« This Part Goes There… | Main | Bourjaily: What Guns Should Browning Make? »

April 14, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

The Truth Revealed!

One of the rules of probability states that if you forced a million chimps to type for a million years, they would eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare, or "It Takes a Village," I forget which. Similarly, the endless stream of Clinton/Obama verbiage was bound to produce a nugget or two of truth, and a couple of days ago, we got a couple.

According to Barrack Obama, citizens who are bitter about their economic hardships "…cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them…" as a way to explain their frustrations. Hillary, sensing blood, immediately called him an elitist, and went on to say that "Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a constitutional right."

Barack Obama (Harvard Law) is of course an elitist, and he is an urban elitist, and among these folk, interest in or ownership of firearms is viewed as anything from a quaint aberration to a dangerous form of psychosis. Hillary is, if anything, more of an elitist, and what is really fascinating about her statement is her use of the word "believe." Believe means that you think something may be true, but you can’t prove it, so you have to go part of the way on faith.

"I believe the Yankees will blow it again this year."

"I believe I’m going to throw up."

Hillary Clinton (Yale Law) does not necessarily accept the Second Amendment as the law of the land. If you believe in it, she says, it is the law. If you don’t believe in it, by implication, it isn’t.

In the meanwhile, Hillary (who as First Lady urged Congress to buck the gun lobby; at least I think the word was buck) continues to prattle about her father teaching her to shoot, and Governor Ed Rendell, who is one of the worst of the anti-gun governors, blathers on about the great traditions of hunting and sportsmanship in Pennsylvania.

I believe I’m going to throw up.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Truth Revealed!:


Jim in Mo.

Baby Boomers? Hell I thought you weren't even old enough to be a diaper on a baby booomer.
Once again sorry for being a jerk but don't like people putting down what they haven't really looked into.


To Jim,
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry if I was a "prick" myself. That does clear up things up some.


P.S. No, that doesn't make sense.
My Granpa worked for GM for 40 years in tool and die out of the Grand Rapids plant there. So i know a little what your talking about.

Hey yall here about GM paying people to quit/retire earsly. so they can hire people in under a new contracts which don't offer the benefits and retirement programs and lower wages. So in other words the person they payed to retire early was making say 25 dollars an hr. the person to replace that exact same position might only get 17 dollars an hour.


Plus low if any benefits

Mike Diehl

"Hey Mike, when I referenced the Kool Aid, I..."

You was being a jerk, so I gave you some of your own form of rebuttal. I'll lighten up now and get back on topic.

"You're living under an assumption..."

No, I'm not. This has nothing at all to do with Gore. You don't know how he'd have responded to 9-11. I don't know either. I do think he's a better man in every way than the current pres. I also think that ANYONE, Gore or for that matter any GOP president would, in Bush's shoes, not have so derailed our war on terror by invading Iraq. It was simply a really dumb choice. A nice legal UN sanctioned choice, but a dumb move. Why we think we need to be the UN's "enforcer" is beyond me. The consequence of the Iraq war is that we are less safe both domestically and overseas from terrorists because we have been diverted from a good mission in Afghanistan. We are less militarily ready than at any time since 1940. And we are less economically safe than at any time since 1929.

Economic threats particularly concern me. You simply CAN'T spend the way that Bush spends and sustain the US economy. Someone has to pay for that spending. Sooner or later that spending MUST come home to us as a tax increase, or else it MUST come home to us in a drastic reduction in the US Armed forces and elimination of most other Fed programs, or else we MUST default on the debt. All three of those choices stink.

"Gore would've..."

You don't know squat about what Gore would do but what you're fed in the way of sound byte put downs from idiots who are counting on you to be stupid enough to believe everything they tell you to believe.

"At any rate, you totally ignore that we were attacked."

That is incorrect. I am quite aware that we were attacked. We were NOT attacked by Iraq or anyone IN Iraq. Therefore, the US and Coalition playing enforcer or "topple the dictator" was both a waste of money and a distraction from the real mission.

