I just returned from running to the store to pick up some necessary items. During my travel there and back I was listening to talk radio. The host and callers were talking about how Bush was surprised to hear that they are forecasting gas to rise over $4.00 a gallon. Most of us have been hearing this for over a month now.

I'm not a Bush supporter. What he's done in office angers me on levels more than I can fathom. And no, I didn't vote for him last time. I didn't vote for Kerry either, I ended up writing in a candidate. With that being said, this really doesn't surprise me. But then again I don't think most politicians have any idea what the average American citizen pays for things and what the costs are going to be on those items in years to come.

Honestly I think if you went up to any politician and asked them the simple question of "Do you know how much it costs to fill the gas tank on a (insert car here)?" they probably wouldn't know. Now of course if I asked many of you "Do you know how much it costs to fill up a Chevy Silverado or a Chevy Venture?" you'd probably be able to get close to the ball park. Why? Because you pay for your gas.

Most of the politicians I know and have worked with have staff that fills the tanks on their cars or has someone drive them, especially at the Federal level. I'm sure career politicians probably couldn't tell you what side of the car their gas cap is on. And this is just another reason I believe they are out of touch with the American public.

So does it surprise me Bush didn't know? Not at all.

Posted by: Contagion at 03:21 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

There is still hope, a place fore a disenfranchised individual as myself to go. up until about 100 years ago there was always someplace for an individual to go when they were tired of their government. It was the frontier. People that wanted to get away from government persecution or what they felt where unjust laws or just to get away from others would head to the frontiers. Hell, North America was originally settled by people trying to get away from the government.

So where is this place? Why, it's Montana. That's right, Montana. According to the Washington post, "Montana insists on gun rights" Do you hear that? It's the sounds of angels singing.

Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.

I've already spoke with Ktreva and depending on how things go, we may up and move. If on the off chance they actually do try to break free of the ever tightening grasp of the Feds, I'd help them out.

Thanks to Ogre for the good news.

Posted by: Contagion at 05:58 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 211 words, total size 1 kb.

If you wondered why I'm taking my time to attend the Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day (IGOLD), an article in the Rockford Register Star sums it up, Gun Control Proposal Clears House Committee. Now, this has just passed the committee, it hasn't actually passed the house or been made a law yet, but lets take a look at what this law is trying to ban.

Proposals that would ban semi-automatic assault weapons and outlaw the purchase of more than one handgun a month cleared an Illinois House committee today....

Technically these are two separate bills, one for the assault weapons and one for the handguns. We can't expect the media to get anything everything correct.
Not that I've ever bought more than one handgun a month, but I really don't think the government needs to tell me I can't. Seriously, if I went out and bought a handgun only to turn around a week later and find a really good deal on another, (estate sale, friend selling one, gun show, etc.) then I should still be able to purchase it. Hell that's how we obtained Ktreva's Colt 1991. This is just a silly piece of legislative BS brought on by people that are afraid of firearms and want to take them away from law abiding citizens like myself.

House Bill 4393, sponsored by Chicago Democratic Rep. Luis Arroyo, would limit handgun purchases to one every 30 days...

..."For years, weÂ’ve been trying to pass common-sense gun-law legislation," Acevedo said.

His House Bill 4357 would ban the sale or purchase of semi-automatic assault weapons, assault weapon attachments, .50-caliber rifles or .50-caliber cartridges.

"These military-style weapons have no place on our streets," a supporter of the bill, Nina Vinik, legal director for the Evanston-based Legal Community Against Violence, told the committee.

Common sense gun law? It's only common sense if you A) don't know much about firearms, B) Have an irrational fear of fire arms, C) What to use this as a stepping stone to disarm the masses or D) all of the above.

None of the weapons they want banned are truly "Military-style". They may look like it, but trust me our military more than likely wouldn't use them unless they had no other option. The military is more fond of fully-automatic. If you are not sure what the difference is, see this excellent video. 50 caliber is military grade? The sad thing is that if you read the actual bill, it doesn't specify modern or black powder. So any of us re-enactors wanting to buy a .50 cal black powder rifle in the future may have problems, it says there are exceptions but it doesn't list them. I wonder what they would think of my .75 caliber Brown Bess Musket. Hell it's a military style weapon, it was what the British used mainly during the Rev War. Mine has a bayonet, military sling, etc. I guess it could be considered an assault weapon.

It's because of these types of laws that I'm going to go lobby against them. I'm tired of the government taking away my rights and liberties just so they can better control me. Well I'm not going to go down with out a fight.

Thanks to Shadoglare of Refractional Darkness for getting my blood pressure up again.

Posted by: Contagion at 03:58 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 4 kb.

Ogre's Politics and Views directed me to an article written by Chuck Baldwin titled John McCain is a Liberal Gun Grabber. Where as I am not familiar with Chuck Baldwin, his radio show or his principles, I do know that I agree with what he wrote here. He has a lot of good points and even some outstanding ones.

Let me say it straight out: a John McCain Presidency would be far worse than a Barack Obama Presidency. With a Democrat in the White House, conservatives and Christians suddenly find their principles and are able to offer resistance. Put a Republican in the Oval Office, however, and those same people become blind, deaf, and dumb to most any principle they profess.

