groveratredneck.com

03/21/08 9:35 AM

Debate?

Filed under: General Stuff — redneck @ 03/21/08 9:35 AM

Pretty interesting read from here:

There is, it seems to me, one primary reason why the gun control debate never seems to go anywhere. It seems to be the same dance, time after time.

Someone who purports to be seeking a “reasonable compromise” offers up some proposal. The gun nuts immediately jump upon it as being a step down the slippery slope, and portray the individual proposing it as being a fraud – attempting to gain via incremental steps what he cannot gain all at once.

Why do the gun nuts think this way? The primary reason is that most gun control measures that have been offered really were intended steps on the slippery slope, and those proposing them really did intend them as incremental steps on the road towards eventual confiscation.

So, then, what does one do, who believes himself to be seeking a “common-sense middle ground”, to get himself listened to by the gun nuts.

It’s simple. Stop lying to yourself. Think about your positions, and what you are really advocating. You look around and see proposals for increased gun control, and think they are the “common sense” middle ground. But if you’re truly, and honestly, in the middle ground, you’ll also look around and see existing gun control measures that are excessive, burdensome, and counter-productive.

If you cannot see gun control measures that need to be repealed, you’re not in the middle.

If you think you believe that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, but see nothing wrong with Chicago or DC imposing an absolute ban, you’re not in the middle. When you tell the gun nuts you do, you’re either lying to them or you’re lying to yourself, and either way they won’t listen to you.

If you think that we should require licenses for gun owners, and see nothing wrong with jurisdictions in which the officials in charge of issuing carry permits have full discretion as to who they will and will not issue to, with no objective standards, and no consequences, then you’re never going to get the gun nuts to listen to you. We don’t let drivers license examiners decide for themselves who should or should not be allowed to obtain a drivers licenses. The requirements are set, and an applicant who meets them is issued a license. We don’t allow government officials unrestricted discretion in any other area, and if you think it’s acceptable that we allow it when dealing with guns, you’re not in the middle.

If you’re going to convince the gun nuts that you are in the middle, you’re going to need to really be in the middle – fighting for gun rights at the same time as you’re advocating for your pet gun control measures.

Because if you’re not fighting for gun rights, you’re not in the middle. You’re simply lying. Lying to yourself, maybe. Lying to everyone else, possibly. It doesn’t make any difference. You’re lying in either case.

03/20/08 9:49 PM

Go Here and Listen

Filed under: General Stuff — redneck @ 03/20/08 9:49 PM

Wonderful interview about the DC/Heller case….. Listen

03/19/08 1:54 PM

Looks like somebody is “scrambling”

Filed under: General Stuff — redneck @ 03/19/08 1:54 PM

scrambling for top casinos en lineajugar gratisapostar portalescasino juegosganar premios portales internetpromociones casino paginas internetcasino internacional webruleta casino gratisadvance cash loan term,advance cash loan personal,cash in advance loancash international loan payday servicesadvance cash fax no,savings account cash advance no fax,georgia no fax cash advancefirst cash advance,cash advance,cash advance loanonline cash advance,online payday cash advance,instant cash online payday advanceadvance cash overnightadvance america cashadvance cash loan online paydayfast cash payday loan,payday us fast cash loanadvance cash loan onlinemagnum cash advance,advance cash faxing magnumcash loan payday tiladvance cash fast loan paydayloan oneclickcash paydaycash advance payday loanpayday cash advance,get payday cash advance,advance cash payday ringtoneadvance cash fast fax no,no fax cash advance,advance cash fax hour in noscams on cash advance company,advance cash company5 advance cash illinois loan,cash advance loan illinoisadvance cash faxing no,no faxing required cash advance,1000 advance cash faxing nocash till payday loancash advance detroitfirst southern cash advance,first choice cash advance,first cash advancecash advance servicecash advance loanbad credit cash advance,cash advance for people with bad credit,advance bad cash credit loan paydayadvance cash day loan pay payday,pay day cash advance,advance cash cheap day payfirst american cash advanceadvance card cash creditcash fast loan paydayace cash advanceinternet casino gamefree online black jack gameplay online casino,play casino,play free casino gamelearn to play blackjackfree casino cash no deposit required,casino cash,free cash casinowww traiteur casino comjeu slots casino en ligne,slots royale casino,casino slotsle nouveau casinostreep poker gratisjuego de poker en españolpai gow poker portal web,pai gow,pai gow poker his political career, now that it is going down the tubes….