"Also, you ignore the phenomenon that military gear, while tested extensively &c"

Not sure to what you are referring here. The tech cycle is what it is. We'd be alot better off if our equipment wasn't breaking down and overcommitted in Iraq on a fool's errand.

"You and one other frequent writer are the most critical of GWB."

Yes I am. I am very critical of GWB for three reasons.
1. Spending like a drunken sailor.
2. Sending the US armed forces on a fool's errand in Iraq, thereby making the US less safe.
3. Signing statments by which the exec branch has engaged in an unpredicidented totalitarianist power grab.

The effects are vastly increased economic risk, vastly reduced defense capability, and vastly broadened perception in gov't circles that the gov't really doesn't have to give a damb about the rule of law or citizens' rights.

Here's a thought. Probably, for good or ill, a democratic party candidated will be the pres. Imagine if Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton assume the same degree of executive privilege in the use of signing statements that the person currently staining the office of the US Presidency has assumed. It isn't a pretty thought.


Good points but...
Our military is in pretty GOOD shape versus when GWB took the stairs to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave for the first time! Slick willy raped the intelligence community and didn't treat the military with much more respect! Certainly there are individual Soldiers coming back from Iraq with low morale and suicidal tendencies but by and large the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have excellent esprit de corps and motivation. The left-leaning media plays up the few and ignores the many! I know first hand; my son got back from Iraq a week ago, proud of the job he and his unit did and describing the average Iraqi as hardworking and happy to see us there. The media saying all Iraqis hate us is like them saying all Los Angeles' citizens are either illegal gang members or cops.

When we turn to the economy most of the policies that brought us to our current -- very serious -- crisis predate this administration and that of WJC. Subprime lending has been with us for ages and it serves us well in good economic times. People who would otherwise not be able to buy homes, cars etc are able to do so and pay the higher monthly payments with OT. Once the economy retracts and OT dries up money gets tighter for people on the margin the same people who are forced to borrow at higher rates... The jobs created by home purchases and the necessary appliances that go along with them drive the economy.

Artificially injecting these additional rebates into the economy is on the other hand a costly solution which will only drag the problem out longer and probably deepen it in the end. If we need to do anything then we should be brokering with the lenders to reduce interest rates on the most vulnerable, we should be creating jobs where they are most lacking by offering incentives to employers for doing so, we should be demanding that our trading partners are as open to our exports as we are to theirs and we should be looking long range with education programs to elevate the vulnerable out of the 'subprime' catagory permanently.

GWB could certainly do better on some of the economic issues but I do not regret at all voting for him twice!


To add:

I repeat that the most dangerous threat in this race is Hillary because she will sign a treaty which in one stroke of the pen will make all of GWBs signings look miniscule. The UN treaty will do so much harm to our nation by puting so many Rights into the UN hands rather than our Sovereign Nation's people's hands.

Mike Diehl

I think I can assuage some of your concerns, S.A. Any treaty that a US President decides is important has to be ratified by the US Senate, so if there really ARE any real conservatives left in the GOP, "radical change" is going to be a non-starter. Moreover, neither a signed treaty, nor a unanimous UNSec Council (or Generall Assembly) resolution are exempt from US Supreme Court judicial review. Sen. Clinton as president COULD direct our UNSec representative to declare firearms ownership an affront to human rights, was she willing to waste lots of political capital. But even so, the USSJC could simply say that "the 2nd Amendment trumps such proclamations, end of debate."

As to Bush, I do not agree that the US military is better off now than it was in 1999. Most of the general staff don't seem to think so either. I do not agree that Pres. Clinton ripped intel, I think he was simply going along with a policy that had been extant since Reagan's 2nd term in office. In any case, George W. Bush, the lesser man in any comparison with any President in the last 180 years, would probably have ignored good intel had it been placed on his desk with heaven's own signet ring stamped on it in wax as validation.

Subprime lending isn't the cause of the current crisis. Subprime ACCOUNTABILITY is the cause. The reason why the taxpayer is bailing out Bear Sterns is because no one on this planet can figure out what these "asset backed securities" are really worth. THAT only happens when greedy execs exploit lax regulatory oversight in order to pull the wool over investors' eyes.

