I plan to resume blogging soon. In the meantime, please follow me on Twitter or on Facebook by going to the column entries on the
The blog is being migrated to a new host and will be in dry dock for a while. Thanks for your patience and patronage.
Update: We’ve moved, and are now running at top speed on Bluehost. Everything appears to be working so far…
Your answers are welcomed. I’ll follow up later this evening.
…comes a new, timely rant from Alfonzo Rachel.
Related: Flashbacks We Can Believe In
The latest vlog from Alfonzo Rachel:
Sidebar: Do NOT upset Mrs. Rachel.
Today, a plumber. Tomorrow, a writer.
Hopefully in the future, a future Congressman.
(h/t: Hot Air)
I’ll be busy with work-related demands for the remainder of August. Feel free to peruse the archives or pay a visit to other fine blogs in the right column. As always, comments are welcomed.
California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet â€” but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.
But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes sheâ€™s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.
Pelosiâ€™s gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling. Democrats see no need to make major concessions on energy policy with a party poised to lose seats in both chambers in just three months â€” even if recess-averse Republicans continue to pound away on the issue.
In other words, Democrat candidates for Congress can lie and flip-flop in order to save their political hides, just as long as they do what the Puppet Mistress tells them to do after they’ve succeeded in getting the dupes to send them to Washington. Asinine.
It seems that Barack Obama’s “calls” for the end of politics as usual appears to be nothing more than a rehash of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Recently, he blatantly accused John McCain and his supporters of being xenophobic racists, in hopes of rallying Obamatons to his side and urging them to repeat the lie until it becomes “the truth”.
Jake Tapper of ABC News calls him on it:
I’ve seen racism in campaigns before — I’ve seen it against Obama in this campaign (more from Democrats than Republicans, at this point, I might add) and I’ve seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.
What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.
So, who’s the hater here?
For a “rock star”, Barry O is behaving like a spoiled “pop tart”.
Not only does the left-wing New York Times refuse to to publish John McCain’s rebuttal to Barack Obama’s recent op-ed, they have the arrogance to tell him HOW he should rewrite it.
‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.’
FOX News features the original McCain op-ed as originally submitted. In the meantime, it’s evident that the NYT is shilling for the Obamessiah — and presenting a glimpse of blatant media bias yet to come under a potential Obama
Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.
But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.
What a crock of used food. A majority of handguns are semi-automatic, bottom-loading weapons.
IMHO, If Heller brought in a .38 revolver or a pea shooter, they would deny him on the spot. D.C.’s actions were an act of retaliation, pure and simple.
It looks like it’s back to the courts — where Heller will win again.
In the meantime, I’m pondering the thought of staying outside of D.C. for the family reunion next summer…
(link via Hot Air)
Yesterday, I blogged about the first and second strikes pitched to citizens by the SCOTUS. Today the court scored an RBI with the Heller decision.
The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that individual Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, ending a ban on owning handguns in the capital in its first ruling on gun rights in 70 years.
The court’s 5-4 landmark decision — on whether the right to keep and bear arms is an individual or collective right — said the city’s law violated the second amendment of the US constitution which the justices said guaranteed citizens the right to keep guns at home for self-defense.
“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the second amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the court’s decision.
He added the court took seriously the problem of handgun violence in cities like Washington and said there were “a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.”
“The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” the court ruled.
This calls for a gun rights celebration — at the local range.