Soap Box Ravings learned two totally useless facts today from his local radio station.
1. 12 black robed protesters (you got it, that's twelve protesters) protested the Iraq War today in Washington, DC. ( I saw more protesters than that here in my hometown and ZipSkinny.com says our total population is 4669) and
2. On the day that President William Jefferson Clinton stained Monica Lewinsky's dress in the White House, his wife, Hillary Clinton was present in the White House all day long.
With all of the problems related to the economy, energy, the war in Iraq and a Congress that couldn't pour pi** out of a boot the media wastes their time and mine with the above facts. God help this country.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama "Says Now" He Condemns His Pastor's Remarks
Soap Box Ravings has attended a number of churches in the sixty plus years of his life. However, in order to attend a church for any length of time Soap Box Ravings must believe in the basic tenets being put forth by his Pastor.
A fire and brimstone speech by a Pastor trying to spread the gospel is expected and much different than a preacher saying "God Damn the United States" from his or her pulpit while preaching.
Soap Box Ravings notes the Senator Obama has attended the church with the same Pastor for a number of years. Based upon my thought patterns, since the Senator has donated large sums of money to the church, this indicates to me that the Senator believes in what his Pastor is saying and what that Pastor's church is doing.
Another interesting point is that this church is described as a "Mega-Church" so it would appear there are many others who feel the same way the Pastor feels. Even if the Pastor is just beating the drums to expand his flock and make money, the fact is people are joining and paying. One of those is Senator Barack Obama.
Additionally there is the statement by Senator Obama's wife that she was never proud of her country until her husband ran for the Presidential nomination. By the way, she also attends the same church.
Soap Box Ravings really doesn't care what that Pastor preaches or who believes him unless of course they are a politician running for President of the United States.
Soap Box Ravings almost forgot a couple of his MOST TELLING observations of Senator Obama's speech.
Look at the presentation, the Senator seems to have gone overboard on the number of flags used in his speech. But I guess if you can't really act like a patriot, surrounded by enough flags maybe some folks will at least think you look the part.
However, the second picture, the close-up is most telling. The Senator damn sure is not bothered with any of those US Flag lapel pins. And that folks is what happens when you pander to the crowd or try to play a role that really isn't you. It's not his fault, his aides let him come on stage again without a US Flag lapel pin so he could remind us of how poorly we have done, how his foul-mouthed Pastor is family, and how he, Senator Obama is going to save us.
God help this country!
The full article (Obama Condems Pastor's Remarks) is available at: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-condemns-pastors-remarks/20080318065409990001
A fire and brimstone speech by a Pastor trying to spread the gospel is expected and much different than a preacher saying "God Damn the United States" from his or her pulpit while preaching.
Soap Box Ravings notes the Senator Obama has attended the church with the same Pastor for a number of years. Based upon my thought patterns, since the Senator has donated large sums of money to the church, this indicates to me that the Senator believes in what his Pastor is saying and what that Pastor's church is doing.
Another interesting point is that this church is described as a "Mega-Church" so it would appear there are many others who feel the same way the Pastor feels. Even if the Pastor is just beating the drums to expand his flock and make money, the fact is people are joining and paying. One of those is Senator Barack Obama.
Additionally there is the statement by Senator Obama's wife that she was never proud of her country until her husband ran for the Presidential nomination. By the way, she also attends the same church.
Soap Box Ravings really doesn't care what that Pastor preaches or who believes him unless of course they are a politician running for President of the United States.
Soap Box Ravings almost forgot a couple of his MOST TELLING observations of Senator Obama's speech.
Look at the presentation, the Senator seems to have gone overboard on the number of flags used in his speech. But I guess if you can't really act like a patriot, surrounded by enough flags maybe some folks will at least think you look the part.
However, the second picture, the close-up is most telling. The Senator damn sure is not bothered with any of those US Flag lapel pins. And that folks is what happens when you pander to the crowd or try to play a role that really isn't you. It's not his fault, his aides let him come on stage again without a US Flag lapel pin so he could remind us of how poorly we have done, how his foul-mouthed Pastor is family, and how he, Senator Obama is going to save us.
God help this country!
The full article (Obama Condems Pastor's Remarks) is available at: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-condemns-pastors-remarks/20080318065409990001
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Another Zealot Self-Destructs
NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer blew it but says his failure is a "personal" matter
Soap Box Ravings thinks perhaps Governor Spitzer's paid friend may have done that for him. I would almost bet that one of his "idols" is named "Slick Willy.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
One Of Obama's Stories
This information below is taken from Obama's Curious Tale
By Jack Kelly published on February 23, 2008. The complete article may be found at Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_curious_tale.html.
The author, Jack Kelly is a former Marine who later went into the Army and became a Green Beret. After his military service, he was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan Administration. Mr. Kelly has the military background and experience to make this call.
Basically, this is the story:
During a debate with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama referred to "an Army captain who was head of a rifle platoon which is supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon, Who "ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 soldiers because 15 of his soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier for them to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."
Soap Box Ravings says Obama appears to have the total story confused. Even if the unit was missing 15 soldiers how would that cause a lack of ammo, Humvees or weapons.
The author points out that Rifle Platoons are not commanded by a captain. They are normally commanded by a lieutenant, usually a second lieutenant.
The heart of Sen. Obama's charge is that the captain's platoon was cannibalized in order to send soldiers to Iraq. The Army does have a program called "cross leveling" where soldiers from units which are not deploying are sent to units which are to bring them up to full strength. But the Army emphatically denies taking soldiers from units which are scheduled to deploy to a combat zone to give them to other units. This would be insane.
Senator Obama also said, "As a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees..."
Soldiers on a mission carry a basic load of ammunition, typically seven magazines (210 rounds). It's possible to for undisciplined soldiers to burn through this quite rapidly in a firefight. Soldiers can run low on ammo until they are resupplied, but this has nothing to do with the adequacy of ammunition stocks in theater. There has never been a shortage of ammunition in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Senator further said, "They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."
Soap Box Ravings feels the above statement by Senator Obama makes absolutely no sense from any angle. A soldier in an emergency will defend themselves with any weapon they can get their hands on. However, their supply system is not set up to provide ammunition or repair parts for enemy weapons. It would be crazy to try to use the enemies weapons for any extended period of time.
Units don't deploy to Afghanistan with their stateside vehicles. Afghanistan is 8,000miles from the U.S., in a mountainous region far from seaports. It's hard to ship stuff there. So unnecessary stuff isn't shipped. Units arriving in theater receive the equipment that was being used by the units they are replacing.
Even though he's a member of Congress, Sen. Obama seems to be unaware that it is him and his peers who fund the military. If Sen. Obama thinks the military is inadequately supplied, he should take it up with his Democratic colleagues, who routinely cut the president's defense budget requests.
Soap Box Ravings also feels that Senator Obama has really not thought out his position. He sounds like a lot of our population who want to point out problems that relate to others, while denying any personal responsibility or ownership of the problem that he has just identified. The truly scay part of this is the fact that Senator Obama is seeking the Democratic nomination for the Office of The President.
When ABC's Jake Tapper tracked down Sen. Obama's captain, he found out the Captain 's ammunition complaint was in regards to a shortage of ammo for his heavy machine guns and grenade launchers while training at Fort Drum before deployment, not in Afghanistan. This is a rather different story from the one Sen. Obama
By Jack Kelly published on February 23, 2008. The complete article may be found at Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obamas_curious_tale.html.
The author, Jack Kelly is a former Marine who later went into the Army and became a Green Beret. After his military service, he was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan Administration. Mr. Kelly has the military background and experience to make this call.
Basically, this is the story:
During a debate with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama referred to "an Army captain who was head of a rifle platoon which is supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon, Who "ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 soldiers because 15 of his soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier for them to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."
Soap Box Ravings says Obama appears to have the total story confused. Even if the unit was missing 15 soldiers how would that cause a lack of ammo, Humvees or weapons.
The author points out that Rifle Platoons are not commanded by a captain. They are normally commanded by a lieutenant, usually a second lieutenant.
The heart of Sen. Obama's charge is that the captain's platoon was cannibalized in order to send soldiers to Iraq. The Army does have a program called "cross leveling" where soldiers from units which are not deploying are sent to units which are to bring them up to full strength. But the Army emphatically denies taking soldiers from units which are scheduled to deploy to a combat zone to give them to other units. This would be insane.
Senator Obama also said, "As a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees..."
Soldiers on a mission carry a basic load of ammunition, typically seven magazines (210 rounds). It's possible to for undisciplined soldiers to burn through this quite rapidly in a firefight. Soldiers can run low on ammo until they are resupplied, but this has nothing to do with the adequacy of ammunition stocks in theater. There has never been a shortage of ammunition in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
The Senator further said, "They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."
Soap Box Ravings feels the above statement by Senator Obama makes absolutely no sense from any angle. A soldier in an emergency will defend themselves with any weapon they can get their hands on. However, their supply system is not set up to provide ammunition or repair parts for enemy weapons. It would be crazy to try to use the enemies weapons for any extended period of time.
Units don't deploy to Afghanistan with their stateside vehicles. Afghanistan is 8,000miles from the U.S., in a mountainous region far from seaports. It's hard to ship stuff there. So unnecessary stuff isn't shipped. Units arriving in theater receive the equipment that was being used by the units they are replacing.
Even though he's a member of Congress, Sen. Obama seems to be unaware that it is him and his peers who fund the military. If Sen. Obama thinks the military is inadequately supplied, he should take it up with his Democratic colleagues, who routinely cut the president's defense budget requests.
Soap Box Ravings also feels that Senator Obama has really not thought out his position. He sounds like a lot of our population who want to point out problems that relate to others, while denying any personal responsibility or ownership of the problem that he has just identified. The truly scay part of this is the fact that Senator Obama is seeking the Democratic nomination for the Office of The President.
When ABC's Jake Tapper tracked down Sen. Obama's captain, he found out the Captain 's ammunition complaint was in regards to a shortage of ammo for his heavy machine guns and grenade launchers while training at Fort Drum before deployment, not in Afghanistan. This is a rather different story from the one Sen. Obama
Monday, February 25, 2008
Armed Citizens vs Armed Guards
OPINION IN BRIEF
“Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages:
a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of [Northern Illinois University] has promised to do);
b) making guns much harder to obtain; or
c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?
Because political correctness has replaced wisdom at nearly all universities, colleges are considering options a and b.
But the only thing the first option will accomplish is to reduce the quality of university life and render the campus a larger version of the contemporary airport.
And the second option will have no effect whatsoever since whoever wishes to commit murder will be able to obtain guns illegally.
But if would-be murderers know that anywhere they go to kill students, there is a real likelihood that one or two students will shoot them first, and if in fact some would-be murderer is killed before he can murder any, or at least many, students, we will see far fewer such attempts made. Even though many of these murderers end up killing themselves, they don’t want to die until they have first murdered as many students and teachers as possible.
Of course, there is virtually no chance that the uniformly left-thinking individuals who run our universities will ever consider this option. To do so would mean abandoning what is essentially a religious-like conviction that guns are immoral rather than the people who use them immorally.” —Dennis Prager
Copied from the PatriotPost.US, 25 February, 2008
Soap Box Ravings agrees with Dennis Prager regarding college campuses. However, Soap Box Ravings believes the problem is broader and affects much more than just college campuses. The problem also includes shopping malls, worksites, and any other place where large groups of people congegrate. Historically, the majority of shooters in this country seem to have been seeking "suicide by cop." The reason they shoot others is to force the police into action. However, the arriving police do not know whether there is a "suicide by cop" action in progress or a terrorist action in progress and many people can be killed or injured while the police evaluate the situation.
A lawfully armed citizen only has to realize that his or her life, or the life of another is in mortal danger to react. They are on scene, have knowledge of what is going on and the means to stop or at least defect the concentration of the evildoer. An arriving police officer does not have that information and it takes time to gain information.
Many people believe that the gun rather than the shooter is immoral. Many people also believe that any problems they have are caused by other people and it is up to the government to solve all of their problems.
If the government were to provide armed protection at all times and locations for all people, how would it be decided who carried the gun and who was protected. If your protected, does that make you elite. What happens when you guard doesn't come to work one day?
On duty, Soap Box Ravings Bodyguard poised for instant action
“Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages:
a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of [Northern Illinois University] has promised to do);
b) making guns much harder to obtain; or
c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?
Because political correctness has replaced wisdom at nearly all universities, colleges are considering options a and b.
But the only thing the first option will accomplish is to reduce the quality of university life and render the campus a larger version of the contemporary airport.