Obama belittles McCain for confusing extremists

I’m not saying McCain didn’t get it wrong, but let me ask you this: Who’s been to Iraq, and who has NOT been to Iraq?

Just askin’

03/18/08 11:55 AM

Random Thoughts

Filed under: General Stuff — redneck @ 03/18/08 11:55 AM

In no particular order…..

It’s amusing to see the forces of evil stumble all over themselves. The media(mainstream) and the liberals worked really hard to discredit the Republicans and the current administration as being out of touch with reality, not caring for the man in the street, having their own agenda, being hypocritical, etc, etc, etc. So the White House should have been a cake walk for the Democrats. Now they are fighting among themselves so much, and we see the big egos, hypocrites, hidden agendas, and none of it really has that much to do with the man on the street. And say what you want, McCain has stayed low, under the radar, and he looks better for it. It will be interesting to see what happens now in November. Regardless of who the Democrats nominate, it’s going to be a rough road, and I see little chance of success for them.

How is it that in divorce proceedings, that a judge believes the man, finds the woman’s stories inconsistent, and then awards the woman somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million anyway? If anyone has ever ween something go the opposite way of this, let me know. But then I guess there aren’t that many McCartney-Mills divorces, either.

The Supreme Court is hearing the Heller case regarding the 2nd Amendment. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Either I am very narrow minded, or I don’t see the issue. it seems clear enough to me that a lot of city and state governments have overstepped their bounds. What part of “shall not be infringed” is not clear?

How is it that a “preacher” like Jeremiah Wright can spew hate against white America, and the Muslims can yell death to America from their pulpits and mosques, and it is considered free speech? If a preacher in a white church did anything similar, he’d be hauled to jail for committing “hate crimes”. I guess it’s only a crime if your skin is too pale.

After going to great lengths to try and convince everyone that “red light cameras” were all about safety, and not “revenue”, it is amusing to see the city of Dallas “reconsidering” some of the locations it has the cameras installed. The program isn’t paying for itself, not creating revenue, so they are wanting to scrap the idea now. Safety my eye!

And another thing about safety: How is it that thousands of school children can ride a school bus twice a day without seat belts, but the rest of us have to buckle up. Convince me there are not economics involved here.

Looking at the economy and the price of fuel is enough to give anyone pause. And the government continues to meddle around in it. I fear they are just prolonging the inevitable. and the inevitable is not pretty.

Keep the Faith. Pray more.

03/12/08 9:22 PM

Worth Passing on…..

Filed under: General Stuff — redneck @ 03/12/08 9:22 PM

Very interesting….

How To Fly Without ID
Posted in the database on Thursday, August 31st, 2006 @ 17:15:59 MST (34633 views)
from permanenttourist.com

It’s Easy If You Know How!

In the last two years, everyone flying on a commercial airline has stepped up to an airline’s ticket counter and heard the agent recite a familiar litany. The monologue goes, “has your bag been unattended; have you accepted gifts from a stranger; can I see your identification please?” The traveler docilely murmurs answers, and produces a driver’s license or some equivalent.

As a die-hard Constitutionalist, I believe that we still have an absolute, unfettered, God-given right to travel from point A to point B without permission from the state — in the air, as well as on land. This Nazi procedure of “your papers, please” has never been appropriate for our country. I have had occasion to travel a good deal in the last several months, and on those trips I decided to research and test this issue about the necessity for producing identification. I have talked with agents, and their supervisors, of several major airlines in cities across America, and have gradually pieced together a rather complete picture of the real legal situation regarding our right to travel.