Moreover, the loss of some (IIRC) $500 billion US dollars in the current capitol evaporation event is nothing compared to the coming crisis from deficit spending. The claim is made that the absence of capitol makes it hard for US investors and industries to make improvements or innovations.

So, how badly do you think the loss of THREE TRILLION dollars of US capitol (George W. Bush's contribution to the National Debt -- bearing in mind that Pres. Clinton ran a budget SURPLUS and paid down the debt) will harm our economy?

Remember. That money is GONE. All that's been left to determine is who'se gonna get stuck with the check after all the other diners disappear from the table.

As for the rebate. It's not as bad as you think. If people put that money in banks rather than spend it, the money is immediately available to be loaned by the banks to businesses and industries that need money for capital improvements, home loans, and the like. But it's not remotely as good a fix as eliminating deficit-spending.


Mike Diehl:
You seem to have a lot of facts. How did you acquire this knowledge, never having taken a history course?

I can't believe that any person, either mentally aware between 1977 and 1981, or having studied U.S. History since, could call GWB the worst POTUS in 180 years. While I believe that Carter was a MORON, who came pretty close to bankrupting this country, I can make a case that LBJ might have been the worst ever. Remember Viet Nam? His Great Society destroyed the family as the basic societal unit within the Black American Community.

You are a victim of Main Stream Media. Some unknown philosopher once said "A lie, if repated enough becomes the truth". Our media has proved that, especially in your case.


LBJ, Carter, Clinton, From what I have studied in history...in the past 50 years, these have hurt the country very badly.

Their "social" programs, "global trade" policies hurt this country very badly.

Im not sure where I really stand on GWB senior or the current GWB.

Mike Diehl

Ah. Well, at least if you are worried about bankruptcy, then one could reasonably infer that one ought to be concerned with finances.

Deficit spenders, non-social security expenditures paid for by increasing the US National Debt, in order of expense:

1. George W. Bush
(23% in 2002, 32% in 2003)
2. George H.W. Bush (28%)
3. Ronald W. Reagan (25%)
4. Richard M. Nixon/Gerald R. Ford (14%)
7. James E. Carter (13%)
8-9. William J. Clinton/Lyndon B. Johnson/John F. Kennedy (6% all)
10. Dwight D. Eisenhower (3%)

Of these admins, the ONLY ones to NOT deficit spend for at least one fiscal year during their terms were William J. Clinton, John F. Kennedy (prior to his death), and Dwight D. Eisenhower. The last president to consistently preside over balanced budgets was Harry S. Truman.

And that is most unfortunate, because the current admin has not only the highest deficit spending record (proportion of non-social security spending funded by debt increase), but it also has the highest standard dollar debt, and the third highest standard dollar debt-per-household ratio (the first two highest debt/household years being 1943 and 1944).

"You are a blahblahblah..."


Mike Diehl

"LBJ, Carter, Clinton, From what I have studied in history...in the past 50 years, these have hurt the country very badly."

I think you have a very subjective and inconsistent standard of "hurt."

"Their "social" programs, "global trade" policies hurt this country very badly."

Hmm. Bear in mind that the first president to borrow against Social Security bonds was Ronald Reagan. On the other hand, were you to identify Medicare and Medicaid as BIG looming "hurts" you'd be correct, because their future slice of the budget can only increase. Was anyone to propose eliminating these programs, I'd support 'em. The other "big hurt" in our budget is defense spending. The way to avoid that is to fight the necessary wars (like Afghanistan) and not fight the unnecessary ones (like Iraq).

"Im not sure where I really stand on GWB senior or the current GWB."

Understandable. Was it down to JUST finances, the two are similar. But IMO G.H.W. Bush was a lot smarter than his son for many good reasons.


Mike Diehl:
Okay, in addition to your History shortfall, you're also a bit shy in Government.

The U.S. Constitution clearly states; "All appropriations bills must originate in the House of Representatives". The President can ask for items in his budget. The budget, however, must come from the house.