And the second option will have no effect whatsoever since whoever wishes to commit murder will be able to obtain guns illegally.
But if would-be murderers know that anywhere they go to kill students, there is a real likelihood that one or two students will shoot them first, and if in fact some would-be murderer is killed before he can murder any, or at least many, students, we will see far fewer such attempts made. Even though many of these murderers end up killing themselves, they don’t want to die until they have first murdered as many students and teachers as possible.
Of course, there is virtually no chance that the uniformly left-thinking individuals who run our universities will ever consider this option. To do so would mean abandoning what is essentially a religious-like conviction that guns are immoral rather than the people who use them immorally.” —Dennis Prager
Copied from the PatriotPost.US, 25 February, 2008
Soap Box Ravings agrees with Dennis Prager regarding college campuses. However, Soap Box Ravings believes the problem is broader and affects much more than just college campuses. The problem also includes shopping malls, worksites, and any other place where large groups of people congegrate. Historically, the majority of shooters in this country seem to have been seeking "suicide by cop." The reason they shoot others is to force the police into action. However, the arriving police do not know whether there is a "suicide by cop" action in progress or a terrorist action in progress and many people can be killed or injured while the police evaluate the situation.
A lawfully armed citizen only has to realize that his or her life, or the life of another is in mortal danger to react. They are on scene, have knowledge of what is going on and the means to stop or at least defect the concentration of the evildoer. An arriving police officer does not have that information and it takes time to gain information.
Many people believe that the gun rather than the shooter is immoral. Many people also believe that any problems they have are caused by other people and it is up to the government to solve all of their problems.
If the government were to provide armed protection at all times and locations for all people, how would it be decided who carried the gun and who was protected. If your protected, does that make you elite. What happens when you guard doesn't come to work one day?
On duty, Soap Box Ravings Bodyguard poised for instant action
Why Does A Cycle Seem To Repeat Itself?
LIBERTY
"The massively cruel and ruinous communistic experiment of the Soviet Empire would not have been necessary if philosophers and intellectuals had not ignored a basic truth about human nature:
Human beings, as a derivative of the instinct to survive, are innately driven to act in their own self interest. Notwithstanding propaganda, conditioning or brute force, any government or institution which runs head on against the grain of this basic human drive is doomed to fail.
We seem not to have learned a basic lesson of history:
Capitalism harnesses human self interest; socialism exhausts itself trying to kill it. The bureaucrats, who seize and dole out other people’s assets, initially see themselves as humanitarians. Eventually, they conclude they are indeed superior to others, and treat themselves accordingly. They make laws to which they are not subject; they vote themselves and their wards privileges and benefits. Then, they no longer serve—they rule a nation of the government, by the government and for the government." —Linda Bowles
Copied from the PatriotPost.US, 25 February 2008 Patriot Vol. 08 No. 09
"The massively cruel and ruinous communistic experiment of the Soviet Empire would not have been necessary if philosophers and intellectuals had not ignored a basic truth about human nature:
Human beings, as a derivative of the instinct to survive, are innately driven to act in their own self interest. Notwithstanding propaganda, conditioning or brute force, any government or institution which runs head on against the grain of this basic human drive is doomed to fail.
We seem not to have learned a basic lesson of history:
Capitalism harnesses human self interest; socialism exhausts itself trying to kill it. The bureaucrats, who seize and dole out other people’s assets, initially see themselves as humanitarians. Eventually, they conclude they are indeed superior to others, and treat themselves accordingly. They make laws to which they are not subject; they vote themselves and their wards privileges and benefits. Then, they no longer serve—they rule a nation of the government, by the government and for the government." —Linda Bowles
Copied from the PatriotPost.US, 25 February 2008 Patriot Vol. 08 No. 09
Friday, February 22, 2008
Todays Quote
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.' " -Phelps Adams
Found in the U.S. Concealed Carry Armed American Report on 02-22-08
Found in the U.S. Concealed Carry Armed American Report on 02-22-08
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Problem Solved
Soap Box Ravings says Blogger appears to have solved their Spell Check problem. They have eliminated the Spell Check function. I, for one would prefer to have spell check than the ability to translate my blog into a foreign language. Perhaps words in foreign languages do not require proper spelling like English does.
WAY TO GO NAVY, FANTASTIC SHOT BY THE USS LAKE ERIE (CG-70)
The USS Lake Erie (CG-70), launched a SM-3 missile designed to knock down incoming missiles (not orbiting satellites) at 10:26 p.m. EST. The Lake Erie hit the school bus sized target about three minutes later as the spacecraft traveled in polar orbit at more than 22 times the speed of sound or about 17,000 mph. Talk about wingshooting!
The three-stage SM-3 Navy missile has been very successful in a series of tests since 2002. The previous tests targeted short- or medium-range ballistic missile but never a satellite. The Navy had to adapt the SM-3 programming for this shot. Navy officials have said the changes would be reversed once this satellite was down.
Soap Box Ravings is proud of his shipmates. Taking out a target moving 22 times the speed of sound is some truly awesome shooting. The bad part of the shot is that it reveals a little more of our potiential to countries, who for whatever reason, worry about us. For example, I am sure we will soon hear comments from Russia and Communist China among others. They will use this feat to ratchet up their weapons requirements regardless of the fact that this was done to prevent possible injury to people on the ground.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Barak OBama Needs You To Believe
A Houston campaign office for Barack Obama displayed the Cuban flag with the murderous Che Guevara superimposed.Soap Box Ravings hopes those who support Obama's idea of change actually spend some effort to figure out what his stated changes are going to be.
While researching, perhaps they could enlighten me on the actual accomplishments of Senator Obama or Senator Clinton for that matter. Senators Obama and Clinton seem to be fairly matched on their accomplishments which in each case seem to be minimal. Although Clinton may have actually slept with a President.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Some People Should Not Be Allowed Firearms
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin points an AR-15 pattern rifle at Chief of Police Warren Riley during a press conference on Tuesday, 12 February.The rifle was part of $6 million in new equipment purchases for the New Orleans Police Department and fires a .223 bullet at 3300 feet per second.
Mayor Nagin is infamous for ordering the New Orleans Police Department to seize the guns of law-abiding citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to make the city safer.
Soap Box Ravings (who qualifed as a firearms instructor in the US Navy and again while a police officer) says this is another picture of an elite anti-gun person who feels that elementary safety precautions do not apply to them. Luckily he does not have his finger on the trigger. And, of course, the Chief of Police (who by definition is also a politician) is laughing at his bosses joke while there is a rifle muzzle pointed at his midsection.
Another infamous antigun line:
Only the police and military should be allowed to have guns!
There are more pictures at: http://patriotpost.us/news/nagins_got_a_gun.asp
Thursday, February 14, 2008
"Brief, Rapid-fire Assault"
Soap Box Ravings says this is the description of todays (02-14-08) shooting at Northern Illinois State University today.
This is also the description of any shooting with malice incident anywhere, military or civilian. You are very lucky if you see the shooter and/or the gun before they start shooting. The name of their game is not to fight fair but to kill, terrorize and finally memorialize themselves in the evening news. Following that, they quite often kill themselves so they can avoid punishment.
The antigun folks want all firearms restricted to police and military. In last weeks shooting Kirkwood, Missouri was initiated when the gunman shot and killed a police officer in the parking lot. He then armed himself with the police officer's firearm which increased his firepower immensely. The shooter went from having a revolver to now having a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol.
As a police officer firearms instructor I trained my peers to realize every call, every interaction involved a firearm; at the very least theirs. I repeatedly told them if a bad guy wants a gun all he needs to do is call a police officer. The officer will be wearing one when he or she arrives. And often, they are not expecting someone to take it away from them.
By the time the police, university or anyone else could get the word out this shooter was done with his mission. Cell phone notifications, pa announcements and calling the police mostly take place in the time it takes to fire XX number of bullets and believe me you can not count that fast much less call or answer your cell phone.
I don't even have to ask, but my guess this is another "GUN FREE ZONE".
How is it working for you!
This is also the description of any shooting with malice incident anywhere, military or civilian. You are very lucky if you see the shooter and/or the gun before they start shooting. The name of their game is not to fight fair but to kill, terrorize and finally memorialize themselves in the evening news. Following that, they quite often kill themselves so they can avoid punishment.
The antigun folks want all firearms restricted to police and military. In last weeks shooting Kirkwood, Missouri was initiated when the gunman shot and killed a police officer in the parking lot. He then armed himself with the police officer's firearm which increased his firepower immensely. The shooter went from having a revolver to now having a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol.
As a police officer firearms instructor I trained my peers to realize every call, every interaction involved a firearm; at the very least theirs. I repeatedly told them if a bad guy wants a gun all he needs to do is call a police officer. The officer will be wearing one when he or she arrives. And often, they are not expecting someone to take it away from them.
By the time the police, university or anyone else could get the word out this shooter was done with his mission. Cell phone notifications, pa announcements and calling the police mostly take place in the time it takes to fire XX number of bullets and believe me you can not count that fast much less call or answer your cell phone.
I don't even have to ask, but my guess this is another "GUN FREE ZONE".
How is it working for you!
Monday, February 11, 2008
For Some The Learning Curve is Much Longer Than Others
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
by William J. H. Boetcker, 1916
Soap Box Ravings says these quotes are 92 year old secret information. Many folks in this country do not believe any of the lines quoted above. Actually non-believers prefer to operate either under the newer theory that if a big enough lie is shouted long enough and loud enough it will become true. Well not of course, if your talking about the Law Of Gravity. Or the other popular theory where you restate your past actions in the best possible light regardless of what they actually were.
Twist the facts loudly.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
by William J. H. Boetcker, 1916
Soap Box Ravings says these quotes are 92 year old secret information. Many folks in this country do not believe any of the lines quoted above. Actually non-believers prefer to operate either under the newer theory that if a big enough lie is shouted long enough and loud enough it will become true. Well not of course, if your talking about the Law Of Gravity. Or the other popular theory where you restate your past actions in the best possible light regardless of what they actually were.
Twist the facts loudly.
Friday, February 08, 2008
The Law Of Unintended Consequences, Again
From The Patriot Post, 02-08-08, more at: http://patriotpost.us/
In recent weeks, environmentalist groups are realizing Federal biofuel and ethanol mandates have the potential to do far more harm than good.
Initially the idea made a fair amount of sense; use a portion of our abundant corn crops to produce ethanol as an alternative to oil. Thereby reducing greenhouse emissions, in addition to reducing our reliance on foreign oil.
Pressured by the environmentalist folks and their allies, the federal government enacted a series of ethanol subsidies. Thereby causing market confusion with unpredictable and changing government mandates and subsidies.
Farm subsidies are sacred to politicians, but the consequences of this “solution” are now obvious, and even environmentalist groups have begun to complain.
Rising demand for ethanol means a rising demand for corn and a corresponding rise in corn prices, in and out of this country. Those who eat tortillas made from corn have been particularly affected.
The resulting increase in food prices have have caused farmers to increase their land useage and causing increased environmental damage.
If America’s entire grain harvest were devoted to ethanol production, it would replace only 18 percent of our automotive demand for oil.
Most importantly, the ethanol fiasco reveals the ineptitude of centralized government when it comes to running the market. Remember, the USSR used a centralized government to control their markets among other things.
The laws of supply and demand are enough to handle our energy troubles, so long as the market is free from government interference. Otherwise, we will continue to suffer from the Law Of Unintended Consequences.
In recent weeks, environmentalist groups are realizing Federal biofuel and ethanol mandates have the potential to do far more harm than good.
Initially the idea made a fair amount of sense; use a portion of our abundant corn crops to produce ethanol as an alternative to oil. Thereby reducing greenhouse emissions, in addition to reducing our reliance on foreign oil.
Pressured by the environmentalist folks and their allies, the federal government enacted a series of ethanol subsidies. Thereby causing market confusion with unpredictable and changing government mandates and subsidies.
Farm subsidies are sacred to politicians, but the consequences of this “solution” are now obvious, and even environmentalist groups have begun to complain.
Rising demand for ethanol means a rising demand for corn and a corresponding rise in corn prices, in and out of this country. Those who eat tortillas made from corn have been particularly affected.
The resulting increase in food prices have have caused farmers to increase their land useage and causing increased environmental damage.
If America’s entire grain harvest were devoted to ethanol production, it would replace only 18 percent of our automotive demand for oil.
Most importantly, the ethanol fiasco reveals the ineptitude of centralized government when it comes to running the market. Remember, the USSR used a centralized government to control their markets among other things.
