Making the sequester as painful as possible

Posted: 6th March 2013 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in General Politics

According to The Washington Times, the White House is trying to fulfill its promises that the sequester will be painful. 

“…The Washington Times reported on another administration email that seemed to show at least one agency has been instructed to make sure the cuts are as painful as President Obama promised they would be.

In the internal email, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service official Charles Brown said he asked if he could try to spread out the sequester cuts in his region to minimize the impact, and he said he was told not to do anything that would lessen the dire impacts Congress had been warned of.

‘We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be,’Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him.”

So basically, they’re saying “we didn’t get what we want and now everyone must be punished like we said they would!”

Rep. Kristi L. Noem, a South Dakota Republican who grilled Mr. Vilsack about the email, said “I’m hopeful that isn’t an agenda that’s been put forward.”  Well, Mrs. Noem, hope in one hand and you-know-what in the other.  We’ve had 5 years of this administration and you should know what to expect by now.

 

The “Assault Weapons” debate

Posted: 5th March 2013 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in 2nd Amendment

I’ve discussed this with so many people I figured I might as well lay it all out here as well.

First off, there are many terms you will hear in the media concerning the gun debate, such as “high powered,” “armor piercing,” “assault rifle,” and “assault weapon.” “High powered” is obviously a very subjective term and can mean anything; even a gun that fires a tiny .22 cartridge can kill someone.

“Armor piercing” is another tricky one as well. A lot of times the media will use this in relation to bulletproof vests that members of law enforcement wear. Usually these vests only protect from pistol rounds, so in this case any rifle round would be considered “armor piercing.”

“Assault rifle” is used a lot, especially in relation to the infamous AR-15 rifle. First of all, the AR in AR-15 does not stand for “assault rifle,” it’s an abbreviation of Armalite, a manufacturer. Second, the definition of assault rifle includes the necessary characteristic that the rifle is automatic. This means that if you hold down the trigger, more than one round fires automatically. AR-15′s are not automatic, they are semi-automatic, meaning that you must pull the trigger for every round that you want to fire. Automatic weapons are not available to the general public!

Lastly, there is no definition for “assault weapon.” An assault weapon is whatever the media wants it to be on any given day. To me an assault weapon is any weapon that can be used for assault, which is any gun (and many other weapons that are not guns). An assault weapon may be an AR-15 this year, but next year if someone commits a widely publicized murder with a shotgun, that definition could change.

The sad part about this is that a portion of the media and the legislators that they support do not know any of this. They literally know nothing about guns. The part that is even worse is that a good number of them do have this knowledge and choose to knowingly mislead the public with their scare tactics.

Many of these members of the media and the gun grabbing legislators will pretend to be appreciative of gun rights and attempt to appear as moderate on the issue by showing respect to hunters and even claiming that they are not out to get handguns and shotguns, only the evil “assault weapons.”

This stance becomes suspicious when looking at FBI homicide data. In the year 2011, there were only 323 murders in which a rifle was used. For comparison, there were 728 murders performed with “personal weapons” (hands, fists, feet, etc.). You can see this data at the FBI website.

So the question becomes, why is so much emphasis being put on a weapon that is used so infrequently in crimes? The answer is that the politicians know that the current climate does not allow for them to begin trying to take handguns and shotguns for the citizens. They must first begin with the “extreme” weapons. After they are gone, the extreme weapons can become the handguns that have the ability to hold a large number of rounds and are larger than an arbitrary caliber limit. Look at the recent bill in New York. The previous 2004 Assault Weapons Ban limited the number of rounds allowed to be held in a weapon to 10. But that was in 2004. New York decided that in 2013 citizens should only be allowed to have 7 rounds in their weapons. I can only assume that the natural pattern from here will be 7, 5, 3, and then 1. Because what citizen who has proven to be sufficiently trained enough in firearm use to own a weapon should need more than 1 shot?

Obama is selling guns

Posted: 5th March 2013 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in 2nd Amendment

According to CNS News, Obama is continuing to inadvertently help gun sales in the US.