I've been saying basically that same thing for a long time now. I've had the arguments that "Obama or Clinton in the white house would deliver us into a state of ruin." The problem is that, so will McCain, he'll just have an R behind his name. Shadoglare did a nice little breakdown of the candidates and which one came across as the best. It was good and informational. The only beef I had with it is that it's based on quotes not voting records and that the quotes can be interpreted differently be each reader. He ended up taking a stance that he's going to vote for the lesser of evil or the candidate that is closest to what he believes. (Albeit it none of them really are close at all.)

I've stated and sticking with my stance that I'm not casting my vote for McCain (or against his opponents). That doesn't mean I'm voting Obama/Clinton that just means I may end up writing in a candidate or seeing if there is a third party candidate I agree with more.

But if you want to know more about McCain and his voting records regarding firearms, please go read the article by Chuck Baldwin.

Posted by: Contagion at 07:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

There were a couple of primaries over the weekend, some of them had interesting turnouts, or so I thought. The fact that Huckabee won Kansas, Louisiana (although not by enough to get any delegates), and Washington was too close to count so they have to continue to do so today before they call it. Right now McCain is in the lead.

Since I brought that up, does anyone else get bothered when they call an election with less than 95% of the votes in? ShouldnÂ’t they at least pretend that our votes matter and count them all before they name a winner? I saw one last week where it was at 54% reporting, it was a narrow margin (Less than 4% difference) and they were calling a winner already. If IÂ’m not mistaken those other 46% could have voted for the underdog and it actually turned out they won.

Obama stormed the Dems winning Nebraska, Washington and Louisiana primaries. HeÂ’s still behind Clinton in the overall, but itÂ’s only a 30-point difference. At least this race is still close. Obama and Clinton really have their work cut out for them if the want the nomination, unlike the Reps primary. Heck, Huckabee doesnÂ’t even have as many delegates as Romney does and Romney is out of the race. McCain has three times the amount of delegates as Huckabee does. As for Ron Paul, I know some of my readers are staunch supporters of his, but seriously, he only has 14 delegates so far. Do you really think heÂ’s going to be able to pull this off?

Actually after doing the math, itÂ’s not possible for Paul to win. You need to have 1,191 delegates to win; there are only 2,380 total delegates. 1,265 of those delegates have been designated already. That leaves 1,115 remaining nominations. So if Paul received 100% of the remaining nominations it leaves him at 1129, well short of what is needed. If that does happen, no one would have enough, and IÂ’m not sure exactly what happens. I just donÂ’t see that as happening. ItÂ’s really looking like it is going to be McCain for the Republicans. Honestly I think a little part of me dies every time I type that.

IÂ’m still at a loss as to what IÂ’m going to do for the presidential race. No one has sold me on why one of the probable candidates would be best for the job.

Posted by: Contagion at 09:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 414 words, total size 2 kb.

First Bloodspite sent me an e-mail warning me. Then I get home and see this headline: McCain all but clinches: Romney Departs. Okay, he wasn't the most conservative candidate running, but he was more conservative than McCain. He actually had a snowballs chance of winning. But he dropped out.

It dawned on me. First I threw my support behind Thompson and he dropped out. Then I threw my support behind Romney and HE dropped out. So I got to thinking, hey, if I throw my support behind McCain maybe he will drop out. At this point my sadistically cruel loving wife pointed out that "The third time's the charm." Meaning that if I supported McCain he'd win.

DAMMIT!

I really hope a decent third party/independent candidate comes crawling out of the wood work. Because there is no way, no way that McCain will ever get my vote.

Posted by: Contagion at 06:59 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

I wrote and published a post yesterday that has since disappeared. IÂ’m really not sure what happened to it, but itÂ’s gone. IÂ’m not going to try to re-write it as it was a lot of my venting anger and frustration at the current state of politics and voting in the US. The main gist of it was that I backed down and actually voted for one of the candidates that were still in the running. I voted for Romney, mainly because out of the four front runners I felt he was closest to what I want for our government. It didnÂ’t matter because Illinois went to McCain. For those of you that think that if you vote for a third party or Independent candidate that you are throwing your vote away, well the same can be said if you vote for the loser.

Any way I canÂ’t replicate what I was feeling when I wrote that post, so IÂ’m not going to try. Mainly that is because I have a different anger and frustration today, McCain.

I can NOT believe that McCain is doing as well as he is. LetÂ’s face it; it looks like he is going to take the Republican nomination. He is the clear front runner and has a commanding lead over Romney and Huckabee. But since when is the Republican Party Liberal? DonÂ’t tell me itÂ’s not. If it really wasnÂ’t, McCain wouldnÂ’t be in the lead. Please, McCain, Clinton, Obama are all cut from the same material. There really is not that big a difference in on their platforms or positions.

The only thing I can figure out is that the sheeple of the US would rather see someone in the White House with an R next to their name, even if they truly don’t uphold the party beliefs. I know, I’m not Republican, but I am financially conservative. I want lesser taxes, lesser government, secure borders and national defense. Socially I’m liberal, or as some people say, “Libertarian”. I don’t care about abortion, gay marriage or religion; I don’t think the government really should be involved in those topics. Since I am more conservative I do look to the Republican Party more for politicians that I agree. How anyone that considers themselves a true conservative could vote for McCain is flabbergasting.

I will tell you this, if it does end up with McCain as the Republican candidate for president and there isnÂ’t a good independent candidate running, I probably will vote for Clinton or Obama. At least with them I know for sure what IÂ’m getting. McCain will never, ever get my vote.

Posted by: Contagion at 12:39 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 444 words, total size 2 kb.