The laws of supply and demand are enough to handle our energy troubles, so long as the market is free from government interference. Otherwise, we will continue to suffer from the Law Of Unintended Consequences.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Quote
“Today, the political platforms of at least one party in the United States and pretty much every party in the rest of the Western world are nearly exclusively about... government health care, government day care, government this, government that. And if you have government health care, you not only annex a huge chunk of the economy, you also destroy a huge chunk of individual liberty.” —Mark Steyn
Soap Box Ravings is all about individual liberty. I obey the rules and try to play nice in group settings but I want to decide how to live my life and spend my money that I earned by putting my "sheepdog" life on the line around the world to protect the"sheep."
Soap Box Ravings is all about individual liberty. I obey the rules and try to play nice in group settings but I want to decide how to live my life and spend my money that I earned by putting my "sheepdog" life on the line around the world to protect the"sheep."
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Monday, February 04, 2008
Another Point To Ponder
“Washington, D.C. is a place where delusions go to thrive. That explains why Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist.” —Steve Chapman
It Is Always About William Jefferson Clinton, Whether You Like It Or Not
Clawing for a Legacy
In Charles Krauthammer's article "Clawing for a Legacy" from Friday, February 1, 2008he writes: “There was general amazement when (the now-muzzled) Bill Clinton did his red-faced, attack-dog, race-baiting performance in South Carolina. Friends, Democrats and longtime media sycophants were variously perplexed, repulsed, enraged, mystified and shocked that this beloved ex-president would so jeopardize his legacy by stooping so low. What they don’t understand is that for Clinton, there is no legacy. What he was doing on the low road from Iowa to South Carolina was fighting for a legacy—a legacy that he knows history has denied him and that he has but one chance to redeem. Clinton is a narcissist but also smart and analytic enough to distinguish adulation from achievement. Among Democrats, he is popular for twice giving them the White House, something no Democrat has done since FDR. And the bouquets he receives abroad are simply signs of the respect routinely given ex-presidents, though Clinton earns an extra dollop of fawning, with the accompanying fringe benefits, because he is (a) charming and (b) not George W. Bush. But Clinton knows this is all written on sand... Clinton knows that popularity is cheap, easily lost, easily regained. (See Lewinsky scandal.) But historical legacies are forever. He wants one, desperately. But to get it he must return to the White House. And for that he must elect his wife. At any cost."
Soap Box Ravings total digust of all things Clinton holds to this day. Today, Neal Boortz reported that Hillary "cried" again. Is it any wonder, a Clinton with tears in their eyes particularly when a camera is focused on them is to be expected. When Hillary Clinton claims to have more experience than Barack Obama this is what she is talking about. While the majority of her experience seems to be sleeping with the President she has had amny years to learn her husbands tricks of the trade (no pun intended).
The full text of Charles Krauthammer's article can be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013102627.html?sub=AR
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Another Thought To Consider
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H.L. Mencken
Soap Box Ravings is truly amazed by how government and/or politicians at any level continue to react as described by H. L. Mencken above. So much of the in-fighting takes place over "phony" issues that the real issues are never decided. For one example, read our Constitution and see how far the government has gotten into your life using "interstate commerce."
Soap Box Ravings is truly amazed by how government and/or politicians at any level continue to react as described by H. L. Mencken above. So much of the in-fighting takes place over "phony" issues that the real issues are never decided. For one example, read our Constitution and see how far the government has gotten into your life using "interstate commerce."
Friday, February 01, 2008
Thought For Today
“Every candidate who repeats the misleading nonsense that ‘47 million in America have no health care,’ ought to be challenged with hard truth. The number is grossly inflated by including millions who are here illegally and millions of others who have the means to pay for health care insurance but refuse to adjust their budget and lifestyle. And don’t expect any media type to question where in the Constitution Congress derives any authority to dispense health care.” —Janet LaRue
Soap Box Ravings wonders with government health care for all will it be mandated that those who are self-insured must use the government health insurance whether they want to or not. I doubt it. I really don't see Teddy Kennedy waiting in line in a doctor's office with all of the unemployed and social security recipients. Don't really see any high member of the government doing that.
The reason I say waiting in line is because the good doctors and surgeons will move to another country where they can charge and get reasonable fees. Think not? Have you ever wondered why such a large percentage of our doctors and surgeons are from other countries?
Although if you run enough illegal aliens through daily and the government is foots the tab I guess you could make a profit. The thought reminds me of a military sick call about 45 years ago.
Soap Box Ravings wonders with government health care for all will it be mandated that those who are self-insured must use the government health insurance whether they want to or not. I doubt it. I really don't see Teddy Kennedy waiting in line in a doctor's office with all of the unemployed and social security recipients. Don't really see any high member of the government doing that.
The reason I say waiting in line is because the good doctors and surgeons will move to another country where they can charge and get reasonable fees. Think not? Have you ever wondered why such a large percentage of our doctors and surgeons are from other countries?
Although if you run enough illegal aliens through daily and the government is foots the tab I guess you could make a profit. The thought reminds me of a military sick call about 45 years ago.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
How Much Does It Cost The Federal Government For a Presidential Election
How much does it cost the federal government for a presidential election? Much of the costs for the election are born by the candidates. Some more of the cost is paid for by the political parties themselves. And the individual states bear a large portion of the costs since they have to purchase and pay for all of the voting machines and the support systems for them.
After due thought, all other things being relatively equal from election to election, Soap Box ravings has come to the conclusion that this election is going to be the most expensive one ever for the federal government. In fact it appears that it will be about 150 Billion dollars more in new costs than any previous election which is the estimated cost of the "cookie" that mother government wants to feed selected citizens of this country.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder what costs Nancy Pelosi, the most ethical speaker of the hose ever, and her fellow party members are going to cut since they campaigned on making sure they balanced the books.
They are not the only ones feeding at the trough. It appears to be a stampede led by President Bush. It seems like every politician in Washington, DC wants to be remembered for passing out "free cookies" to the citizens of this country.
After due thought, all other things being relatively equal from election to election, Soap Box ravings has come to the conclusion that this election is going to be the most expensive one ever for the federal government. In fact it appears that it will be about 150 Billion dollars more in new costs than any previous election which is the estimated cost of the "cookie" that mother government wants to feed selected citizens of this country.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder what costs Nancy Pelosi, the most ethical speaker of the hose ever, and her fellow party members are going to cut since they campaigned on making sure they balanced the books.
They are not the only ones feeding at the trough. It appears to be a stampede led by President Bush. It seems like every politician in Washington, DC wants to be remembered for passing out "free cookies" to the citizens of this country.
Nuff Said Bout This
The Associated Press reported on 26 January, 2008 that Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion.
Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept the world guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it.
The full article is available at: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,160823,00.html?wh=news
Soap Box Ravings would file this information under the heading of "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" with subheadings under "You reap what you sow." In law enforcement this is sometimes known as "suicide by LEO."
Soap Box Ravings can not help but wonder if U. S. President's had a history of reacting quickly and firmly to world situations would Saddam have played this game. For example in the "walk softly and carry a big stick" era of Teddy Roosevelt it is hard to imagine that Saddam would have played that game. And now we have the leader if Iran, Mahmūd Ahmadinejād, pulling our chain to see how we measure up.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
When Republicans Act Like Democrats
From The Patriot Post:
“We’re all Keynesians now." So famously declared Richard Nixon back in 1971, in what we thought was a different economic era. But after [recent events], we’re not sure what decade we’re in. With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Bush both endorsing temporary tax cuts and more federal spending as ‘fiscal stimulus,’ an inflation-adjusted version of Jimmy Carter’s $50 rebate can’t be far behind. Appearing before Congress, Mr. Bernanke told Democrats what he thought they wanted to hear. The former academic economist blessed a ‘fiscal stimulus package,’ as long as it is ‘explicitly temporary.’ How new federal spending can be ‘temporary,’ he didn't say, as if a dollar collected in taxes or borrowed and then spent can be recalled. The ‘temporary’ line was thus a dagger aimed directly at the heart of Mr. Bush’s desire to make his tax cuts permanent. The Fed chief did aver that, ‘Again, I’m not taking a view one way or the other on the desirability of those long-term tax cuts being made permanent.’ But of course refusing to endorse something is itself a point of view—a point Democrats were already joyfully repeating... Instead, Mr. Bernanke embraced the explicit Keynesian notion that the government should write checks to ‘low and moderate income people,’ who will spend it quickly and thus lift consumer demand... We’re all for putting more money in the hands of the poor and moderate earners, especially via stronger economic growth that will give them better paying jobs. But the $250 or $500 one-time rebate check they may now receive has to come from somewhere. The feds will pay for it either by taxing or borrowing from someone else, and those people will have that much less to spend or invest themselves. We are thus supposed to believe it is ‘stimulating’ to take money from one pocket and hand it to another.” —The Wall Street Journal
Soap Box Ravings remains in awe and feels that even more amazing bullshit awaits us. There is an old saying that a fool and his money are soon parted. So we spend millions of dollars and the only benefit is many of the low wage earners now have a high definition television.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder if the federal government for example started to repair or maybe even increase the interstate highway system that we would reduce unemployment, get money rolling through the economy and the low income wage earners may decrease in this country. Or the federal government could hire folks to repair and or improve the National Parks System.
Spending money to create jobs would eventually result in more folks paying taxes. Just handing out money will not help anyone.
“We’re all Keynesians now." So famously declared Richard Nixon back in 1971, in what we thought was a different economic era. But after [recent events], we’re not sure what decade we’re in. With Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Bush both endorsing temporary tax cuts and more federal spending as ‘fiscal stimulus,’ an inflation-adjusted version of Jimmy Carter’s $50 rebate can’t be far behind. Appearing before Congress, Mr. Bernanke told Democrats what he thought they wanted to hear. The former academic economist blessed a ‘fiscal stimulus package,’ as long as it is ‘explicitly temporary.’ How new federal spending can be ‘temporary,’ he didn't say, as if a dollar collected in taxes or borrowed and then spent can be recalled. The ‘temporary’ line was thus a dagger aimed directly at the heart of Mr. Bush’s desire to make his tax cuts permanent. The Fed chief did aver that, ‘Again, I’m not taking a view one way or the other on the desirability of those long-term tax cuts being made permanent.’ But of course refusing to endorse something is itself a point of view—a point Democrats were already joyfully repeating... Instead, Mr. Bernanke embraced the explicit Keynesian notion that the government should write checks to ‘low and moderate income people,’ who will spend it quickly and thus lift consumer demand... We’re all for putting more money in the hands of the poor and moderate earners, especially via stronger economic growth that will give them better paying jobs. But the $250 or $500 one-time rebate check they may now receive has to come from somewhere. The feds will pay for it either by taxing or borrowing from someone else, and those people will have that much less to spend or invest themselves. We are thus supposed to believe it is ‘stimulating’ to take money from one pocket and hand it to another.” —The Wall Street Journal
Soap Box Ravings remains in awe and feels that even more amazing bullshit awaits us. There is an old saying that a fool and his money are soon parted. So we spend millions of dollars and the only benefit is many of the low wage earners now have a high definition television.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder if the federal government for example started to repair or maybe even increase the interstate highway system that we would reduce unemployment, get money rolling through the economy and the low income wage earners may decrease in this country. Or the federal government could hire folks to repair and or improve the National Parks System.
Spending money to create jobs would eventually result in more folks paying taxes. Just handing out money will not help anyone.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Pick Up Your Head And You Can See The Future Coming At You
The whole story is at US Concealed Carry: www.uscca.us/news/newsletter/burglars-have-rights-terminal-stupidity/
In an article titled "Burglars have rights too, says [British] Attorney General," Melissa Kite and Andrew Alderson discuss the rights of British householders and their governments defense of the rights of burglars.
The British Prime Minister had pledged to look again at British law with a view to giving homeowners more rights to protect themselves.
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, said that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence.
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use “reasonable force” when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.
Sir John - in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign said: “I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.
Lord Goldsmith, said “We must protect victims and law abiding citizens; but we have to recognize that others have some rights as well. They don’t lose all rights because they’re engaged in criminal conduct.”
Sir John spoke of his regret about the repercussions over the verdict on Tony Martin, the farmer who shot dead one burglar and seriously injured another during a break-in at his farm in August 1999.
There was a public outcry when Martin was found guilty at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to life in prison. The charge and sentence were later reduced to five years for manslaughter.
Sir John did not suggest that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, but added: “The Tony Martin case is unfortunate because it has skewed the debate [on the public’s right to protect their home]. But it is a fact that burglars have acted with greater confidence since the Tony Martin verdict and that has to be a matter of regret.”