Honestly, everything in this article is common sense stuff for the most part, as everyone knows Obama is anti-gun and creates fear for the future of the second amendment. The article basically shows that all of the biggest days and months for background checks have come under Obama’s presidency:

According to the FBI NICS database, there were 2,309,393 background checks completed in the month of February.

The only two months that saw a higher number of NICS checks were January 2013, with 2,495,440, and December of 2012, with 2,783,765.

The one thing I get out of this is just the sheer number of guns in America, and a sense of why it is such utter ridiculousness when you hear an anti-gun politician suggest the importance of registering guns and getting guns out of the hands of bad guys. It also shows why there is a difference between America and other countries with strict gun laws and little gun crime, since no other country had anywhere near the inventory of guns that we do when their gun-grabbing efforts began.

I’m not a mathematician but that looks like about 8 MILLION guns purchased in America in 3 months time, AT LEAST. So, while a noble cause, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get all of the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, just because of the huge numbers of guns in America. This, it should not be a viable option for me to be disarmed when I know for a fact that the criminals around me will continue to be armed.

Starting again

Posted: 4th March 2013 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in Uncategorized

Well, the site is back up. Now it’s here at www.therightofanation.com instead of www.rightofanation.com.

It’s been over two years since I’ve posted anything here, and in the meantime I stupidly let the domain registration lapse on the other site. Someone bought it out from under me and now wants $200 minimum for it. Hence the new address.

I’ve still got a time consuming job, I’ve now got two kids instead of just one, but I’d really like to try to find the time to get the site going again. I still, from time to time, get angry enough when watching the news or reading an article that I want to have somewhere I can express my opinion. I’m also planning on putting this WordPress for iOS app to good use.

Another example of racism being OK for Democrats

Posted: 8th June 2010 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in General Politics

Obama recently praised the career of Helen Thomas, despite her recent anti-jew comments, according to The Hill.

There has long been a tradition in society, especially in politics and the media, of dismissing a person entirely once it appears that they could even possibly be a racist.  Unless you’re a Democrat.  Compare comments and reactions from Trent Lott and Harry Reid.  Now add Helen Thomas.

So apparently it’s OK to make racist/prejudiced comments, especially if it is only Jews that are being smeared.

Helen Thomas was recently videotaped saying Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and go back to Germany and Poland, so of course Obama came to her defense today saying that she has had “a remarkable career.”

I’m sure it pained Obama to even have to publicly disagree with her comments of Jews.

Arizona immigration law

Posted: 7th June 2010 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in General Politics

I was reading ESPN magazine the other day and was reading the “Two-Way” column by Stuart Scott.  In the column, he was asked by a reader

“Should MLB remove the All Star game from Arizona if they keep their new immigration law?”

Well, my wife accidentally threw my magazine out, so I don’t have his exact response, and I can’t seem to find it online anywhere.  Basically, he said that they should definitely take a look at the law and possibly remove the All Star game in response to the law.  He also said something about the fact that they should probably remove the All Star game because of the fact that the MLB is made up of a lot of immigrants.

This is a common theme that I’ve seen a lot among MLB players/coaches, etc.  First of all though, these opponents to the immigration law get one thing wrong – just because someone is against illegal immigration does not mean that they are against immigration in general.  Everyone in America is an immigrant in some form.  We understand that.  We support that.  We love that about America.  A group of people immigrated to what is now America in order to live in a place where they could have all of the freedoms that we enjoy today, and damn it that is what they did.  So not everyone that opposes illegal immigration is against immigration in all forms.  But that is an easy accusation to throw around, just like it’s easy for people to say that if you disagree with Obama then you are a racist.

I’ve said time and time again, it needs to be harder to get into America illegally and easier to get into America legally.

Anyway, to be honest, I really don’t see where these guys are coming from.  They are going about this all wrong.  The law in Arizona is not even really a law – it’s already illegal for someone to be in America illegally. Right?  Get it?  All Arizona is saying is that they are going to do what many other states and the country as a whole are not doing, and that is enforce that law.  So these MLB players (and other opponents to the law) are suggesting that laws should not be enforced?

If they disagree with this “law,” they should be out pushing for the removal of any type of immigration policy in America.  They should be supporting a policy where anyone and everyone can enter America and do so legally, because if they are against a policy of enforcing immigration laws then that is what they support.

