits/procedures has been almost halved. That results in much lower premiums, making insurance more affordable, especially when combined with 1).
Let's also consider something else: frivolous lawsuits. I can sympathize with someone who has been paralyzed or lost a loved one as a result of a doctor doing something stupid. And yes, said doctor should pay for a mistake. However, in very few, if any cases, does someone deserve half a million or more dollars for a mistake that was not mere negligence. Our justice system has lost all reasoning ability, accepting lawsuits from people who say McDonalds made them fat or they deserve money because when the spilled the coffee on themselves they got burned. A lot of the costs we pay at the doctor now are really because of malpractice insurance. Doctors have to pay for it somehow, and again, it is not good business sense to operate at a negative margin. If we knock out the stupid lawsuits and only pay attention to the ones which have merit, i.e. negligence cases, then a doctor's insurance cost just for practicing would be lower, which would lead to lower cost per procedure.
Anyway, just ranting about the ills of government and our (in)justice system. Perhaps the politicians should instead debate these issues, rather than attacking a problem that doesn't exist with legislation that won't help. Oh, wait, that would require self-examination and independent thought. Guess that would be too much to ask . . .
Alright, after almost a month, I can finally get back to posting and reading. On top of life (which is normally extremely busy anyway), my wife had surgery and we had family in from out of state for almost 2 weeks. Not much extra time. Hopefully I'll be able to be more regular now.