Lord Goldsmith, however, warned of the dangers of using the Martin case to make bad law: “There are very few cases that have given rise to this problem. Besides Tony Martin, there’s only one I know about."
Soap Box Ravings says Tony Martin plus one equals two. It really sucks to be them. This is the condition a lot of folks in this country would like us to be in and I am disregarding the burglars and others who commit the crimes. I am only talking of our "Gun Free Zone" neighbors.
In an article titled "Burglars have rights too, says [British] Attorney General," Melissa Kite and Andrew Alderson discuss the rights of British householders and their governments defense of the rights of burglars.
The British Prime Minister had pledged to look again at British law with a view to giving homeowners more rights to protect themselves.
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, said that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence.
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use “reasonable force” when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.
Sir John - in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign said: “I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.
Lord Goldsmith, said “We must protect victims and law abiding citizens; but we have to recognize that others have some rights as well. They don’t lose all rights because they’re engaged in criminal conduct.”
Sir John spoke of his regret about the repercussions over the verdict on Tony Martin, the farmer who shot dead one burglar and seriously injured another during a break-in at his farm in August 1999.
There was a public outcry when Martin was found guilty at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to life in prison. The charge and sentence were later reduced to five years for manslaughter.
Sir John did not suggest that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, but added: “The Tony Martin case is unfortunate because it has skewed the debate [on the public’s right to protect their home]. But it is a fact that burglars have acted with greater confidence since the Tony Martin verdict and that has to be a matter of regret.”
Lord Goldsmith, however, warned of the dangers of using the Martin case to make bad law: “There are very few cases that have given rise to this problem. Besides Tony Martin, there’s only one I know about."
Soap Box Ravings says Tony Martin plus one equals two. It really sucks to be them. This is the condition a lot of folks in this country would like us to be in and I am disregarding the burglars and others who commit the crimes. I am only talking of our "Gun Free Zone" neighbors.
Freedom Of Speech Carries Certain Responsibilities
From The Patriot Post, 01-18-08, http://patriotpost.us/
’Non Compos Mentis’: Deep-fried radio
A public radio station in Utah is under fire this week after the “Fair Game with Faith Salie” program ran a skit called “Huck and the Eucharist,” which mocked Mike Huckabee’s “family recipe.” The particularly offensive part of the transcript talked about deep-frying the Eucharist, which Catholics consider to be the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Part of the transcript read, “Try this Huckabee family favorite. Deep-Fried Body of Christ—boring holy wafers no more. Take one Eucharist. Preferably post transubstantiation. Deep-fry in fat, not vegetable oil, ladies, until crispy. Serve piping hot.” Of course, the uproar was immediate and Faith Salie issued an apology several days later, but it should have been obvious that the skit was over the top before being aired. Note also that this was public radio. In other words, this skit was brought to you by the $393 million in taxpayer money that went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal 2008. As Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, pointed out, “It would have been regarded as positively intolerant if it had been written about blacks, Jews or Muslims.” In that case, no doubt Ms. Salie would be unemployed.
’Non Compos Mentis’: Deep-fried radio
A public radio station in Utah is under fire this week after the “Fair Game with Faith Salie” program ran a skit called “Huck and the Eucharist,” which mocked Mike Huckabee’s “family recipe.” The particularly offensive part of the transcript talked about deep-frying the Eucharist, which Catholics consider to be the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Part of the transcript read, “Try this Huckabee family favorite. Deep-Fried Body of Christ—boring holy wafers no more. Take one Eucharist. Preferably post transubstantiation. Deep-fry in fat, not vegetable oil, ladies, until crispy. Serve piping hot.” Of course, the uproar was immediate and Faith Salie issued an apology several days later, but it should have been obvious that the skit was over the top before being aired. Note also that this was public radio. In other words, this skit was brought to you by the $393 million in taxpayer money that went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal 2008. As Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, pointed out, “It would have been regarded as positively intolerant if it had been written about blacks, Jews or Muslims.” In that case, no doubt Ms. Salie would be unemployed.
Wind Off Nantucket
From The Patriot Post, 01-18,08, http://patriotpost.us/
To a liberal, no sacrifice is too great for someone else to bear, unless you are one of the elite such as Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy:
One of Ted Kennedy’s most hated projects is about to come to fruition: The wind farm in Nantucket Sound off the Massachusetts coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service declared that the 130 turbines could be built by Cape Wind at a cost of more than $1 billion, to be operational by 2011. The president of Cape Wind, Jim Gordon, said, “Any rational observer will understand that this project is not going to produce a negative environmental impact... This report validates that this is the right project in the right place at the right time.” Well, no one ever accused Ted Kennedy of being a rational observer. On the contrary, Kennedy suffers from NIMBYS—Not In My Back Yard Syndrome—and was vehemently opposed to this environmentally friendly solution for energy because the turbines would be (barely) visible from Kennedy’s Hyannis compound. Pity, that. On the whole, we find the whole fight between Kennedy and one of the Democrats’ most important constituent groups, environmentalists, quite amusing.
To a liberal, no sacrifice is too great for someone else to bear, unless you are one of the elite such as Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy:
One of Ted Kennedy’s most hated projects is about to come to fruition: The wind farm in Nantucket Sound off the Massachusetts coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service declared that the 130 turbines could be built by Cape Wind at a cost of more than $1 billion, to be operational by 2011. The president of Cape Wind, Jim Gordon, said, “Any rational observer will understand that this project is not going to produce a negative environmental impact... This report validates that this is the right project in the right place at the right time.” Well, no one ever accused Ted Kennedy of being a rational observer. On the contrary, Kennedy suffers from NIMBYS—Not In My Back Yard Syndrome—and was vehemently opposed to this environmentally friendly solution for energy because the turbines would be (barely) visible from Kennedy’s Hyannis compound. Pity, that. On the whole, we find the whole fight between Kennedy and one of the Democrats’ most important constituent groups, environmentalists, quite amusing.
Should Profs Pack Pistols?
My comments are referring to an article entitled, "Should Profs Pack Pistols?Virginia Tech Massacre Brings Campus Safety Duel To The Fore" By Pete Delea, 01-18-08. The complete article may be found at: www.dnronline.com/news_details.php?AID=14449&CHID=
After the Virgina Tech shootings many colleges have beefed up their security and communications procedures. Legislators, including some in Virginia, are proposing legislation to allow faculty members to carry weapons on state college campuses as long as they meet state requierements for concealed carry.
Across the country, many police officers have concerns on colleges abilities to protect students.
In Virginia, James Madison University is another college whose policies prevent anyone, staff or student from carrying guns on campus and officials want to keep it that way. JMU feels that their 36 member police department, which reviewed their polices after Virginia Tech, is adequate.
Soap Box Ravings points out that when you take a 36 person force, subtract management and then divide the bodies to cover the campus 24/7 there really is not many officers available at any given moment. SBR feels that Virginia Tech also felt their police department and procedures were adequate before the shootings.
JMU did install a new speaker system, upgrade their mass e-mailing capabilities to allow officials to send out 20,000 e-mails in a few minutes, and implement a new cell phone alert system to reach students, faculty and staff.
Soap Box Ravings says lets look at a scenario:
A pistol is pulled in a lecture hall and shooting starts. People in the area have to realize what is actually happening and call for assistance. Many 911 calls are made, the locations of the caller vary and each caller is trying to explain what they are hearing, the shooting and screaming they hear and where it is coming from. Almost immediastely the 911 operator is overwhelmed by the volume of information. All this information has to be forwarded to someone to input into e-mail and to initiate the cell phone calling procedures. If their info is not accurate people may be directed into the shooter or help may be directed away from the shooter.
By the way, Fire-Rescue does not enter a shooting scene until police have ensured the scene is safe for them.
Since the police have no idea how many shooters are involved, they have to stage themselves and prepare to enter the scene with backup to ensure officer safety. A 36 member police department is marginal in this situation if it happened when they are all at work. I can almost guarantee a 36 man department does not have 36 officers trained to work together in concert in the midst of a shooting spree. It is more likely that when the next largets department, for example the Sheriff's Office arrives, wil take over the sxcene and use their own officers to enter. Available JMU officers would most likely be used for scene confinement.
How many minutes do you guess have passed since the pistol was drawn and the first shot was fired; before police are staged and ready to enter the scene.
You pick the number of minutes. During those minutes, how many shots can be fired from a semiautomatic pistol? How much blood can a wounded person lose during this period of time. How much of the "Golden Hour" (a limited time period that a physician has to restore life functions quickly to a trauma patient. If that window of opportunity is missed, fatal brain damage or irreversible shock will occur.)
Many bureaucrats and administrators show more concern that arriving officers may accidently shoot the "Responding Citizen" when they arrive. Therefore they believe that those under fire should just wait for help to come and save them. To see how ridiculous that is ask yourself what you should do if the campus building is on fire. Is a "Responding Citizen" allowed to help put out the fire or do they all sit in the classroom and wait for direction from the Fire Department.
State concealed weapons permits are not handed out willy-nilly in any states except New Hampshire and Alaska. They don't hand them out willy-nilly, they allow everyone with no permit required to carry a concealed firearm except those prohibited by law.
After the Virgina Tech shootings many colleges have beefed up their security and communications procedures. Legislators, including some in Virginia, are proposing legislation to allow faculty members to carry weapons on state college campuses as long as they meet state requierements for concealed carry.
Across the country, many police officers have concerns on colleges abilities to protect students.
In Virginia, James Madison University is another college whose policies prevent anyone, staff or student from carrying guns on campus and officials want to keep it that way. JMU feels that their 36 member police department, which reviewed their polices after Virginia Tech, is adequate.
Soap Box Ravings points out that when you take a 36 person force, subtract management and then divide the bodies to cover the campus 24/7 there really is not many officers available at any given moment. SBR feels that Virginia Tech also felt their police department and procedures were adequate before the shootings.
JMU did install a new speaker system, upgrade their mass e-mailing capabilities to allow officials to send out 20,000 e-mails in a few minutes, and implement a new cell phone alert system to reach students, faculty and staff.
Soap Box Ravings says lets look at a scenario:
A pistol is pulled in a lecture hall and shooting starts. People in the area have to realize what is actually happening and call for assistance. Many 911 calls are made, the locations of the caller vary and each caller is trying to explain what they are hearing, the shooting and screaming they hear and where it is coming from. Almost immediastely the 911 operator is overwhelmed by the volume of information. All this information has to be forwarded to someone to input into e-mail and to initiate the cell phone calling procedures. If their info is not accurate people may be directed into the shooter or help may be directed away from the shooter.
By the way, Fire-Rescue does not enter a shooting scene until police have ensured the scene is safe for them.
Since the police have no idea how many shooters are involved, they have to stage themselves and prepare to enter the scene with backup to ensure officer safety. A 36 member police department is marginal in this situation if it happened when they are all at work. I can almost guarantee a 36 man department does not have 36 officers trained to work together in concert in the midst of a shooting spree. It is more likely that when the next largets department, for example the Sheriff's Office arrives, wil take over the sxcene and use their own officers to enter. Available JMU officers would most likely be used for scene confinement.
How many minutes do you guess have passed since the pistol was drawn and the first shot was fired; before police are staged and ready to enter the scene.
You pick the number of minutes. During those minutes, how many shots can be fired from a semiautomatic pistol? How much blood can a wounded person lose during this period of time. How much of the "Golden Hour" (a limited time period that a physician has to restore life functions quickly to a trauma patient. If that window of opportunity is missed, fatal brain damage or irreversible shock will occur.)
Many bureaucrats and administrators show more concern that arriving officers may accidently shoot the "Responding Citizen" when they arrive. Therefore they believe that those under fire should just wait for help to come and save them. To see how ridiculous that is ask yourself what you should do if the campus building is on fire. Is a "Responding Citizen" allowed to help put out the fire or do they all sit in the classroom and wait for direction from the Fire Department.
State concealed weapons permits are not handed out willy-nilly in any states except New Hampshire and Alaska. They don't hand them out willy-nilly, they allow everyone with no permit required to carry a concealed firearm except those prohibited by law.
Police: Tiger Attack Victim "Taunted" Tiger
Soap Box Ravings has to wonder if the word "Taunting" is even in a tigers vocabulary. When food of any type exhibits itself to a tiger, is the food "taunting" the tiger. This is a tiger, DUHHH!
Did the attendant that was mauled earlier while feeding that same tiger "Taunt" the tiger?
