Inauguration Blues

From Obama’s Inauguration speech earlier in the week:

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of
security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health
care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must
choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing
in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our
past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a
disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom
is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter
how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job
loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The
commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social
Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do
not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this
country great. 

While one can argue that the entire speech strokes the Left’s (arguably) worst ideological tic, this paragraph sums it up well.  The aforementioned tic being the almost religious belief that Liberalism isn’t an ideology, but simply a pragmatic response to our complex world.

This is an isolating belief and it’s one that has to somehow be undone if this country is going to be able to see, with both eyes open, what our political class is doing to us.


“A Democratic assemblyman is in jail, arrested for threatening Democratic Speaker-elect Marilyn Kirkpatrick, according to North Las Vegas Police and Democratic sources familiar with the situation.  Assemblyman Steven Brooks, 40, of North Las Vegas made threats to harm a public official Saturday afternoon, police said in a news release Sunday morning. A source said he was arrested with a loaded gun after threatening to shoot Kirkpatrick.” 

Maybe we just need gun control for elected Democrats.

No Assault Rifle at Sandy Hook – NBC News

Yet Obama is urgently pursuing an assault rifle ban in the wake of this tragedy.  The Executive Orders that he has outlined would have had no bearing on what happened in Sandy Hook.  It’s almost as if there’s

separate agenda from preventing more Sandy Hook slaughters.


As an aside, I have a question for those of you who are in favor of greater gun control.  What is an assault rifle?  What makes them more dangerous than a hunting rifle?

I ask because none of our “betters” in the MSM and State and Federal government seem to be able to articulate what constitutes an assault rifle other than that they’re “scary looking”.  I’d also like to know how a 30 round magazine arbitrarily became a dreaded “high capacity” magazine (They’re magazines, not “clips”, asshole.) when in reality, a 30 round magazine is standard.  A high cap magazine for an AR-15 would be 40+.

Going back to the aforementioned hunting rifles, why are they not scary and safer than assault rifles?  I ask because if you told me that I had to get shot by either a 5.56 NATO round (The standard round for an AR-15… sometimes called a Winchester .223) or a .30-.06 (An incredibly popular sporting round.  Often pronounced “thirty ought six”), before you got all the words out I’d be begging you to shoot me with the assault rifle round.

In terms of the populace, those eager to ban or confiscate guns is driven by ignorance in regards to history, firearms and statistics.  For the politicians, it’s much darker.  The former is who we have to really reach if we want the side of liberty to prevail.  For those of you who understand and appreciate the 2nd amendment, I know how easy it is to get furious over what’s going on but you have to keep cool and persuade.  Be patient, arm yourself with facts and never give up on persuading that friend or relative that doesn’t respect the constitution.   Don’t ever forget that statistics and history are on your side.


How do you shame a man who is without shame?  The implicit argument our dear leader is making here, of course, “I’m making the country good for the sake of the children.  If you disagree with me, then you’re against the children.”

Are any of you too stupid to be offended by this photo?  Don’t answer that.

The problem here is that the child can’t vouch for the policies.  The child can’t competently requested anything.  Consequently, the child is merely a prop representing goodness, innocence, and the future.

Just like they were back then: