Thursday, January 29, 2009

Let The Big Three US Auto Makers Go Belly Up!


Let The Big Three US Auto Makers Go Belly up!

Some of us believe in Capitalism. Some of us believe the American way, in business, is “survival of the fittest.”

Here is a column from a writer who believes, as I do, that business should be allowed to stand on its own. Survive, if it can, or close up shop, if it cannot. The title of the piece is: “Chevy, Ford, Dodge, and Darwin.” Jefferson Weaver writes it. Get to know that name. You will, I predict, be hearing more from him.

The article can be found
HERE.

This is another pearl from Jeff. Keep up the good work, sir!

J. D. Longstreet

Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest!

Saying No to the Auto Maker Bail Out!

J. D. Longstreet

*******************************

"The Obama"
is off and running. His sharp left turn, which was predicted by even the most semiconscious conservative writers, commentators and pundits, is now apparent for all to see. But, by far, the DUMBEST thing, in my estimation, he has done to date, is ordering the Department of Transportation to develop higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. Car efficiency standards are already creaming the US car makers while, those same car makers are getting a government bailout at the same time. Does that seem the least bit off-kilter to you? Well, it does to me! Is this DUMB, or what?



Like a drowning man, the US auto makers are going under for the third time and, frankly, I am not convinced the life-preserver bailout, thrown from the "Ship of State", will be of any help at all. Actually, I am not convinced the life preserver SHOULD be thrown in the first place!



I am against the bail-out. But then you probably already deduced that. Methinks we ought to allow those car companies to go into bankruptcy and reorder themselves and make another try for survival. If they can, and do, survive, mores the better. Those motorized carriage makers, too weak to survive, ought to close up shop. That is the capitalist way. That is the American way. One could even say it is nature's way.



Have you any idea how many car companies have failed? Do you have any idea how many car makers in America have opened shop, produced cars for several years, and then gone under? A slew of them!



I suppose everyone knows of the Tucker (due to the movie). A friend of mine was ticking them off in his column the other day and he managed to name a number of cars from my childhood that are no longer around. They are long gone. As a matter of fact, I owned at least two of those now non-existent cars. So, just from my, ahem, younger years, there was the Studebaker, the Packard, the Norge, the Kaiser, the Frasier, the Willys, and the Nash. Before that there was another bevy of jalopies that didn't make it. Some of those cars were simply so far ahead of their time that would-be buyers were afraid of buying them. Believe me, it happened back then. I owned a 1957 Packard.. Depending upon your perspective, it was a gorgeous machine with a 275 - 300 horsepower engine (I never was quite sure of the horsepower of that engine.)... with or without the supercharger. Driving a the Studebaker "Golden Hawk" was as close to low altitude flying as was possible in those days.



Here's a look at the Golden Hawk:





Here's a look at the Packard:





Now, if the government continues to insist that American built cars get more and more miles to the gallon of gasoline, we will have surpassed the technology to do so. We may have done so, already. So, in order to reach those standards the car makers will have to resort to downsizing the cars. Down sizing means less weight. Less weight translates into more miles per gallon. Then we will see the return of the little "beer-can" cars. Those were the uncomfortably small cars that you dare not lean against for fear that your body weight might cave-in the quarter panel or the door of the car!



I know of one police department that bought a fleet of those small cars, for patrolling the city, and when they mounted the red/blue lights on the roof, the roof caved in and they had to have all the headliners of their brand new police cars stripped out and reinforcing bars placed in the roof just to hold up the red/blue light! I kid you not! One officer told me he was afraid to drive the cars. He said they were so light that in a hot pursuit, you could hardly control the car, he said it was all over the road. Needless to say, those cars were gone, very soon, and the trusty ole Crown Vic was back.



The small cars, US car makers will be forced to build as a result of government regulations, will not only be ugly, they will also be dangerous. This ought to concern you as a prospective buyer. And I am sure it will. Sales of American cars will drop even more. At some point, the likelihood that the already bailed out car makers will go under anyway, becomes extremely high.



And what about the desires of the consumer? I mean, if you have a large family, you NEED a large car. Senior citizens might need a larger car simply because it is easier to get into and out of for them. The government is going to deny them the car they need and/or want. But, hey... that's what central planning by a socialist government does. Everybody suffers equally! And let's face it, dear reader, the US now has a socialist government.



