Daily Archives: February 9, 2013

If it saves the life of just one Dreamliner …

And stop calling me stupid

And stop calling me stupid

Democrat Congressman Gerald Connolly tells constituents we need new gun control laws to keep stinger missiles from the hands of citizens. The next time you read a liberal’s call for a new constitution, one drafted by modern politicians instead of dead white idiots like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, picture Gerry Connolly at the writing desk.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Heh

From LAK

mail

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

No wonder it’s the most expensive land in Greenwich

Your view may have differed this morning, depending on whether you’re Irish

Sunrise in Riverside

Sunrise in Riverside

14 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Fog in Channel, Continent cut off

 

The poor sods

The poor sods

Daily Mail: Thousands of Britons stranded in America when snow shuts airports.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Thoughts while waiting for permission to leave my room

Greenwich Democrat Headquarters, Gun Surrender day

Greenwich Democrat Headquarters, Gun Surrender day

Besides the entertainment value of keeping a trained monkey like Dollar Bill on these pages and watching him perform tricks at the command of his masters, he also provides a clear view of those same masters’ game. When DB and the swarm insist that “no one is talking about confiscation of guns”, the proper response is, “why not?” The ideal world in DB Land is one without guns, so why would he stop with laws that merely harass gun owners rather than allow his blue helmet crowd to march into homes and seize them (a goal admitted by many lawmakers in their unguarded moments, like this one)? Because, just like another of the Democrat’s solutions for creating Eden in America, single payer medicine, they lack the political power to get it, for now.

As ObamaKare fails, look for them to insist that we “move on” to the next step. When gun laws affecting law abiding citizens fail to stop violence by criminals, do you have any doubt that “the next step” will be further restrictions? And still further, until there are no guns left in the hands of private citizens?

So when they deny that their newest batch of laws are intended to lead to the confiscation of your guns, ask why not? Why is the party of no restraint stopping short of what it wants?

By the way, hunting rifles? Democrats oppose hunting, too.

28 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

4 1/2 ” ?

Greenwich school bus, circa 1964

Greenwich school bus, circa 1964

While some areas of Connecticut got clobbered last night, Greenwich received a dusting. Those of you with long memories may recall that the minimum standard for closing schools for weather reasons was six inches of snow – remember those hopeful nights when it was snowing hard, a math test scheduled for the next day, and urging on the flakes? None of that now for our intrepid New England town: everyone stays home, huddled in fear, if the sky turns grey.

Blame television. Before we invited its 24-hour a day hype into our homes, what happened in, say, Juneau stayed in Juneau. For instance, did you know that child abduction incidents, always rare, are no higher today than in 1954? We’ve whipped parents into a frenzy with “amber alerts”, lockdowns, mommies driving children to school instead of letting them walk, etc. etc. because today if a child goes missing in Tuscaloosa, the entire nation is alerted and the abduction is treated as though it happened in every single parent’s own home town.

Same thing with snowstorms. With better forecasting methodology, weather prognosticators can predict the arrival of a storm a week in advance and the media whoops it up. Of course, with nothing to report for that week they outdo themselves in hyperbole, each broadcast, each weather “expert” trying to top the competitor’s phoned-up hysteria. Remember “Snowmagaddon”? Last August, after a winter without snow in the east, the weather people were calling for a brutal Afghan winter, a return of Snowmageddon to our northeast corridor, including a fierce, snowy January.

Not so long ago, a little snowstorm in one place: Greenwich, for instance, would be just that. And if it snowed more somewhere else, a letter from Uncle Rufus up in Eastford might arrive a week later informing of that and the recipient would shrug and go about his business. Now, with the aid of television and the Internet to scare everyone, our central government applies a one size fits all “solution” to the weather and shuts down roads and public institutions across the state, just to satisfy citizens’ demand that someone in authority “do something”.

It’s also about conditioning the populous to obey the government. If Mansfield is buried under two-feet of snow, why forbid citizens of Cos Cob to drive on their own roads, which are covered with two-inches of slush? Because central authority says so, damn it, and you’d better listen up. Compliance with a stupid, illogical command from authority softens the public up for acceptance of more such orders, and more will be coming, we can count on it.

We used to be better and stronger than this.

51 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Who’s paranoid now?

California Democrats to confiscate all registered rifles with detachable magazines, prohibit those barred from owning guns to live in houses where a gun is owned, require fingerprinting and background checks for permission to buy ammunition, etc.

Why the call for a national registry and why do gun owners object to such a “common sense” requirement? Because, as Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo demonstrated last month and California is proving now, registration is merely the prelude to confiscation. One the government knows who owns guns, who has ammunition in their homes, they can seize it.

And they will.

UPDATE: For fans of “sensible restrictions”, think about this, which is about to become  law in California and is proposed for Connecticut residents too (and for all citizens if Obama’s Democrats have their way): The category of who is barred from gun ownership is a broad one, so broad that barring such people from living in homes with guns means forcing you, a lawful gun owner, to choose between surrendering your gun to be melted down or evicting your 18-year old daughter, just convicted of her first DUI, your 20-year old son, who was handed a permanent rap sheet as a sex offender for having sex with his 16-year old girlfriend, your nephew, who’s been tossed from his house because he struck his wife and needs a couch to sleep on, and that good-for-nothing brother-in-law, newly home from the Navy burdened with a dishonorable discharge. Aside from asking yourself what the hell kind of family you have, what are you going to do? Should the state have the right to take away a constitutional right in such circumstances? At least consider that such a broad power to deny one right may lead to the denial of other freedoms you may cherish more.

19 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized