Think and Grow

This is a trick question. If you are a person of knowledge, you will understand that Ted Kennedy was infinitely more deadly than all the legal Assault rifles in the US.

But let's here your opinions, be they informed or otherwise.

Assume that you want to drive it to the battle.

There is an article about how the stimulus package will save 3.5 million jobs, and then it becomes clear that that is but a bit of double speak. A bit later in the article it says that the unemployment rate will be higher than expected at the exact same time these jobs were saved. Do we need Mr Smith to revise some statistics to bring things into line?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090511/ts_nm/us_usa_s...

Read this article. It details the power that Obama now has over a major US Corporation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_chrysler_analysis

I can see him doing this to GM as well, and then driving Ford out of business (after all we only really need two car companies).

Next will be the banks, and so on. Will we be seeing Obama's five year plan next year?

By the way, the Senate is moving to control the what foods can be in the schools. No more Assault foods such as twinkies and ding-dongs.

Think about those 300 to 500 yard shots across canyons. Needless to say, the gun is in the A6 configuration so that it can be used without a pintle mount. The belt would be limited to the number of cartridges permitted under the state law.

A hunting rifle mounted with a scope is fully as powerful as a sniper rifle, fully as accurate, and with off the shelf ammo just a capable of penetrating body armor at long range. What then is the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle? To me, they are one and the same.

Of course, we all know that a hunting rifle with a max effective range of 500 yards is far less more dangerous than an "oh my god, it has a bayonet assault rifle" with a max effective range of 200 yards.

Do you thing that a 1919a6 fitted out with a scope would be a good gun to hunt mule deer with in the canyons above Los Angeles? They have a nice heavy barrel, come with a built in bi-pod and are very accurate. The 30/06 should be good at the 200 to 300 yard ranges where good shots happen in this area. Of course, you would use five round belts.

Mr. Carter has recently published his opinion on "assault rifles" in a article published in the NY Times.

In the article, he talks about how bad assault rifles are because they can be used to shoot through police body armor. It seems to me that he is being somewhat hypocritical, as he admits to owning two sniper rifles and two handguns. The sniper rifles (scoped high power hunting rifles) can punch through body armor at more than twice the range of the 7.62x39 cartridge. The handgun is according to Brady the choice of criminals worldwide.

I'm sure that if asked Mr Carter would be more than willing to give up his weapons of criminal choice, those being his hunting rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Here's his article, read his position for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27Carter...

So, do you think that he is perhaps just mirroring the party line?

The lead of the story from AP:

Barack Obama's Kenyan aunt lost her bid for asylum more than four years ago, and a judge ordered her deported. Instead, Zeituni Onyango stayed, living for years in public housing.

Here's the full article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090331/ap_on_re_us/ob...

Should he deport her?

Should he put her in prison for staying illegally and then deport her?

Should she be made to pay back the money that she has stolen from you and I by living in public housing on welfare?

Should she be held as a spy and shot?

Does this family understand that laws are supposed to be obeyed?

What do you think?

As we all know, due to the Obama / Peliosi fears gun and ammo prices are through the roof. My question is should I sell my some of my guns and ammo at this time, then replace the stuff after the prices fall. Since it is reasonably clear that no real anti-gun legislation is apt to occur before the supplies catch up with demand, do you feel that this would be a wise move in my investment portfolio?

We all know that the problem in the housing / mortgage market relates to the price of homes having fallen to less than half of what they at the peak of the housing bubble. Now banks are choked with mortgages for overpriced homes that can't be sold without a substantial loss. Given what we are seeing with government spending, it appears that Obama and the Democrats have decided on a tried and true fix, double digit inflation.

History has shown us that when governments spend in abandon to levels far above the tax income, rampant inflation sets in. This has been seen time and again. Given that this will happen with this round of spending, we will soon see the inflation rate in double digits. The net effect will be to devalue the overpriced housing market, and on paper make these assets look good.

Do you feel that Obama and the Democrats should be fixing the economy in this manner?

The story is about a high profile murder in London. One of the actors in the Harry Potter series was killed by a man with two kitchen knives. Banning guns in England has clearly not stopped the killing, so should they now ban knives in the name of public safety?

Of course, they could just ban assault knives, you know, the ones with points and sharp edges.

If he does he will most likely add a few more layers of government to the process, but what will this tax plan do to you?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01...

Here's the exact letters he has sent:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_De...

The fun thing is that he pushes the nuclear option, and yet that in it self leads to global warming, the heat generated ends up warming the planet.

Given his background and the things we are seeing, what do you think?

In this last election cycle, there was a great deal of controversy over the actions of groups such as Acorn. As most people know, getting a voter registration card is very easy in many parts of the country.

The identity requirements in California are this:

• A first-time voter who registers by mail must submit a COPY of one of the following documents with his or her absentee ballot:

1) current and valid photo identification;

OR

2) current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.

Basically, give them a name, and address, and a utility bill in that name and address. The utility companies do not verify identity, and so the name can be completely false.

Given how easy it is to generate a fake voter ID, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the real citizens of this country to require a federal background check? The procedure would be to verify the social security number with the three credit bureaus, and then do a criminal search to insure that they are not a felon. That criminal search could be done with the same instant background check system used to buy a gun, it’s in place and available.

Given his history, we already know that Obama and Pelosi will put draconian restrictions on firearms in the next two years. For those of you who doubt that, remember that Obama stated that he couldn't because he did not have the votes. Well, he does now.

So the question becomes, when will he follow what the English and Aussie have done, ban guns, then ban air guns, and then ban toy guns. Will he be able to get this done in the first two years? What do you think?

I think I have found the change Obama promised. Of course, this will only line his pockets, but it is change. I'm sure that none of these companies would attempt to issue these without his permission, and payment to him.

Is this how we want our President to act? I see this sort of things from dictators.

http://www.officialobamacoin.com/?MID=523702

https://www.obamacoins.tv/flare/next?tag=ED|SM|GO|...

http://www.franklinmint.com/product1.aspx?SID=2&Pr...

It seems that the only change that Obama is bringing to Washington is the insider cronies of the Democrat party. These are the very same people that have been in power in the Congress for years. Where is the change, where will the new thinking come from. All we will get out of the people that he is putting in place are the same old ideas. I do believe that Mr. Obama lied to us with his Promise of change. The only change I see here is to the Communist party.

As we all know, spreading the wealth around just thins it out to where everyone is broke.

Obama has promised that he will not ban guns, but whenever he makes such a promise, he always attaches qualifiers that negate his promise. I have seen him make the statement, "Don't worry, I won't take your guns, and even if I did, I don't have the votes." The problem is this, he may well have a condition in both the House and Senate where he has enough votes to block a filibuster. Under those conditions, I wonder if he will be able to restrain his past anti gun background and not violate the constitution.