Regardless of what those kids did to "Taunt" the tiger' except for actually entering the tigers lair, the zoo should have ensured the cage was secure. And the more viciousness the tiger had exhibited previously, the more secure the cage should have been.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but believe that any wild animal, and particularly tigers, can't help evaluate each "meal" that passes their cage on two or more legs. Regardless of the behavior exhibited by the injured members of the public, the zoo was responsible for the security of the tiger.
Did the attendant that was mauled earlier while feeding that same tiger "Taunt" the tiger?
Regardless of what those kids did to "Taunt" the tiger' except for actually entering the tigers lair, the zoo should have ensured the cage was secure. And the more viciousness the tiger had exhibited previously, the more secure the cage should have been.
Soap Box Ravings can't help but believe that any wild animal, and particularly tigers, can't help evaluate each "meal" that passes their cage on two or more legs. Regardless of the behavior exhibited by the injured members of the public, the zoo was responsible for the security of the tiger.
Monday, January 14, 2008
BOHICA
Soap Box Ravings received this via e-mail today: Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel, novelist and essayist.
NAVAL ERROR IN THE GULF
by Ralph Peters
January 8, 2008 -- EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.
As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they'd soon explode.
The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.
The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?
Oh, from Washington's perspective we did the right thing by "exercising restraint." But Washington's perspective doesn't amount to a gum wrapper in a gutter. What matters is what the Iranians think.
They now believe that the Bush administration, our military and the entire United States are afraid of them.
It goes back to the politicized and irresponsible recent National Intelligence Estimate that insisted the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program years ago.
They didn't. They're pursuing enriched uranium as fast as they can. That's what you need for bombs. At most, Tehran ordered its weaponeering efforts to parade rest - until it has the ingredients it needs, after which building bombs won't take long at all.
Forget Washington's trust-fund-twit view of all this:
Here's how the train of thought rolled down the tracks in Tehran:
"The Americans have told the world we don't want nuclear weapons, even though they know we do want them. That can only mean that America is afraid to confront us, that their weak, defeated president needs an excuse to back down.
"We can push these cowardly Americans now. They've had enough in Iraq. Their spirits are broken. Their next president will run away like a gazelle pursued by a lion.
"Even their military is frightened of us. On Sunday, America's might bowed down to us. They are frightened and godless, and the time has come to push them."
Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.
At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses:
How soon do the American weapons radars activate?
At what range do the lasers begin to track targets?
How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship?
How do the Americans respond to possible mines?
Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones?
How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?
Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?
And it wasn't just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would've had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would've been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.
The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.
On Sunday, the Iranians tested us. We failed. They'll probe us again. And every time we fail to react decisively, we raise the number of future US casualties.
Remember the USS Cole?
You bet the Iranians do. They plan to better that attack by an order of magnitude.
For almost 70 years, we've deployed the finest navy in the history of the world. But it looks increasingly as if we've gone from "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" to "Will this interfere with my next promotion?"
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."
Soap Box Ravings is in complete agreement with LTC Peter's assessment of this situation. This is the way our country now appears to do business. a parallel to this happens on a daily basis in law enforcement across this country. Politicians, Chief's of Police and senior management to often worry more about their future than they do about the "Rule Of Law." It's not only in the US Navy or the military.
On the other hand, Soap Box Ravings is a firm believer in the saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone will have to pay the tab sooner or later.
NAVAL ERROR IN THE GULF
by Ralph Peters
January 8, 2008 -- EARLY Sunday morning, the US Navy lost its nerve and guaranteed that American sailors will die at Iranian hands in the future.
As three of our warships passed through the Straits of Hormuz, five small Iranian patrol craft rushed them. As the Revolutionary Guard boats neared our vessels, an Iranian officer broadcast a threat to our ships, claiming they'd soon explode.
The Iranians tossed boxes into the water. Mines? Just in case, our ships took evasive action.
The Iranians kept on coming, closing to a distance of 200 meters - about two football fields. Supposedly, our Navy was ready to open fire but didn't shoot because the Iranians turned away at the moment the order was given.
We should've sunk every one of them.
Not because we're warmongers. But because the Iranians had made threats, verbal and physical, that amounted to acts of war. When will we learn that resolute action taken early saves vast amounts of blood and treasure later?
Oh, from Washington's perspective we did the right thing by "exercising restraint." But Washington's perspective doesn't amount to a gum wrapper in a gutter. What matters is what the Iranians think.
They now believe that the Bush administration, our military and the entire United States are afraid of them.
It goes back to the politicized and irresponsible recent National Intelligence Estimate that insisted the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program years ago.
They didn't. They're pursuing enriched uranium as fast as they can. That's what you need for bombs. At most, Tehran ordered its weaponeering efforts to parade rest - until it has the ingredients it needs, after which building bombs won't take long at all.
Forget Washington's trust-fund-twit view of all this:
Here's how the train of thought rolled down the tracks in Tehran:
"The Americans have told the world we don't want nuclear weapons, even though they know we do want them. That can only mean that America is afraid to confront us, that their weak, defeated president needs an excuse to back down.
"We can push these cowardly Americans now. They've had enough in Iraq. Their spirits are broken. Their next president will run away like a gazelle pursued by a lion.
"Even their military is frightened of us. On Sunday, America's might bowed down to us. They are frightened and godless, and the time has come to push them."
Sunday's incident wasn't a one-off event improvised by the local yokels after a long Saturday night at the hookah bar. It was blessed and carefully planned in Tehran and had practical as well as political goals.
At the tactical level, the Revolutionary Guards' naval arm was testing our responses:
How soon do the American weapons radars activate?
At what range do the lasers begin to track targets?
How close can a small vessel get to a major American warship?
How do the Americans respond to possible mines?
Can we use phony mines to steer them into real ones?
How long does it take an American commander to make a decision?
Above all: Does an American commander have the courage to make a decision on his own? When he doesn't have time to deflect responsibility onto his superiors?
And it wasn't just some madrassa dropout with salt spray on his glasses scribbling notes on the lead Iranian boat. On shore, the Iranians would've had all their intelligence facilities tuned in to map our electronic profile as our ships prepared to defend themselves. Rent-a-Russian military experts would've been onhand to assist with the newest gear purchased from Moscow.
The Iranians may even have had an escalation plan, in case we opened fire. President Ahmedinejad and his posse may seem contemptible to Washington, but the Iranians think several moves ahead of us: We play checkers, they play chess.
On Sunday, the Iranians tested us. We failed. They'll probe us again. And every time we fail to react decisively, we raise the number of future US casualties.
Remember the USS Cole?
You bet the Iranians do. They plan to better that attack by an order of magnitude.
For almost 70 years, we've deployed the finest navy in the history of the world. But it looks increasingly as if we've gone from "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" to "Will this interfere with my next promotion?"
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Wars of Blood and Faith."
Soap Box Ravings is in complete agreement with LTC Peter's assessment of this situation. This is the way our country now appears to do business. a parallel to this happens on a daily basis in law enforcement across this country. Politicians, Chief's of Police and senior management to often worry more about their future than they do about the "Rule Of Law." It's not only in the US Navy or the military.
On the other hand, Soap Box Ravings is a firm believer in the saying "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone will have to pay the tab sooner or later.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The Master Speaks
On Monday, January 10, 2008 Bill Clinton accused Barack Obama of fudging his early position on the Iraq war, and then said, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
Soap Box Ravings believes that if anyone in this country could recognize a fairy tale it would be Bill Clinton. However, Soap Box Ravings is amazed that Bill Clinton would give credit to anyone with a bigger fairy tale than some of those the world witnessed when under Bill Clinton's leadership.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Here Is Some Excellent Training
Reported on Officer.com
North Carolina Campus Shooting Drill 'Real as it Gets'
January 8th, 2008 (See http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=39649 for the complete article)
The training exercise was conducted at UNC-Greensboro. It was set up to be as real as possible.
Shots rang out, a hooded gunman was seen and another gunman took hostages.
More than 120 law enforcement officers and 85 role-players took part in a full-scale active shooter exercise.
The exercise, which had been planned before the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, was finally put into effect. The exercise was conducted while the students were on a holiday break.
Soap Box Ravings congratulates the University of North Carolina for their use of this type of training exercise. This is exactly the type of training that should be conducted in various schools, shopping malls, airports, churches and anywhere else large groups of people are found. OUTSTANDING
North Carolina Campus Shooting Drill 'Real as it Gets'
January 8th, 2008 (See http://www.officer.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=39649 for the complete article)
The training exercise was conducted at UNC-Greensboro. It was set up to be as real as possible.
Shots rang out, a hooded gunman was seen and another gunman took hostages.
More than 120 law enforcement officers and 85 role-players took part in a full-scale active shooter exercise.
The exercise, which had been planned before the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, was finally put into effect. The exercise was conducted while the students were on a holiday break.
Soap Box Ravings congratulates the University of North Carolina for their use of this type of training exercise. This is exactly the type of training that should be conducted in various schools, shopping malls, airports, churches and anywhere else large groups of people are found. OUTSTANDING
Two Opposing Columns From The Roanoke Times, You Decide
August 31, 2006
Unarmed and vulnerable
Bradford B. Wiles
Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.
On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."
Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.
It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.
Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.
I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.
First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.
Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.
Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.
Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.
That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.
I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."
The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.
I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.
This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the Commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Imagine if students were armed
Larry Hincker
Hincker is the associate vice president for university relations at Virginia Tech.
After the fear, and dare I say, panic from the events of Aug. 21, it is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles ("Unarmed and vulnerable," Aug. 31).
I once worked for an out-of-touch manager who gave rather absurd directions. My colleagues and I would do as directed and dubbed it "malicious compliance," knowing the task to be inane and the manager's foibles would soon be apparent.
The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, "I can't believe he really wants to say that."
Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself against the officers.
On that fateful Monday, campus was understandably on edge. Elvis-type sightings of the escaped prisoner around campus were rampant. People were legitimately concerned about where he might be. And although the police were relatively confident they had the suspect cornered (they were ultimately proved right), the anxiety level elsewhere on campus was very high.
Panic calls from within the Squires Student Center quickly morphed from facts into rumors, including a frantic call alleging a hostage situation. The police had no choice but to move a massive force from the manhunt site to that side of campus to deal with the hostage rumor.
The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again.
Who among us thinks the writer of the commentary would not have been directly in harm's way if he showed himself to those tactical squads while displaying a deadly weapon? Would he even be here today to tell us the story? Contrary to his position, the writer's commentary actually gives credence to the university policy preventing weapons in classrooms.
Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.
April 16, 2007
On April 16, 2007 a single Virginia Tech student went on a shooting rampage which lead to the deaths of 32 students and staff members.
Unarmed and vulnerable
Bradford B. Wiles
Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.
On Aug. 21 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the building."
Upon exiting the classroom, we were met at the doors leading outside by two armor-clad policemen with fully automatic weapons, plus their side arms. Once outside, there were several more officers with either fully automatic rifles and pump shotguns, and policemen running down the street, pistols drawn.
It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.
Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable crime.
I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police. In light of this, there are a few things I wish to point out.
First, I never want to have my safety fully in the hands of anyone else, including the police.
Second, I considered bringing my gun with me to campus, but did not due to the obvious risk of losing my graduate career, which is ridiculous because had I been shot and killed, there would have been no graduate career for me anyway.
Third, and most important, I am trained and able to carry a concealed handgun almost anywhere in Virginia and other states that have reciprocity with Virginia, but cannot carry where I spend more time than anywhere else because, somehow, I become a threat to others when I cross from the town of Blacksburg onto Virginia Tech's campus.
Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness.
That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.
I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."
The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.
I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate my entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government.
This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the Commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Imagine if students were armed
Larry Hincker
Hincker is the associate vice president for university relations at Virginia Tech.
After the fear, and dare I say, panic from the events of Aug. 21, it is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles ("Unarmed and vulnerable," Aug. 31).
I once worked for an out-of-touch manager who gave rather absurd directions. My colleagues and I would do as directed and dubbed it "malicious compliance," knowing the task to be inane and the manager's foibles would soon be apparent.
The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, "I can't believe he really wants to say that."
Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself against the officers.
On that fateful Monday, campus was understandably on edge. Elvis-type sightings of the escaped prisoner around campus were rampant. People were legitimately concerned about where he might be. And although the police were relatively confident they had the suspect cornered (they were ultimately proved right), the anxiety level elsewhere on campus was very high.
Panic calls from within the Squires Student Center quickly morphed from facts into rumors, including a frantic call alleging a hostage situation. The police had no choice but to move a massive force from the manhunt site to that side of campus to deal with the hostage rumor.
The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again.