Some of us, including yours truly, will opt to keep my General Motors 4-door sedan and my Dodge truck. They are both nice and big. Other than maintenance, they hardly ever need repairs. My truck is easy to get into and out of... and... when I need a truck, I have one.They ride smoothly, and, if I am in an accident, I actually have some sheet metal between me and the opposing vehicle. In other words... they are safer.



Then there is the question of whether the bailout is for the car maker or the unions who have been so loyal to the Democrat Party. Many Americans think the bail-outs are really intended to help secure the union workers jobs. That view is prevalent here in the Southland of America where the unions are not so warmly embraced as they are elsewhere. We have automakers here operating car making businesses at a profit.



To sum up... no bail-out for the US car makers. They should be allowed to sink or survive on their own. If that means they will be forced to move more and more of their production facilities overseas, where labor is cheaper, then they should do so. If it means moving their entire production facility to a foreign country, then they should do so. But not one red cent of American taxpayer money should go to them directly and to the unions indirectly. And... the Department of Transportation ought not insist on
higher fuel efficiency standards for the cars and trucks they build here in The States. They know, as do we, that higher fuel efficiency standards will cost thousand of workers in the auto industry, and related businesses, their jobs. The government is acting like a cartoon character with one hand out to the US Auto Industry while the other hand, behind its back, is holding a hammer with which to crush US auto makers!



All in all, America has the government it said, by its vote, it wanted. It's far too late to whine and moan about their socialist agenda now that they have the power over your life. Looking as far as I an see down the road, I'd say the socialists are in a position, thanks to the American voter, to solidify their hold on America for, well, eternity. Well, at least until The Union comes apart again as it did in the 1860's. I won't live to see it, but as each day goes by and the government grows bigger, its intrusion into our lives will grow more intense, and that option will begin to look better and better.



I had a male friend stand in my office today and declare that, in his opinion, America has seen her last free election. I agreed with him. Those feelings are stirring again and have been for some time... and not just in the states that were forced back into The Union at bayonet point. This time those feelings are shared by many in various geographical parts of this country. "The Obama" and his cohorts either do not understand, or simply do not care, that what they do in the next four years may determine the survival of the US as a 50 state country or bring on the change that will break her apart into the democratic states which will live or die by the original constitution, as a Representative Republic or Republics, and those states that will suffer as socialist hell holes in the backwaters of a political swamp that was once that "Shining City" on a hill.



J. D. Longstreet

*********************











Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Dear Mr. President

"Dear Mr. President"
*********************

Here is an excellent column written by a Southern gentleman to the new President ... Mr. Obama. We found it absolutely terrific and thought you would as well.


Mr. Jefferson Weaver wrote it… and you will find it HERE. Mr. Weaver is one of our favorite writers and we think, after you read this, you will understand why.

Way to go, Jeff. Keep up the good work!

J. D. Longstreet

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Coal, Glorious Coal! ... by Alan Caruba

Coal, Glorious Coal!
By Alan Caruba

I began 2009 praising carbon dioxide as the gas, along with oxygen, upon which all life on Earth depends.

Now I praise coal and for reasons the mainstream press and other media will studiously avoid telling you. Coal, as you may recall, is on the Obama hit list because its use, according to the environmental loonies, will doom the Earth to a global warming that is not happening.

The United States is home to huge deposits of coal. It is second only to China in terms of total coal consumption. In 2007, the U.S. used about 1.1 billion tons of coal. According to an authority on energy, Robert Bryce, “That’s the energy equivalent of about 4.2 billion barrels of oil per year or about 11.5 million barrels of oil per day.” By way of comparison, “America’s daily coal ration contains more energy than Saudi Arabia’s daily oil production.” That’s a lot of energy.

Why, then, is the Obama administration and virtually all of the major environmental organizations opposed to coal? We know they oppose any use of oil, but coal, so abundant, so rich in energy would seem to be a great alternative. They oppose it because it emits carbon dioxide when burned (so do forest fires, etc.) and that contributes, they assert, to global warming.

Only there isn’t any global warming any more because the Earth is in a cooling cycle, so there must be another reason. The closest one I can come to is that they either want to return us all to the Stone Age or they are heavily invested in wind and solar industries.

In 2008, climate change alarmists proclaimed April 1st “Fossil Fools Day” using it to protest energy projects like Duke Energy’s massive Cliffside coal-fired power plant just fifty miles west of Charlotte, North Carolina. How they expect consumer’s to get electricity, fifty percent of which is produced by coal nationwide, is anyone’s guess unless they want to carpet all of North Carolina with solar and wind farms.