Next, I tested this finding with several airlines. When asked for identification, I produced only my Sam’s Club card, or my travel agent’s ID card, or a Costco card. These are all picture ID’s, but they are privately issued, and do not even have a signature on them. The airline agents just freaked out, and demanded to see some state-issued ID. They routinely told me that “it was federal law!” The government absolutely required me to cough up an “official” ID card, without which the agent couldn’t even THINK of letting me on the plane.

I told the agents that I could not find any federal regulation mandating that type of identification, and then asked them to cure my ignorance and please cite the regulation. Now, at this point, individual airline agents have reacted differently. Some called in their supervisor. Alaska Air employees were the most gracious; Northwest agents were the worst — they were rude, belligerent and hostile brats. But they all folded, every time. A particularly nasty Northwest employee marched me all the way back to the electronic detection equipment, made me pass through it a second time, and had the guard thoroughly search my carry-on bag. The same airline agent-from-hell actually made rude and demeaning remarks to me as we trudged back to the counter — and then she let me on the plane.

Alaska Air was much more reasonable — the agent just issued my seat pass, and commented that some people seem tenaciously to hold the thought that they have the right to travel without producing government ID — to which I responded, “yes, amazing, isn’t it — and I’m one of them.” In Seattle, an agent said AS HE HANDED ME MY TICKET, “you know, if you don’t show me any government-issued ID, I can’t let you board the plane.” I replied, Yes, I understand. But I didn’t, and you are. With a smile, he just said, “have a nice trip.” So I have flown several times using only my meager privately issued picture ID cards.

Every time I used this strategy, I noticed that the agent put an orange sticker on my checked bags, and also on my seat pass on the ticket. Several agents divulged that this is the policy they are supposed to follow when a person does not show government ID. The bags simply wait in the baggage room until the person presents the matching seat pass as he/she actually boards the plane; then the bags go on board.

On my next trip, I decided to push the envelope even further. When the Alaska Air agent made the usual perfunctory request for identification, I put on my best face, smiled sweetly, and said, “Gee, I’m so sorry, but I just don’t have any ID I could show you.” To my speechless astonishment, the agent just said, “no problem — just fill out this simple form, and present it to the counter at the airplane gate.” I watched as the familiar orange sticker again went on my bag. I repeated the same scenario with Horizon Air on another trip. I have now flown twice without producing any identification whatsoever.

Northwest was actually instrumental in advancing my education about this issue. I was so aggravated by the insolent and hostile treatment that their employee gave me, (hopefully former employee, after the blistering letter I sent to the company president), that I demanded to see a supervisor on the spot. I then demanded that he produce the relevant federal regulations RIGHT NOW, or face personal liability for authorizing an unreasonable search and seizure, dereliction of duty, fraud, conspiracy, civil rights deprivation and any other legal buzz words I could think of at that moment which would justify a lawsuit against him personally, as well as his employer. Like everyone else, he couldn’t show me any statute or regulations. He even admitted that there are none.

However, he did produce a copy of Security Directive 96-05, which the Federal Aviation Agency issued to all airlines in August of 1996. Its wording is very instructive; it reads as follows:

1. IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER -

A. ALL PASSENGERS WHO APPEAR TO BE 18 YEARS OF AGE WILL PRESENT A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PICTURE ID, OR TWO OTHER FORMS OF ID, AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.

B. THE AGENT MUST RECONCILE THE NAME ON THE ID AND THE NAME ON THE TICKET — EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW.

C. IF THE PASSENGER CANNOT PRODUCE IDENTIFICATION, OR IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED TO MATCH THE TICKET, THE PASSENGER BECOMES A “SELECTEE.” CLEAR ALL OF THEIR LUGGAGE AS NOTED IN SECTION 6, BELOW.