Who among us thinks the writer of the commentary would not have been directly in harm's way if he showed himself to those tactical squads while displaying a deadly weapon? Would he even be here today to tell us the story? Contrary to his position, the writer's commentary actually gives credence to the university policy preventing weapons in classrooms.
Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same.
April 16, 2007
On April 16, 2007 a single Virginia Tech student went on a shooting rampage which lead to the deaths of 32 students and staff members.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Some Ideas To Ponder On
Here is some newspaper articles from The Durango Herald, 1275 Main Ave, Durango, Colorado 81301; A Revolving Legacy, Southwest Colorado residents reveal why guns are important in their lives. Each response circles around freedom and the traditions of the West
http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/05/news050814_5.htm
Soap Box Ravings feels that all of those traditions are not necessarily limited to the West.
http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/05/news050814_5.htm
Soap Box Ravings feels that all of those traditions are not necessarily limited to the West.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
NRA Files Suit Over Katrina Gun Seizures
In an Associated Press WorldStream article titled "NRA Files Suit Over Katrina Gun Seizures" dated 12/27/07 the following items were presented:
Comments italicized and in bold were added by Soap Box Ravings in an attempt to bring this item back towards the right from the stance of the AP's presentation.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) identified as a "powerful gun lobby organization" has hired private investigators to track down hundreds of gun owners whose firearms were seized (illegally) by New Orleans police after Hurricane Katrina.
The NRA is trying to locate gun owners (those who owned the seized firearms) for a federal lawsuit that the "lobbying group" (NRA) filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's (illegal) seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.
As the flooded city descended into chaos and looting, authorities said they took guns from abandoned (evacuated) homes and from people trying to take the (legally owned and possessed) guns into shelters or onto evacuation buses in an effort to keep them out of criminals' hands. As the local police were overwhelmed, the National Guard was called in to assist in patrols.
The NRA's lawsuit marks a continuation of the group's efforts to protect Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. The group's influence in the U.S. Congress has been cited by critics as being behind most efforts to block gun law reforms (restrictions).
In the lawsuit, which is set for trial in February, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation claim the city violated gun owners' right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit says the gun owners were left at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina. (Many New Orleans Police Officers were busy looting the city themselves as shown on national television or they disappeared and did not report for work.)
The NRA says the city seized more than 1,000 guns that were not part of any criminal investigation after the hurricane. Police have said they took only guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes. (When Soap Box Ravings was a police officer and was trained in the Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure) he was trained that you only were allowed to look in areas where the object of the search could be found. In other words when looking for a stolen refrigerator, you would not be looking in someones dresser drawers. Nor would you look there for a missing person).
In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number. (In Soap Box Ravings' opinion, this is the type of "after the fact" bureaucratic behavior designed to minimize the return of the illegally seized property and one of the reasons for the lawsuit. Think about it, after a major hurrican and flooding disaster how many of you could come up with a bill of sale or an (unknown type of) affidavit for Gramp's old .38 or his deer rifle?)
In court papers filed Monday, NRA attorneys say investigators have found few of the guns' owners because the storm has scattered so many residents. NRA lawyer Daniel Holliday said investigators have identified about 300 of the gun owners and located about 75 of them. Some could be called to testify during a trial, he added. "Finding these folks has been a nightmare," Holliday said. "That is really the guts of our case - to establish that there was indeed a pattern of the police going out and taking people's guns without any legal reason to do so."
The NRA will not be satisfied until the police department has returned all the guns or reimbursed their owners. (In Soap Box Ravings opinion there should be some type of personal judgment found against the public officials responsible for the orders to confiscate private property illegally. )
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the police have returned only about 100 of the 1,000 seized guns. "Obviously, we don't expect the city to find everybody. We only wanted to see a good-faith effort, and that's what the city didn't do," Gottlieb said. "It's a bad example to let them get away with it."
Soap Box Ravings can not help but wonder how many items besides firearms were confiscated by New Orleans Police Officers from "abandoned" homes that were never seen by the rightful owners again. Any property seized in a lawful police action should have been tagged and identified with the location, date and time from which it was seized. The address should have been included with the location along with any known information on who lived in that location. Homes evacuated for a storm were not abandoned. Homes that were actually abandoned would not have been abandoned until much later after the storm and flooding had done their damage. The police statement they only took firearms from "abandoned" homes has all the earmarks of damage control bulls**t.
Comments italicized and in bold were added by Soap Box Ravings in an attempt to bring this item back towards the right from the stance of the AP's presentation.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) identified as a "powerful gun lobby organization" has hired private investigators to track down hundreds of gun owners whose firearms were seized (illegally) by New Orleans police after Hurricane Katrina.
The NRA is trying to locate gun owners (those who owned the seized firearms) for a federal lawsuit that the "lobbying group" (NRA) filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's (illegal) seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.
As the flooded city descended into chaos and looting, authorities said they took guns from abandoned (evacuated) homes and from people trying to take the (legally owned and possessed) guns into shelters or onto evacuation buses in an effort to keep them out of criminals' hands. As the local police were overwhelmed, the National Guard was called in to assist in patrols.
The NRA's lawsuit marks a continuation of the group's efforts to protect Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. The group's influence in the U.S. Congress has been cited by critics as being behind most efforts to block gun law reforms (restrictions).
In the lawsuit, which is set for trial in February, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation claim the city violated gun owners' right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit says the gun owners were left at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina. (Many New Orleans Police Officers were busy looting the city themselves as shown on national television or they disappeared and did not report for work.)
The NRA says the city seized more than 1,000 guns that were not part of any criminal investigation after the hurricane. Police have said they took only guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes. (When Soap Box Ravings was a police officer and was trained in the Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure) he was trained that you only were allowed to look in areas where the object of the search could be found. In other words when looking for a stolen refrigerator, you would not be looking in someones dresser drawers. Nor would you look there for a missing person).
In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number. (In Soap Box Ravings' opinion, this is the type of "after the fact" bureaucratic behavior designed to minimize the return of the illegally seized property and one of the reasons for the lawsuit. Think about it, after a major hurrican and flooding disaster how many of you could come up with a bill of sale or an (unknown type of) affidavit for Gramp's old .38 or his deer rifle?)
In court papers filed Monday, NRA attorneys say investigators have found few of the guns' owners because the storm has scattered so many residents. NRA lawyer Daniel Holliday said investigators have identified about 300 of the gun owners and located about 75 of them. Some could be called to testify during a trial, he added. "Finding these folks has been a nightmare," Holliday said. "That is really the guts of our case - to establish that there was indeed a pattern of the police going out and taking people's guns without any legal reason to do so."
The NRA will not be satisfied until the police department has returned all the guns or reimbursed their owners. (In Soap Box Ravings opinion there should be some type of personal judgment found against the public officials responsible for the orders to confiscate private property illegally. )
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the police have returned only about 100 of the 1,000 seized guns. "Obviously, we don't expect the city to find everybody. We only wanted to see a good-faith effort, and that's what the city didn't do," Gottlieb said. "It's a bad example to let them get away with it."
Soap Box Ravings can not help but wonder how many items besides firearms were confiscated by New Orleans Police Officers from "abandoned" homes that were never seen by the rightful owners again. Any property seized in a lawful police action should have been tagged and identified with the location, date and time from which it was seized. The address should have been included with the location along with any known information on who lived in that location. Homes evacuated for a storm were not abandoned. Homes that were actually abandoned would not have been abandoned until much later after the storm and flooding had done their damage. The police statement they only took firearms from "abandoned" homes has all the earmarks of damage control bulls**t.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
War Is An Ugly Thing
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
This Is Scary
“A thought on the presence of Bill Clinton. He is showing up all over in Iowa and New Hampshire, speaking, shaking hands, drawing crowds. But when he speaks, he has a tendency to speak about himself. It’s all, always, me-me-me in his gigantic bullying neediness. Still, he’s there, and he’s a draw, and the plan was that his presence would boost his wife’s fortunes. The way it was supposed to work, the logic, was this: People miss Bill. They miss the ‘90s. They miss the pre-9/11 world. So they’ll love seeing him back in the White House. So they’ll vote for Hillary. Because she’ll bring him. ‘Two for the price of one.’ It appears not to be working. Might it be that they don’t miss Bill as much as everyone thought? That they don’t actually want Bill back in the White House? Maybe. But maybe it’s this. Maybe they’d love to have him back in the White House. Maybe they just don’t want him to bring her. Maybe they miss the Cuckoo’s Nest and they’d love having Jack Nicholson’s McMurphy running through the halls. Maybe they just don’t miss Nurse Ratched. Does she have to come?” —Peggy Noonan
Soap Box Ravings finds this to be unbelievably scary. Even the possibility that someone might get elected to the nation's highest office just so their spouse could be there. This is really freaking scary!
Soap Box Ravings finds this to be unbelievably scary. Even the possibility that someone might get elected to the nation's highest office just so their spouse could be there. This is really freaking scary!
Monday, December 17, 2007
All My Liberal friends Should Take Note of This
Today's news reports Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has pardoned a female rape victim who had been sentenced to 200 lashes for being alone with a man at the time of the attack who was not related to her.
The case had sparked international outcry. In this case, the White House had expressed its "astonishment" over the woman's sentence while our more liberal relatives in Canada called it barbaric.
The Saudi Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper that the pardon does not mean the King doubted the country's judges, but instead acted in the "interests of the people." He said the king looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he is sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, even though the King is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair.
The rape victim was initially sentenced in November 2006 to several months in prison and 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man with whom she was neither related nor married, a violation of the kingdom's strict religious laws regarding segregation of the sexes.
Later the court more than doubled the sentence to 200 lashes and six months prison in response to her appeal.
Soap Box Ravings was initially amazed like everyone else to see the victim punished for being raped. But he is even more amazed to see that an appeal leads to a doubling of the sentence. Remember, this is what they have done to one of their own. A little research will show you they execute foreigners in their country about twice as often as a native. They average about one beheading every other day after appeals if any.
Al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper Monday that only the king could issue a pardon, and he did so despite his view that the Saudi legal system was "honest" and "fair."
"The king's order consolidates and confirms what is known about the Islamic courts," said al-Sheik. "Efficient judges look into different cases and issue their just verdicts and those convicted have the right to appeal."
Soap Box Ravings reminds all that Islamic courst are religious courts that use Islam as their basis. Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahabiism (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية, Wahabism is a branch of Sunni Islam practised by those who follow the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab.) This is the dominant form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria, Palestine and Mauritania. It is considered to be one of the most strictest sects of Islam.
The rapists were convicted of raping the girl and were initially sentenced to jail terms from 10 months to five years. Their sentences were also increased after their appeals.
The case had sparked international outcry. In this case, the White House had expressed its "astonishment" over the woman's sentence while our more liberal relatives in Canada called it barbaric.
The Saudi Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper that the pardon does not mean the King doubted the country's judges, but instead acted in the "interests of the people." He said the king looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he is sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, even though the King is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair.
The rape victim was initially sentenced in November 2006 to several months in prison and 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man with whom she was neither related nor married, a violation of the kingdom's strict religious laws regarding segregation of the sexes.
Later the court more than doubled the sentence to 200 lashes and six months prison in response to her appeal.
Soap Box Ravings was initially amazed like everyone else to see the victim punished for being raped. But he is even more amazed to see that an appeal leads to a doubling of the sentence. Remember, this is what they have done to one of their own. A little research will show you they execute foreigners in their country about twice as often as a native. They average about one beheading every other day after appeals if any.
Al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper Monday that only the king could issue a pardon, and he did so despite his view that the Saudi legal system was "honest" and "fair."
"The king's order consolidates and confirms what is known about the Islamic courts," said al-Sheik. "Efficient judges look into different cases and issue their just verdicts and those convicted have the right to appeal."
Soap Box Ravings reminds all that Islamic courst are religious courts that use Islam as their basis. Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahabiism (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya الوهابية, Wahabism is a branch of Sunni Islam practised by those who follow the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab.) This is the dominant form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, as well as some pockets of Somalia, Algeria, Palestine and Mauritania. It is considered to be one of the most strictest sects of Islam.
The rapists were convicted of raping the girl and were initially sentenced to jail terms from 10 months to five years. Their sentences were also increased after their appeals.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Some Thoughts Of President Theodore Roosevelt
President Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1919
President Roosevelt wrote the words above in a letter to the president of the American Defense Society on January 3,1919. Three days later, President Roosevelt died.
"Americanization" was a favorite theme of Roosevelt's during his later years, when he railed repeatedly against "hyphenated Americans" and the prospect of a nation "brought to ruins" by a "tangle of squabbling nationalities."