Many Republican House (and Senate)members were caught up in greed over the last seven years. They paid bigtime in the 2006 election. GWB was also at fault in not using his veto pen. You look at that and see evil. I look at that and see someone who was trying to be bi-partisan. At any rate, the spending ran amok!

While the deficit is bad right now, there is nothing written in stone that this problem cannot be overcome. Computer geeks say that the future in this industry is rife with future improvements. If this industry grows with new tech, that tech will probably come from here. I see more people looking for "Made in China" on products in stores. Specifically to avoid those products.

I believe that it is far to early to judge this administration. I would probably feel differently if Iraqi War Vets were having to appologize for applying for jobs.


To Mike,
Ya I know. about the word "Hurt" Just tryin to be nice. If I said what I really thought about what those Presidents did ..I might be barred from the blog.

If your runnin down Pres. Reagan though. Im sorry but I disagree with ya man. No President is perfect. But Reagan came dang near close. He also had backbone to deal with problems that a certain President before him did not.(IRAN right of the get-go) He did his best to reduce taxes and to start to get bureaucracy out of our lives. His 2 terms in office gave this country a badly needed boost in moral as well as ecomically. I could get into details but thats a good summary.


Here is a good example of how this finanacial crisis is not all GWB's fault (unless you consider Barney Frank, D-MA, a Bush standard bearer?).

Rep Barney Frank has introduced a $300 BILLION dollar plan to expand the Federal Housing Administration's bail-out of troubled homeowners. The plan is lose-lose for lenders who must agree to accept at most 90% of subject home's current value on a primary lien (remember that home values have dropped up to 25% in many areas) and only up to 1% of the home's current value on secondary liens. Of course if our intrepid homeowner later sells at a profit the lenders are still out in the cold; any profit would be shared with the good Komrads at FHA!

The multiple disasters that this will cause include pushing already troubled lenders out of business, gunshy investors will pull their money out of the Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) market just as fast as they can (further drying up private mortgage funding), foreign lenders will not only tighten up or pull out they may also take legal actions to forestall the plan or sue borrowers for the difference.

This is one huge example of an oversized Democratic plan which is poorly conceived and truly another step toward Socialism in our own nation! GWB didn't have a thing to do with it but dares not veto it.


This is the problem with Washington. It happens all the time with different issues on the table. This situation is realy ironic, however, because the original problem, with respct to homeowners, is really quite small. Most of us have lived in our homes for several years. Whether or not my home has lost value recently, its still worth a bit more than I paid for it. We raised four kids here. I'm lucky its worth anything! Also, the mortgage problem appears to be in roughly 4 per cent of the mortgages. The vast majority of homeowners are making their payments on time.

What's really astounded me is the amount of credit card debt that some people carry. I've seen figures between 30K and 100K and thes people are now strapped! How could they let this happen?

He's the reason that we can write our drivel on these blogs.

Mike Diehl

@Yoop -

When you grow up, I'll start reading your stuff.

@Peter -

"If your runnin down Pres. Reagan though."

I'm not. Just posting facts about the spending levels that anyone can look up for themselves. Reagan made Americans feel good at a time when Americans were feeling pretty thoroughly hosed, and that was a good thing. In many ways, I think President Bush (the current one) has more in common with President Carter than any president in between.

What I'd like is a true conservative president. One who asks for and by leadership and negotiation gets a balanced budget, and who doesn't need to play gimmicky accounting games to do it. I'd also like one with more regard for the US Constitution than we've seen in many decades.

Unfortunately, there aren't any Harry Trumans in this race and none "on the horizon" in any party.


Mike Diehl:
I'm 58 years old. If I haven't grown up yet, I probably never will!

Your comparison of GWB to Jimmy Carter makes me want to barf! When Carter was president, I used to have to appologize for applying for jobs. Yeah, things are a bit tough right now. Our President is taking steps to alleviate these problems. Carter blamed the problems on us! He called it a "National Malaise".
Also, this President is a PATRIOT. Carter has spent a major portion of the recent past (since Nixon's funeral) criticizing and undermining his country.

Go to a rummage sale. Buy a history book (U.S. History). Buy a government book. Read before you speak!

Our Blogs