Led by a group calling themselves Rising Tide, a spokesperson said, “To survive climate change, we need to end the extraction of fossil fuels, reduce rich people’s energy consumption, localize economies and revolutionize public transportation.” By “rich” they mean YOU.

Obama’s would not be the first administration to try to restrict access to America’s supply of coal, oil, or natural gas from use. Congress has done this for oil by banning drilling in ANWR or off the continental shelf. The Clinton administration closed off the vast coal deposits in Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante area and, unfortunately the Bush administration would not revoke this travesty.

President Obama’s choice for Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, is a nightmare for anyone who doesn’t want to pay $8.00 a gallon for gas as the Europeans do. He favors that, but he is on record as saying, “Coal is my worst nightmare” attributing its use to greenhouse gas emissions. During his confirmation hearing, though, Chu was rapidly backpedaling saying mushy stuff like, “I think it is imperative to use coal as cleanly as possible.” He even added that offshore oil and gas production might not be a bad idea. Can we trust this fellow? I think not.

Right now, however, in Europe, Germany is building 27 coal-fired plants by 2020 and Italy plans to increase its reliance on coal from 14% today to 33% in just five years. Throughout Europe, 40 new coal-fired plants are set to be built in the next five years. China can’t build them fast enough and India plans to boost coal production by 50% by 2012 and quadruple it by 2030.

Making sure Americans can’t use their own national resources seems to be a major mission for the federal government. The U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS) has found a “high potential” for oil and gas in Colorado’s Canyon of the Ancients, Washington’s Hanford Reach, and Montana’s Upper Missouri River Breaks.

There are, however, some twenty-seven States in which coal is mined with some 90% of the coal reserves concentrated in ten States. Montana is a big coal state, as is Wyoming. The USGS estimated the U.S. is home to 1.7 trillion tons of identified coal resources. They estimate the total amount when new discovers are included could exceed 4 trillion tons. In other terms, the U.S. has more than a 250-year supply under current use.

But coal is bad, right? Just ask President Obama, any of his so-called environmental and science advisers, and any major environmental organization. This kind of thinking leaves America vulnerable, particularly in light of the fact that a growing population requires the production of more energy, particularly electricity.

What you’re not being told is that, ever since the enactment of the Clear Air Act in 1970, as amended in 1990, the most stringent air pollution law in the world has been in effect. American industry has spent an estimated $350 billion since 1970 to clean the air and each year the cost for pollution control runs about $33 billion.

According to the Electric Power Research Institute, pollution control equipment accounts for up to 40% of the cost of a new power plant and 35% of operational costs. These costs represent about $10 billion of the nation’s electric bills each year and consumers will pay more if the Clean Air Act is amended to be even more stringent. A single “scrubber” in a coal-fired plant can cost more than $100 million to construct and many millions to operate. There are at least 200 of these in operation or soon will be. Someone has to pay for all this clean air and that someone is YOU.

All around the world coal continues to be the energy source of choice. Americans who have plenty of it should, by any rational standard, be thrilled to use it. When our domestic coal is exported, it generates $4.1 billion and presently represents 2.5% of all U.S. exports.

For these reasons, the electricity it produces, the jobs it represents, the value as an export, and the way it does all this without polluting the air, there is ample cause to celebrate coal, glorious, coal.

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. Every week, he posts a column on the website of The National Anxiety Center, www.anxietycenter.com.

© Alan Caruba, January 2009

**************************

Global Warming Debunked Again


Snow for the only the second time in history in the United Arab Emirates
J. D. Longstreet
********************

It snowed over the weekend... in the desert! To be more exact... in the UAE! As the headlines indicate it doesn't do that often. As a matter of fact it has only done that one other time since man has been recording history. We think this is just one more indication that we have been correct in declaring that the earth is on the cusp of a re-freeze, another ice age... not a planet wide warm-up or "Climate Change" as the adherents to the gospel of "Global Warming" have taken to calling it (since so much of what they have declared has been debunked and more debunking is happening every day).

We thought you'd like to read the article for yourselves. You'll find it
HERE.

If we could warn you of anything, it would be not to be caught up in the planet wide hysteria about a non-existent warming of the planet. We are convinced it is a hoax, quite likely the greatest hoax ever visited upon mankind.

The Pew Research Center released the results of a poll last week that indicates that Americans are just plain tired of all the global warming hype. It seems Pew called 1500 adult Americans and asked them to
to prioritize the issues they thought the government should tackle in 2009. They were given 20 issues to rank. Global Warming came in dead last! CNS News has an excellent article on it HERE.