Really, to be honest, I’m not even 100% sure where I stand on this law.  On one hand, I think illegal immigration is a big problem and something definitely needs to be done about it.  However, I’m definitely not a member of the “papers please” crowd.  I don’t really have a full understanding on what process the Arizona law is going to have in place for finding out who is illegal and who is not.  And I’m really not sure what is the right way.  But I’m also not like these others who hear “immigration law enforcement” and start screaming RACIST! and so on.

Absence from the blog, oil spill, etc.

Posted: 2nd June 2010 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in Uncategorized

I’ve been absent from the blog for quite a while now.

As I’ve said before, I’ve got a new job and a new baby, both of which prevent me from blogging as much in various ways.

Also, to be honest, there really just hasn’t been too much in the news of interest to me lately.  Maybe I’ve just been out of the loop, but just about one of the only things I am hearing/reading about lately is the oil spill, and I really just don’t have a whole lot to say about that.

I’m by no means an environmentalist, but I do care a lot about nature and our environment, so yea I do think the oil spill sucks.  It sucks that all of the animals are being pointlessly harmed, it sucks that the fishing trade is being harmed, it sucks that the ocean, our beaches, marshes, etc. are being damaged.  It all sucks.

I do support drilling for our own oil though, as I dislike the dependence that we have on foreign oil.  So it’s sort of like a “hey, what can ya do?” situation for me.  I hate that this disaster is occurring, but it was an accident that occurred while we were doing something that is important and necessary for us as a country.  Hopefully there will be new technology in the future that will be helpful in preventing things like this in the future (and creating a new energy source as well?).

Anyway, I haven’t stopped blogging forever, or forgotten about my site, I just have been busy and a bit disinterested as of late.

President Obama, what does “teabagger” mean?

Posted: 4th May 2010 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in General Politics

I’ve said it time and time again, but why are the politicians who use the term “teabagger” never asked to explain what it means?  (yes I know the answer is because they are liberal Democrats)

Obama is now using the term publicly, according to the Washington Times.

The term “tea-bagger” is like uttering the “n” word, some say. Though he aspires to promote civility, evidence has surfaced that President Obama has added “tea-bagger” to his public lexicon, though it’s considered a cheap and tawdry insult by “tea party” activists.

How could anyone not consider it a “cheap and tawdry insult?”  Anyone who knows what the term means knows that it is a “cheap and tawdry insult,” you idiot (whoever wrote this article, don’t feel like re-opening the link to find out).

I can’t remember any other time that it was perfectly OK for politicians to publicly use such a foul, crude, sexual term and not be questioned about it, but hey, there have been a lot of firsts with this administration.

Oops! Stimulus was a waste of money!

Posted: 3rd May 2010 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in General Politics

Amazingly, this was found on CNN.  This is something else that is about a week old, but again, I’m running way behind on time with both a new job and a new baby.

Anyway,

The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government’s stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years — but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.

So basically, like we all know and predicted, the ~$750 billion spent on the “stimulus” has done nothing and has little to no effect on the economy and its “recovery.”  This can also be seen in a study by Gallup that shows the creation of jobs by the Federal Government significantly outpaces the private sector.

So basically Obama’s effect so far, both with the stimulus and other legislation, has been to shrink the private sector and grow the government.  And don’t think that this just happened to be a side effect of his actions – it is the goal.

Obama plays race card

Posted: 3rd May 2010 by Scott @ The Right of a Nation in General Politics

I know I’m way behind on this, but I just wanted to make note of it.

As commented on at Politico, Obama has gotten desperate and come out and openly played the race card by calling on “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Big surprise, but he somehow left out middle aged and older white people.  I guess technically maybe he did include young white people though, but I guess that is questionable.  He really could have been more direct though by just coming out and saying “white people, I am not interested in your vote and plan on doing nothing you should want to vote for anyway.”

Obviously though this isn’t big news in the media.  It’s what the self hating white liberals love.  Actually, some of them may read that quote and say “wait a second, that’s really weird and seems really wrong for him to say.  Oh well though, he’s a liberal Democrat so I agree with whatever he says!  And anyway, he’s so charismatic!”