He advocated the compulsory learning of English by every naturalized citizen. "Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country," he said in a statement to the Kansas City Star in 1918. "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools."
He also insisted, on more than one occasion, that America has no room for what he called "fifty-fifty allegiance." In a speech made in 1917 he said, "It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us."
Soap Box Ravings would concur with President Roosevelt on his thoughts expressed above. In Soap Box ravings opinion this is the crux of the matter. If you want to become a citizen, obey the laws and learn the English language. If you do not want to comply either go home or stay home. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
China and U.S. Spar Over Trade, Product Safety
The complete story can be found here:
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/12/11/china-and-us-spar-over-trade-product-safety/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fnm%2F20071211%2Fpl_nm%2Fchina_usa_dc%3B_ylt%3DAsR.mVZoMISTja.e5adHkZWs0NUE&frame=true
Trade talks with China were strained because of US anxiety over the "Made in China' label.
Soap Box Ravings can't understand why the Chinese can not build what the purchaser ordered. If the product is not made correctly as ordered then don't accept it. On the other hand if the buyer is purchasing already made products then the buyer should be responsible to ensure our import standards are met.
Soap Box ravings believes the fastest way to get Chinese products to the standard desired would be to cancel a few contracts and have the products made on this side of the world in for example Brazil, Chile, Argentina or in the Central American countries.
http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/12/11/china-and-us-spar-over-trade-product-safety/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fnm%2F20071211%2Fpl_nm%2Fchina_usa_dc%3B_ylt%3DAsR.mVZoMISTja.e5adHkZWs0NUE&frame=true
Trade talks with China were strained because of US anxiety over the "Made in China' label.
Soap Box Ravings can't understand why the Chinese can not build what the purchaser ordered. If the product is not made correctly as ordered then don't accept it. On the other hand if the buyer is purchasing already made products then the buyer should be responsible to ensure our import standards are met.
Soap Box ravings believes the fastest way to get Chinese products to the standard desired would be to cancel a few contracts and have the products made on this side of the world in for example Brazil, Chile, Argentina or in the Central American countries.
Monday, December 10, 2007
The Twins Are Here
At about 3:00 pm on 12/5/07 the Twins arrived. Courtesy of R&L Carriers who very expeditiously set them right into my garage. They were ordered from Granite Security through SamsClub.com.
Weighing in at about 450 lbs each, the stand 60 inches tall, they are 30 inches wide and about 23 inches deep. They are Hunter Green with gold trim. With the help of my son Ryan and my next door neighbor we got them into the house with no problem.
If you ever need to transport your firearms while moving here is how I did it. This is a bundle of three long arms. They do not touch each other, they are separated by a U-Haul paper pad which resembles a twin bed size paper blanket. While wrapping the firearms, I alternated them butt to muzzle as they seemed to fit together better. Once wrapped, the extra wrapping paper on the ends was turned back towards the center and secured with cellophane tape. Then another tape line was taped around the center. Be sure to pull the tape tight enough to ensure that the firearms can not shift around inside the wrapping.
As you can see below, they were transported and stored in my old gun cabinets. This required unloading the cabinet, wrapping the firearms, carrying the cabinet to the truck, storing the wrapped firearms in the cabinet in the bed of the truck, and then transporting to the new residence where you get to do the whole sequence in reverse.
This is the wrapping paper I used from U-Haul. It was inexpensive but since I wrapped three per bundle it was reasonable. Also, three long guns seemed to just fit into one sheet. Additionally, three long guns per bundle is approaching more than I want to carry.
Another advantage of the paper was I didn't freak out anyone of the local sheep nor did I alert any wolves as I went about my sheepdog business. They were wrapped in late December of last year and unwrapped this week yet each one arrived in excellent shape with no hint of rust.
The miracle machine that we used to move the Twins about the house is shown below. Research on-line located this little puppy at Northern Tool and Equipment. They wanted $100 to ship it to me, so I picked it up from the store in Raleigh, NC while we were in the Ft Bragg area visiting our daughter and her family. Of course their new store in Fayetteville, NC didn't open until the week after we left town.
Work on the "Man Room" continues!
Weighing in at about 450 lbs each, the stand 60 inches tall, they are 30 inches wide and about 23 inches deep. They are Hunter Green with gold trim. With the help of my son Ryan and my next door neighbor we got them into the house with no problem.
If you ever need to transport your firearms while moving here is how I did it. This is a bundle of three long arms. They do not touch each other, they are separated by a U-Haul paper pad which resembles a twin bed size paper blanket. While wrapping the firearms, I alternated them butt to muzzle as they seemed to fit together better. Once wrapped, the extra wrapping paper on the ends was turned back towards the center and secured with cellophane tape. Then another tape line was taped around the center. Be sure to pull the tape tight enough to ensure that the firearms can not shift around inside the wrapping.
As you can see below, they were transported and stored in my old gun cabinets. This required unloading the cabinet, wrapping the firearms, carrying the cabinet to the truck, storing the wrapped firearms in the cabinet in the bed of the truck, and then transporting to the new residence where you get to do the whole sequence in reverse.
This is the wrapping paper I used from U-Haul. It was inexpensive but since I wrapped three per bundle it was reasonable. Also, three long guns seemed to just fit into one sheet. Additionally, three long guns per bundle is approaching more than I want to carry.
Another advantage of the paper was I didn't freak out anyone of the local sheep nor did I alert any wolves as I went about my sheepdog business. They were wrapped in late December of last year and unwrapped this week yet each one arrived in excellent shape with no hint of rust.
The miracle machine that we used to move the Twins about the house is shown below. Research on-line located this little puppy at Northern Tool and Equipment. They wanted $100 to ship it to me, so I picked it up from the store in Raleigh, NC while we were in the Ft Bragg area visiting our daughter and her family. Of course their new store in Fayetteville, NC didn't open until the week after we left town.
Work on the "Man Room" continues!
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Could You Expect Any Less Of William Jefferson Clinton
“Of course Bill Clinton was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. It’s proven unpopular. It would be different if the war had gone better, as it has in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton’s still for that one.
There’s a phrase for someone who’ll stick with you through thick and then and in-between: A man to tie to. Bill Clinton’s the opposite. Not only does he disappear when the going gets tough, he was never with you from the first—at least to hear him tell it. With him, history is one of the plastic arts. There is no surer guide to William Jefferson Clinton’s view of the past than what is popular in the present. All of his statements supporting the war in Iraq now have become, in a Nixonian word, inoperative. Down the memory hole they go, as if they’d never been uttered...
Bill Clinton tends to bet for and against any political proposition that involves taking a risk, then recall only the position that proved popular. That way, he can’t lose. Principle has nothing to do with it... But never fear, should the long light of history reveal that in the end this long, long struggle in Iraq has bolstered freedom and stability in that always-volatile part of the world, rest assured, Bill Clinton will have been for it all along.” —Paul Greenberg
Soap Box Ravings says you can read Paul Greenburgs entire article at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg.html
There’s a phrase for someone who’ll stick with you through thick and then and in-between: A man to tie to. Bill Clinton’s the opposite. Not only does he disappear when the going gets tough, he was never with you from the first—at least to hear him tell it. With him, history is one of the plastic arts. There is no surer guide to William Jefferson Clinton’s view of the past than what is popular in the present. All of his statements supporting the war in Iraq now have become, in a Nixonian word, inoperative. Down the memory hole they go, as if they’d never been uttered...
Bill Clinton tends to bet for and against any political proposition that involves taking a risk, then recall only the position that proved popular. That way, he can’t lose. Principle has nothing to do with it... But never fear, should the long light of history reveal that in the end this long, long struggle in Iraq has bolstered freedom and stability in that always-volatile part of the world, rest assured, Bill Clinton will have been for it all along.” —Paul Greenberg
Soap Box Ravings says you can read Paul Greenburgs entire article at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg.html
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Rodney King Shot (Ho Hum)
Rodney King was shot on a street corner by bird shot fired from a shotgun. Reportedly, King and others appeared drunk and were largely uncooperative in providing information about the shooting.
Soap Box Ravings is reminded that "When people state that they can't change who they are--their nature--they sometimes use the phrase "A leopard can't change his spots" (it's used in much the same way as "you can't teach an old dog new tricks").
The phrase about leopards is descended from the Bible, in the book of Jeremiah: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" (Jer 13:23)
The only surprise here is why the news still reports on him. My guess is that no one in the military did anything worthwhile and the media needed to fill up a column
Soap Box Ravings is reminded that "When people state that they can't change who they are--their nature--they sometimes use the phrase "A leopard can't change his spots" (it's used in much the same way as "you can't teach an old dog new tricks").
The phrase about leopards is descended from the Bible, in the book of Jeremiah: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" (Jer 13:23)
The only surprise here is why the news still reports on him. My guess is that no one in the military did anything worthwhile and the media needed to fill up a column
The Twins Are On Their Way
Soap Box Ravings was notified today by e-mail that the Twins had been shipped. No arrival date as of yet, but I anxiously await the truck drivers call.
Today, I started tearing down the Man Room. That is where the Twins will reside. Not any easy task since the cabinets that are being upgraded are full and not all that easy to move. Also, since we just recently moved into a new house and I was not progressing on the Man Room due to funding, the Momma managed to slip some of her stuff in the Man Room for storage. She is presently out of town so I can move things as I see fit. Some I may have to move again later. More to come.
Today, I started tearing down the Man Room. That is where the Twins will reside. Not any easy task since the cabinets that are being upgraded are full and not all that easy to move. Also, since we just recently moved into a new house and I was not progressing on the Man Room due to funding, the Momma managed to slip some of her stuff in the Man Room for storage. She is presently out of town so I can move things as I see fit. Some I may have to move again later. More to come.
British Teacher Guilty Of Insulting Islam In Sudan
Today in Khartoum, Sudan a British teacher in Sudan was convicted Thursday of insulting Islam by letting her students pupils name a teddy bear "Muhammad."
She was sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation to Britain. The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, could have received 40 lashes and six months in prison in the case if she had been found guilty of the original more serious charge of inciting religious hatred.
The Education Ministry had received complaints that the teacher had insulted the Prophet Muhammad, the most revered figure in Islam, by applying his name to a teddy bear.
Her employer, Robert Boulos, of the Unity High School called the verdict "a very fair verdict."
Soap Box Ravings says this should act as a warning to those folks who think they can help other cultures by bringing them our western ways. The religious conservatives in Sudan have stated their outrage was over the naming of a teddy bear after the prophet Mohammad. Soap Box Ravings feels the religious conservatives outrage goes much deeper than what was stated. The Unity High School and all employees have been placed on notice that any infractions or even just complaints by any unsatisfied or aggravated person can lead to the confinement of the teacher and or school staff members. That's gotta be a good recruiting tool.
Soap Box Ravings says also, you have to wonder about any religion that would sentence the victim of a gang rape to 200 lashes and six months confinement for not being properly chaperoned as required by Islam just prior to the rape.
She was sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation to Britain. The teacher, Gillian Gibbons, could have received 40 lashes and six months in prison in the case if she had been found guilty of the original more serious charge of inciting religious hatred.
The Education Ministry had received complaints that the teacher had insulted the Prophet Muhammad, the most revered figure in Islam, by applying his name to a teddy bear.
Her employer, Robert Boulos, of the Unity High School called the verdict "a very fair verdict."
Soap Box Ravings says this should act as a warning to those folks who think they can help other cultures by bringing them our western ways. The religious conservatives in Sudan have stated their outrage was over the naming of a teddy bear after the prophet Mohammad. Soap Box Ravings feels the religious conservatives outrage goes much deeper than what was stated. The Unity High School and all employees have been placed on notice that any infractions or even just complaints by any unsatisfied or aggravated person can lead to the confinement of the teacher and or school staff members. That's gotta be a good recruiting tool.
Soap Box Ravings says also, you have to wonder about any religion that would sentence the victim of a gang rape to 200 lashes and six months confinement for not being properly chaperoned as required by Islam just prior to the rape.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Soap Box Ravings E-Mail To The National Rifle Association
A message from Soap Box Ravings to the National Rifle Association, as sent:
As a retired military person, I want you to know that I do not agree with your NRA position on the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill.
I agree with the Gun Owners of America position and I feel terribly let down by the NRA's action in support of Schumers gun bill.
The National Rifle Associations response:
Dear Mr. S. B. Ravings,
Thank you for your email to the NRA-ILA regarding H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Act. I apologize for the extremely delayed response. We appreciate everything our members have to say, and we thank you for taking the time to contact our office.