There's good reason for this trend among Americans. What we are being told about the earth's warming does not correlate to what we are seeing out our windows! It snowed here in the southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina last week. It may do so again this week. That is rare. But NC is not a good example... unless you live here where the average high temp, in January, is 56º and the average low temp in January is 33º.

The problem for the Global Warming adherents is the fact that global temps are going down... not up!
Last year the snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China was greater than at any time since 1966.

Russian climatologists believe recent weather changes around the globe are results of solar activity and not man-made emissions. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, calls the argument for man-made climate change "a drop in the bucket." His research shows that now the recent very active solar activity has entered an inactive phase. He advised people to "stock up on fur coats." Read the article HERE.


Oh, and the CO-2 scare... well, that is coming unglued as well. It is bunk! An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide man made CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number." Read the article HERE.


Back in December of 2008, a US Senate Minority report on this very thing was released and it had some interesting comments from some of the 650 dissenting scientists concerning Global Warming. Here are just a few samples:

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." — U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history. … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
— UN IPCC Japanese Sci
entist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.


"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"
— Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly [from promoting warming fears], without having their professional careers ruined."
— Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. … The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning."
— Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

In the meantime those who pull the world's strings from the shadows continue to push this mythical global disaster as a means toward introduction of a one world government. After all, that's what the Global Warming hoax is all about.

J. D. Longstreet
************************

<>

Monday, January 26, 2009

Obama Picks a fight. The Wrong Fight!



Obama Picks a fight. The Wrong Fight!

J. D. Longstreet

***************

According to The Telegraph:


"Barack Obama is on a collision course with his critics after picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, America's most influential conservative commentator."

The article is by Tim Shipman and we recommend you read it HERE.

Open warfare between Obama and Mr. Limbaugh, and the millions of conservative followers of Limbaugh, is the last thing Mr. Obama needs, especially this early in his regime.



Some are saying Obama is risking a new culture war between the "Obamaniacs" and American conservatives. We are here to declare there is no risk involved. The so-called "culture war" has hardly taken a breath. Conservatives graciously allowed the left to have their love-in and group hug after the election and during the inauguration, and were content to allow Mr. Obama a honeymoon. That "truce" is now over.



For our friends and enemies in Europe and around the globe please be advised: the United States of America is every bit as divided today as it was on January 19th. Maybe even more so. In fact, I believe it is more divided.



Look, conservatives are going to have an extremely difficult time accepting Obama as their president. I know the law says he is. But, the law can do nothing about the distance between the core beliefs of the conservative and the core beliefs of the liberal/socialist now in charge in this country. Say what you will, do what you want, but the old expression "never the twain shall meet" applies , absolutely, to the great divide between the conservatives and the liberal/socialists in America.



So, what if the conservatives formed a "government in exile". Nothing formal, you understand, just a government which is "understood" to exist. My guess is that Mr. Limbaugh would be the first President of that hypothetical government in exile.



So, then, the liberal/socialists have their leader and the conservatives have their leader. Where does that leave the GOP? Right where they placed themselves...up that proverbial creek without a paddle!



It now appears that we are going to see a four year contest between Obama and Limbaugh.



What about the bipartisanship Obama pledged before the election? Well, that went right out the door the minute the last vote was counted. It was never anything more than a campaign promise... which is understood, the experts tell us, to be nothing more than "puffing"... meaning it has no substance.



In fact, it is a good thing that the liberal/socialist facade of "universal love" has been shredded and now lies in fractured heaps at the feet of The Obama. It was untrue from its inception. And now you know. Now the world knows.



This is going to be an extremely contentious four years in America. With all our financial problems we are going to have a continuous fight in the halls of government. Don't be surprised if some punches are thrown. We are facing the exact opposite of the future which was described by the old hippies in the Mainstream Media and in the government. Peace, love, prosperity, etc. it's all a crock. It isn't going to happen. What, in fact we will see and experience, is financial collapse, multiple terrorist attacks within America, soaring unemployment, civil unrest, and a government on the very precipice of total collapse. THAT is the future we should be preparing for... and some of us are doing just that.



Race relations in America, realistically, can be expected to worsen. If, in fact, The Obama represents his (African/American) race then every failure of his Administration will be shared by all African/Americans in America. At least that will be the prevailing attitude in the country. Unfair, you say? Of course it is! But that will not/does not matter. We are dealing with "true-life", the way things are in the REAL world.