6. CLEAR SELECTEE’S CHECKED AND CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPICIOUS ARTICLES DISCOVERED BY THE QUESTIONS ASKED;

A. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON A FLIGHT WITHIN THE 48 CONTINENTAL US STATES, OR TO MEXICO, OR TO CANADA, ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED BY EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:

1. EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY A QUALIFIED SCREENER, OR;

2. BAG-MATCH — ENSURE THE BAG IS NOT TRANSPORTED ON THE AIRCRAFT IF THE PASSENGER DOES NOT BOARD.

B. IF THE SELECTEE IS ON AN INTERNATIONAL FLIGHT — CHECKED LUGGAGE, CARRY-ON LUGGAGE, AND SUSPECT ITEMS CAN BE CLEARED ONLY BY THE FOLLOWING METHOD; EMPTY THE LUGGAGE OR ITEM AND PHYSICALLY SEARCH ITS CONTENTS BY QUALIFIED SCREENERS.

This document apparently goes on for ten more pages; the Northwest supervisor gave me only the first page, which contains the information printed above.

The next time I refused to produce ID and the agent freaked, I told her, “just tap up Sec-Dec 96-5 on your computer, and go to Paragraph 1, Section C. Designate me as a ’selectee,’ and proceed accordingly. She apparently thought I was an FAA undercover employee, because she said that she was “tired of you federal guys coming around” and literally spying on airline agents, “coercing us into lying to people, and essentially being the ‘bag man’ for an activity which has no legal requirement.” I told her that I could not agree more.

Another airline employee later confirmed that FAA agents often engage in such entrapment activities, to make sure that airline agents parrot the government party line about state-issued ID. I also hit pay dirt in a discussion with another, much nicer Northwest agent on the East coast. In a candid conversation, he told me that FAA personnel had held training sessions with all airline agents in the fall of 1996. Agents were informed directly by the FAA that they absolutely could not bar an American citizen from boarding a plane, even if a passenger refused to produce any identification at all! I understand Delta Airline is facing two large lawsuits because employees twice denied this reality, and actually twice kept off a plane a passenger who had only private ID to show. Anyone want to own an airline, courtesy of a judge? I have personally flown Delta with only a private travel card, so I guess they already had their hand slapped.

Yet another agent in the Midwest admitted that airline personnel were deliberately and knowingly coercing people into showing government ID by saying “it’s the law.” According to him the reality is that the companies are simply tired of people selling their frequent-flyer tickets. The airlines wanted to stem this practice by checking everyone’s ID, but knew there would be BIG problems if they instituted this procedure as a private corporate policy. It was so much more convenient to say it was federal law and make the government the scapegoat. So this policy meets the airlines’ private financial goals, and the government’s goal of ever-increasing social control.

If no one complains or asserts their rights regarding travel, then another freedom is “poof” gone. Our children watch this happen, and grow up thinking that the state has both the right to define our identity by issuing documents saying who we are, and also the right to require us to produce them on demand.

03/10/08 9:58 PM

Another “MUST READ”

Filed under: General Stuff — redneck @ 03/10/08 9:58 PM

There is no way to express how much I agree with this, from here:

Secession? Yes. From Those Who Would Destroy America
By Douglas MacKinnon
Monday, March 10, 2008

In an article that ran recently in The Washington Times, the Montana Secretary of State made it quite clear that he and many of the elected officials of his state take the rights granted by the Second Amendment very seriously.

In response to the news that the Supreme Court is about to hear oral argument regarding the District of Columbia’s ban on gun-ownership as defined by its twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment, Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a letter to the newspaper, “The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.”

Mr. Johnson refers to the fact that back in 1889, the people of Montana came to agreement with the federal government: They would join the union, and in return, the United States would agree that individuals had the right to bear arms. Should the Supreme Court somehow rule in favor of the District of Columbia, then many Montanans feel their deal with the United States will have been broken.