The NRA examines and supports legislation based upon its merits and benefits for law-abiding gun owners. Despite the fact that Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, Chuck Schumer, and other representatives associated with the Brady Campaign were involved with H.R. 2640, this legislation improves current law for gun owners and all Americans, and therefore holds the support of the NRA. Along with Rep. McCarthy, sponsors of this
bill include Reps. John Dingell, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Rick Boucher (D-Va)- all longtime supporters of gun owners' rights and sponsors of many pro-Second Amendment bills.
Recently, H.R. 2640 passed the House by a voice vote, which, although some have stated is a 'back door deal,' is in fact standard procedure. The reality is that there's nothing unusual about passing a widely supported bill by voice vote. Once a voice vote has occurred, any House member may request a recorded vote on any issue, and in practice, those requests are universally granted. Despite having that option on the floor, no representative asked for a roll call on this bill.
Despite what many letters and articles have stated, H.R. 2640 is not a gun control bill, and it doesn't ban anyone from owning guns. Instead, this bill provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records. This update will ensure that those who are currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.
H.R. 2640 states that in order to be added to the NICS system one must be adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed (i.e. against one's will) to a mental institution. H.R. 2640 would prevent use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent.
The fact that medical diagnoses would not qualify as adjudication would change the current NICS standards, which accept Veterans` Administration decisions that a veteran or other beneficiary is an "adjudicated mental defective" where there was no "adjudication" at all--only a decision that the patient is unable to manage his own finances. Many patients may have accepted such a decision without expecting to lose their gun ownership rights. Instead of allowing this to continue, H.R. 2640 would eliminate purely medical records from NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others (by a court or legal authority, not, as we have established, by a medical professional), or
lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.
It is also important to note what H.R. 2640 will not do. This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment.
So why the confusion?
First and foremost, the national media elite is irate that NRA has been able to roll back significant portions of the Clinton Administration's anti-gun agenda and pass pro-active legislation in Congress and in many states. They are desperate to put a "gun control" spin on anything they can. The only real question here is--given the media's long-standing and flagrant bias on the gun issue-- why are some gun owners suddenly swallowing the bait?
Second, some people simply do not like the NICS. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, including a mandatory five-day waiting period, over strong NRA opposition. Due to NRA's insistence, that waiting period was allowed to sunset in 1998, once the NICS was up and running nationwide. Now that the NICS is in place, it makes sense to ensure that this system works as instantly, fairly, and accurately as possible.
This is an extremely important and complex issue, and as part of your ongoing research, I encourage you to further review the information regarding this bill and to read the bill itself (which I have attached to this email for your review). By doing so, you will be able to properly compare the media you have been receiving and reach your own conclusion about whether or not you support this legislation. If you
haven't already, I encourage you to become more familiar with the bill by visiting our website, www.nraila.org and reading the five articles on HR 2640. These articles give credence to the legitimate pro-gun nature of this bill. One of the articles is written by Larry Scott for www.military.com. Formed in 1999, this group was started, "to revolutionize the way the 30 million Americans with military affinity
stay connected and informed. Today, [they are] the largest military and veteran membership organization - 8 million members strong." I can assure you that they have a vested interest in caring for the well-being of veterans and military personnel.
The NRA continues to support this legislation, which streamlines the NICS system to ensure law-abiding citizens are afforded their rights. Simultaneously, this bill ensures that criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court will be unable to own firearms. Rest assured that if the anti-gunners use this legislation as
a vehicle to advance gun control restrictions, NRA will pull our support for the bill and vigorously oppose its passage!
Once again, thank you for your comments. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or at (800) 392-8683.
Sincerely,
Alicia Borgess
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
Soap Box Ravings has posted the National Rifle Associations response to enable those who read it to make up their own minds on whether the NRA is acting in their benefit or not. Soap Box Ravings suggests that all who have an interest in the final outcome of the NICS Improvement Act complete their own analysis of the facts before making their decision on the NRA's efforts.
As a retired military person, I want you to know that I do not agree with your NRA position on the Leahy/McCarthy/Schumer bill.
I agree with the Gun Owners of America position and I feel terribly let down by the NRA's action in support of Schumers gun bill.
The National Rifle Associations response:
Dear Mr. S. B. Ravings,
Thank you for your email to the NRA-ILA regarding H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Act. I apologize for the extremely delayed response. We appreciate everything our members have to say, and we thank you for taking the time to contact our office.
The NRA examines and supports legislation based upon its merits and benefits for law-abiding gun owners. Despite the fact that Reps. Carolyn McCarthy, Chuck Schumer, and other representatives associated with the Brady Campaign were involved with H.R. 2640, this legislation improves current law for gun owners and all Americans, and therefore holds the support of the NRA. Along with Rep. McCarthy, sponsors of this
bill include Reps. John Dingell, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Rick Boucher (D-Va)- all longtime supporters of gun owners' rights and sponsors of many pro-Second Amendment bills.
Recently, H.R. 2640 passed the House by a voice vote, which, although some have stated is a 'back door deal,' is in fact standard procedure. The reality is that there's nothing unusual about passing a widely supported bill by voice vote. Once a voice vote has occurred, any House member may request a recorded vote on any issue, and in practice, those requests are universally granted. Despite having that option on the floor, no representative asked for a roll call on this bill.
Despite what many letters and articles have stated, H.R. 2640 is not a gun control bill, and it doesn't ban anyone from owning guns. Instead, this bill provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records. This update will ensure that those who are currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.
H.R. 2640 states that in order to be added to the NICS system one must be adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed (i.e. against one's will) to a mental institution. H.R. 2640 would prevent use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent.
The fact that medical diagnoses would not qualify as adjudication would change the current NICS standards, which accept Veterans` Administration decisions that a veteran or other beneficiary is an "adjudicated mental defective" where there was no "adjudication" at all--only a decision that the patient is unable to manage his own finances. Many patients may have accepted such a decision without expecting to lose their gun ownership rights. Instead of allowing this to continue, H.R. 2640 would eliminate purely medical records from NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others (by a court or legal authority, not, as we have established, by a medical professional), or
lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.
It is also important to note what H.R. 2640 will not do. This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment.
So why the confusion?
First and foremost, the national media elite is irate that NRA has been able to roll back significant portions of the Clinton Administration's anti-gun agenda and pass pro-active legislation in Congress and in many states. They are desperate to put a "gun control" spin on anything they can. The only real question here is--given the media's long-standing and flagrant bias on the gun issue-- why are some gun owners suddenly swallowing the bait?
Second, some people simply do not like the NICS. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, including a mandatory five-day waiting period, over strong NRA opposition. Due to NRA's insistence, that waiting period was allowed to sunset in 1998, once the NICS was up and running nationwide. Now that the NICS is in place, it makes sense to ensure that this system works as instantly, fairly, and accurately as possible.
This is an extremely important and complex issue, and as part of your ongoing research, I encourage you to further review the information regarding this bill and to read the bill itself (which I have attached to this email for your review). By doing so, you will be able to properly compare the media you have been receiving and reach your own conclusion about whether or not you support this legislation. If you
haven't already, I encourage you to become more familiar with the bill by visiting our website, www.nraila.org and reading the five articles on HR 2640. These articles give credence to the legitimate pro-gun nature of this bill. One of the articles is written by Larry Scott for www.military.com. Formed in 1999, this group was started, "to revolutionize the way the 30 million Americans with military affinity
stay connected and informed. Today, [they are] the largest military and veteran membership organization - 8 million members strong." I can assure you that they have a vested interest in caring for the well-being of veterans and military personnel.
The NRA continues to support this legislation, which streamlines the NICS system to ensure law-abiding citizens are afforded their rights. Simultaneously, this bill ensures that criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent by a court will be unable to own firearms. Rest assured that if the anti-gunners use this legislation as
a vehicle to advance gun control restrictions, NRA will pull our support for the bill and vigorously oppose its passage!
Once again, thank you for your comments. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or at (800) 392-8683.
Sincerely,
Alicia Borgess
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
Soap Box Ravings has posted the National Rifle Associations response to enable those who read it to make up their own minds on whether the NRA is acting in their benefit or not. Soap Box Ravings suggests that all who have an interest in the final outcome of the NICS Improvement Act complete their own analysis of the facts before making their decision on the NRA's efforts.
Qualifications? What Are Qualifications?
“[T]here is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for—that’s the job of our next president. Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families.” —Hillary Clinton jabbing Barack Obama
“My understanding was that she wasn’t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don’t know exactly what experiences she’s claiming.” —Barack Obama jabbing back “There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues. On the other hand, I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a U.S. senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I’ve done. I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she has nothing to do with it.” —Barack Obama back at her
Soap Box Ravings wonders if either of them have any "qualifications" other than the minimum legal qualifications required to run for the Presidency.
It is Soap Box Raving's opinion that neither of them have demonstrated any ability nor proficiency that would cause me to believe that either of them is capable of being the President of the United States of America.
American Heritage Dictionary:
1. The act of qualifying or the condition of being qualified.
2. A quality, ability, or accomplishment that makes a person suitable for a
particular position or task.
3. A condition or circumstance that must be met or complied with: fulfilled the
qualifications for registering to vote in the presidential election.
4. A restriction or modification: an offer with a number of qualifications.
“My understanding was that she wasn’t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don’t know exactly what experiences she’s claiming.” —Barack Obama jabbing back “There is no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues. On the other hand, I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a U.S. senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work I’ve done. I think the fact of the matter is that Sen. Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she has nothing to do with it.” —Barack Obama back at her
Soap Box Ravings wonders if either of them have any "qualifications" other than the minimum legal qualifications required to run for the Presidency.
It is Soap Box Raving's opinion that neither of them have demonstrated any ability nor proficiency that would cause me to believe that either of them is capable of being the President of the United States of America.
American Heritage Dictionary:
1. The act of qualifying or the condition of being qualified.
2. A quality, ability, or accomplishment that makes a person suitable for a
particular position or task.
3. A condition or circumstance that must be met or complied with: fulfilled the
qualifications for registering to vote in the presidential election.
4. A restriction or modification: an offer with a number of qualifications.
Food For Thought
Soap Box Ravings says this information arrived via the internet. You will find similiar accounts posted on various sites. It is posted here because it matches my basic philosophy of life.
To all you old law dogs now just lyin' in the shade; current pistoleros and other fervent Second Amendment believers:
I would rather be your friend, but if you are not interested in that, I am prepared to be a capable and efficient enemy. ~ Jeff Cooper
This is the law:
(1)The purpose of fighting is to win.
(2)There is no possible victory in defense.
(3)The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.
(4) The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental." ~ John Steinbeck
Some Natural Rules of Life:
1- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
2- If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics probably stink.
3- I carry a gun, 'cause a cop is too heavy.
4- America is not at war. The U.S. Military is at war. America is at the mall.
5- When seconds count, remember the cops are just minutes away, the bad guy is all ready there.
6- A reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?". The Ranger response was, "Because they don't make a 46."
7- An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
8- The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol, are you expecting trouble?"
The old sheriff responded; "No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."
9- Beware of the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it!
To all you old law dogs now just lyin' in the shade; current pistoleros and other fervent Second Amendment believers:
I would rather be your friend, but if you are not interested in that, I am prepared to be a capable and efficient enemy. ~ Jeff Cooper
This is the law:
(1)The purpose of fighting is to win.
(2)There is no possible victory in defense.
(3)The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.
(4) The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental." ~ John Steinbeck
Some Natural Rules of Life:
1- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you.
2- If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics probably stink.
3- I carry a gun, 'cause a cop is too heavy.
4- America is not at war. The U.S. Military is at war. America is at the mall.
5- When seconds count, remember the cops are just minutes away, the bad guy is all ready there.
6- A reporter did a human interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?". The Ranger response was, "Because they don't make a 46."
7- An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
8- The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol, are you expecting trouble?"
The old sheriff responded; "No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle."
9- Beware of the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it!
Friday, November 23, 2007
Congress Flies First Class
With exquisite timing, Boeing chooses the Thanksgiving travel weekend to deliver a top-of-the-line Boeing Business Jet that will be assigned to Congress -- the very same folks who have charged billions in air travel taxes over the decades and left us with 1930s blind-landing technology.
The C-40C, jam-packed with 40 seats by luxury-jet specialists at Greenpoint Technologies, is the third and last of a batch ordered in 2005. They will be operated by the USAF reserve to carry Congressional delegations around the world.
Funny how none of our elected Representatives or Senators ever mention these $70 million jets and their maintenance and operating costs as an example of wasteful defense spending. Or as an example of an unjustified Air Force mission that doesn't support our soldiers on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)