If I said that I supported this President, I would be not be truthful. I did not support Mr. Obama during the campaign, and I cannot support him now. I believe his policies will only bring disaster to this country. I will not be hypocritical and announce that I support him when I do not. I am convinced that Mr. Obama's $825 billion economic stimulus plan will do absolutely nothing to ease America out of the recession and will, in fact, only deepen the recession and worsen the impact on Americans of all economic levels. Just like the machinations of FDR, it will not end the recession it will only make it worse. For those of you who attended public schools, (Government schools) FDR did not end The Great Depression. The Second World War ended The Depression.



So, here we are at the beginning of a new administration in America and the battle lines are, for the most part, already drawn. It is going to be a nasty few years in America. There is no effective opposition. The GOP committed suicide by insisting on running "democrat-lite" candidates they knew American conservatives could not support and now they are paying the price for that bit of mind boggling political ignorance.



So, yes, conservatives will be looking for leadership on the national stage and many believe they have found it in the man The Obama chose to denigrate over the weekend. Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh is now thrust into a position I, personally, don't believe he wanted. Nevertheless, he will be the "go-to" guy for conservatives over the next four years. If you don't think this will revive the "Fairness Doctrine debate" you are sadly mistaken. Our socialist government will feel that it must silence Mr. Limbaugh by taking whatever action they can. No doubt they are feeling pressure to move on silencing Rush as quickly as they possibly can.



To our friends and enemies around the world, do not expect much input into your problems from America in the near future. We will be turning inwards to seek solutions to our own problems, problems which threaten our Republic, first. America must first help herself before she can be expected to help anyone else.



May God bless America... and quickly!



J. D. Longstreet

*********************











Sunday, January 25, 2009

Gun Control is NOT about Guns!!! It’s about Control!!!


Gun Control is NOT about Guns!!! It’s about Control!!!

J. D Longstreet

***************

With Democrats in control of the US Government, American citizens need to guard such liberties as gun ownership even more closely.

Let’s take a look at what gun control has wrought around the world:

“Since 1996, when a madman went on a rampage killing 16 children and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, Great Britain has tightened to strangulation its already draconian gun control laws so that only certified members of approved target-shooting clubs are allowed to own guns. These must be .22 caliber or smaller and must be kept locked up at the club at all times.

Guns have been virtually banned, and the God-given right to self-defense has been virtually abrogated in England.

And yet, crime has steadily risen in Britain in the last several years. The U.S. Department of Justice says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States. Although the U.S. remains ahead of Britain in rates of murder and rape, the gap is rapidly narrowing.

And while robberies rose 81 percent in England and Wales, they fell 28 percent in the United States. Likewise, assaults increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States. Burglaries doubled in England but fell by half in the United States. And while motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England, it remained the same in America.

To make matters worse for England – and this is also true for Canada – in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace, and dangerous, because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not in to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.

The rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves," wrote the London Sunday Times, which noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of 40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capital of the West. Where have we gone wrong?"(2) Perhaps England should look introspectively.” Taken from: “Great Britain and Gun Control: With Neither Liberty nor Safety” by: Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D. You’ll find the entire article at:

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335

Then… there is this taken from: “Gun Control in England: The Tarnished Gold Standard,” written by historian Joyce Lee Malcolm and published in the fall 2004 issue of Journal on Firearms & Public Policy:

“[Between 1997 and 2003] crimes with [banned firearms] have more than doubled.... In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose — by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offenses were committed....

Clearly since the ban criminals have not found it difficult to get guns and the balance has not shifted in the interest of public safety....

In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The UK murder rate for 2002 was the highest for a century....

A recent study of all the countries of Western Europe has found that in 2001 Britain had the worst record for killings, violence and burglary, and its citizens had one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime.... “

Plus: “A United Nations study of eighteen industrialized countries, including the United States, published in 2002 ... found England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league, with the worst record for ‘very serious’ offenses.”

If we scan the world we get similar results. If we look back in history it is astounding what happens when a people are disarmed and left defenseless to anyone wishing to do him or her harm, including their own government. I received the following by e-mail recently. It is very telling. We invite you to read it and think, seriously about what it says.

Gun Control...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him or her of this history lesson.

An Armed man is a citizen!

An UNARMED man is a subject!

With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

J. D. Longstreet

*******************


href="http://technorati.com/tag/Conservative+Gun+Control" rel="tag">Conservative+Gun+Control

************************