When the article first ran, I got a number of phone calls and emails because the word “Secession” was employed by some to describe The Washington Times story. The reason that mattered to me is because last year I authored a novel entitled “America’s Last Days.” The novel imagines a revolution from within orchestrated by the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the former Director of the FBI. Two men who believe that the United States is in a death spiral from which it won’t recover. Two men who believe that in order to preserve traditional values and safeguard and honor the sacred documents handed down to us by the Founding Fathers, they would have to carve out two states within the United States to form a new country. One of those two states being Montana. The other, Wyoming.

As people called or emailed, I was asked what I thought about secession. My immediate response was, I believe in it.

I believe we need to secede from politicians who would weaken our border and compromise our national security to pander for Hispanic-American votes.

I believe we need to secede from politicians who clearly don’t think we are a sovereign nation.

I believe we need to secede from politicians who are working behind the scenes to make the United States part of the “North American Union.”

I believe we need to secede from those who target conservative talk radio while enabling groups that front for Islamists.

I believe we need to secede from a media and presidential candidates who continually and purposefully question the strength of our economy so they could create a self-fulfilling prophecy designed to help elect a liberal president.

I believe we need to secede from politicians and a media who denigrate or ignore the multiple successes of our troops in Iraq, so they can further their own liberal agenda.

I believe we need to secede from politicians who would use appeasement as their main defense against the terrorists who mean to exterminate our nation.

I believe we need to secede from activist liberal courts and politicians who seek to attack those who home school while working day and night to remove God from our nation.

I believe we need to secede from the prophets of “Global Warming” who would prefer to bankrupt our nation, scare our children, and insult and terminate scientists who question their conclusions, rather than engage in reasoned dialog.

I believe we need to secede from a left-of-center media that controls basically the top 100 newspapers in our nation, as well as the three major television networks, and all but one of the cable networks.

I believe we need to secede from an entertainment industry that systematically exposes our children to the vilest forms of smut, so they can first, make a profit, and second, indoctrinate as they seek to subvert the morals, ethics, and character of our nation.

I believe we need to secede from politicians who don’t believe in appointing strict-constructionist judges to the Supreme Court.

I believe we need to secede from politicians and their boot-lickers who tell conservatives that they should subvert their beliefs for the greater good of the party.

I believe we need to secede from politicians who don’t believe in lower taxes and fiscal responsibility.

In short, I believe we need to secede from any and all who say that conservative principles and an adherence to traditional values no longer matter.

If we compromise and accept the continual blurring of party lines and the left’s definition of our future, then not only have we lost our way, but we have lost our country.

Secede from the madness. Vote and advance principle.

What can I say, but preach on….

03/9/08 8:34 PM

Speechless, Absolutely Speechless

Filed under: General Stuff — redneck @ 03/9/08 8:34 PM

Used client funds to gamble, now suing casinos

By reader acclaim: Arelia Margarita Taveras, once hailed as an up-and-coming lawyer and media commentator who represented 9/11 and air crash victims, says her gambling addiction lost her nearly $1 million; she has admitted dipping into client funds and was disbarred last June. Now she’s suing six Atlantic City casinos and one in Las Vegas for $20 million, saying they had a duty to stop her as it became clear her gambling was out of control. Taveras’s law practice at one point brought her $500,000 annually, and she appeared on TV and radio shows to discuss legal issues. (“Compulsive Gambler Files $20M Suit Against Casinos”, AP/CBS13.com, Mar. 8; Christina Boyle, “Scamming lawyer for 9/11 victims sues casinos for her gambling addiction”, New York Daily News, Mar. 8). More: New York Post, Associated Content.

I would absolutely LOVE to be the judge that this case is presented before. I’d probably be removed form the bench after this one. Can you sentence someone to death for stupidity? This case begs for it…..

03/2/08 8:49 PM

WWJD????

Filed under: General Stuff — redneck @ 03/2/08 8:49 PM

This is from HERE:
Reprinted/copied in it’s entirety, because it’s too good to miss, and I don’t want to cut up a piece of art.

Would Christ Carry a Concealed Weapon?
By Doug Giles
Saturday, March 1, 2008

I was on a talk show the other day defending the Second Amendment and discussing with my host the stupid, unconstitutional and woefully inadequate D.C. gun ban. I made it clear that I am a Christian who is extremely cool (to the point of being giddy) with our right to keep and bear arms.

After we trounced the anti-gun lobby for their goofy, doe-eyed, John Lennon-like “Imagine” solutions to violent crime, we opened up the phone lines for folks to weigh in with their two cents. The first caller was a woman who asked if I thought Jesus would carry a weapon if He were here today, to which I quickly replied, yes, of course He would—especially if He lived in Miami and was driving down I-95 at four o’clock in the morning.

The female caller, being far more spiritual than I am, didn’t think it was funny and went on to make it personal by asking if someone were attacking one of my daughters and I had a gun if I thought Christ would be cool with me killing the felonious freak. I told her that I sure hoped He would because otherwise He’d be terribly disappointed in me and would just have to forgive me. Common sense and primal instinct tell me that the bad guy should die and the good girl should live. Call me carnal.

Of course the holier-than-me caller was aghast that as a Christian I would have no problem whatsoever defending my friends, family, person and possessions with deadly force. Her reason being was that she couldn’t picture Jesus doing it and concluded that because she couldn’t wrap her mind around Him green-lighting the destruction of a demented perp that He certainly wouldn’t and thus I shouldn’t.

When discussing what Christ would do in a given situation, it’s usually good to actually go to the gospels, read them and then draw conclusions. Here’s what I’ve gotten after scouring Scripture a few times:

1. Jesus in His earthly ministry didn’t carry a weapon except the time when He took a whip (a whip! You gotta love it!) and Billy Jack’ed the televangelists out of the temple. He didn’t chide them or write them a strong but tasteful e-mail asking them to please not do that kind of stuff in church.

What did the meek and mild Messiah do? He whipped them. God, I hope you got that on DVD for me to watch when I get to heaven. I wonder if the Christ-is-a-pacifist-wuss-lady can picture sweet Jesus laying the leather to the backs of the marketers who were making His father’s house a place of merchandise.

If Christ were to do that today He’d be thrown in prison, and 99.9% of churches in the USA wouldn’t have Him speak at their annual Hallelujah Aren’t We Fabulous conference because Jesus wouldn’t be behaving very Christ-like.

2. It’s clear from Scripture that Jesus didn’t need weapons because He had at his disposal an angelic host that could flatten armies. I unfortunately don’t have that capability. Nor can I walk through walls or split oceans. Christ had supernatural protection, and His disciples carried swords. I, too, believe that God supernaturally protects me, to some degree, because I should have been dead a long time ago. However, should my guardian angel be napping or busy doing something else other than trying to keep up with me, I’ll be okay, because Smith & Wesson art with me as well.

3. Lastly, in Luke 22:36-38 Christ told his disciples, even though He personally did not pack a weapon, that they, in light of His departure, should get a deadly weapon—namely a sword. Check it out . . .

“And he [Jesus] said to them [His disciples], ‘But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And he was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.’ They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.’”

Jesus told them—didn’t ask or mildly suggest—but told His buddies to sell their leather jacket if need be and buy a sword. The sword which Christ told his compadres to purchase was not a QVC decorative Claymore to hang on their walls to commemorate the good times they had when Christ was around. The original word used for sword in this text was a large knife used for killing animals and cutting flesh. It was particularly fashioned for short, deadly thrusts in hand-to-hand combat.

Jesus didn’t tell them to carry a whistle, a shofar horn, or a bag of sand to blow in bad guys’ eyes, but a dagger-like sword. A vicious, nasty and deadly weapon not used for cutting vegetables, spreading butter or splitting a bagel but for violently tapping a lung or heart in case of an attack. Now, in a 21st century WWJD context, even though He didn’t personally carry a weapon, what do you think He thinks about His followers defending themselves with deadly force, huh, pacifists?

I can’t fault this logic….

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress