|
 |
 Copyright ©2003-2008 Anthony Canales |
|
 Anthony Canales is the President of the San Fernando Valley NRA Member’s Council. He works as a Quality Control Manager in Glendale, California. He is married with one son. The opinions expressed in 'News Briefs' belong soley to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Rifle Association of America or the NRA Members' Councils of California. |
|
Home
03-20-2008
12-31-2007 |
|
November 17, 2004
"...Got a black magic woman
I've got a black magic woman
Gotten her so bad that I can't see
That she's a black magic woman
She's trying to make a devil out of me
Turn your back on me baby
Turn your back on me baby
Yes go turn your back on me baby
Start messing around with your tricks
Don't turn your back on me baby
You just might pick up my magic sticks
Got your spell on me baby
Got your spell on me baby
Yes you got your spell on me baby
Turning my heart into stone
I need you so bad, magic woman
I can't leave you alone...."
-Lyrics from the rock classic
"Black Magic Woman", by
Santana
To All,
It is rumored that the selection of the old
Santana standard by Democrat operatives has a deeper, revelatory meaning
regarding their 2008 Presidential Nominee. What with the latest Gallup poll
showing that a certain Junior Senator from New York is leading other Donkey
Party hacks at 25% (a drop of some 18% from the last measurement), it seems
that she is going to have to do some remedial time at the old cauldron:
Decisions, Decisions:
The folks at the American Spectator's "The
Prowler" are keeping up overhead surveillance on Team Clinton. Like Zarqawi
operatives ducking into mosques in Fallujah, it seems that a host of Clintonistas
have once again formed up for asymmetric operations against all comers.
Specifically, they note the addition of Patti
Solis Doyle, fundraiser extraordinaire, to the Glover Park Group, a home for
lost Clintonistas in the Big Apple.
Still, the tactical considerations of whether
Hillary Clinton runs for re-election in the Senate in 2006, or drops out to
campaign full time (but without Senatorial perquisites, a personally expensive
proposition) apparently remain to be decided.
What is more, the Kerry Implosion of
2004 seems to lend credence to two diametrically opposed concepts. One is that
as the years (and teeth) grow longer, there is only so much that botox can do
without having to resort to a "+P+" nip/tuck (Something Kerry probably should
have considered back in 2001). Thus the need for certain minimal standards of
photogenecity argue for a Hillary in 2008 effort.
On the other hand, as a Minority Member of
the Senate, Hillary has a legislative resume that can be detailed on one side
of a 3x5 card. And it is more than clear that Red State voters are going to
look on with a jaundiced eye at yet another unaccomplished "Yankee" senator.
As such, a detour towards some resume padding may ultimately derail a 2008
Presidential foray.
As of the time of printing, the Former First
Lady has yet to make her career direction known. As long as the Democrats can
close the fund raising gap by going to the Soros/Hollywood 527 Piggy Bank, she
may not have to declare until well into 2007.
It will be interesting to see how what some
pundits have labeled "The Legacy Media" will try to cover for their favorite
pol. Luckily for the salvation of the Republic, The New Media has served
notice that it will be a lot harder for Dan Rather and his cronies to be able
to "shape" the information battlefield without critical review. Team Hillary
may just find it nigh impossible to fool enough of the people this time
around. Stay tuned.
Story basis may be found at:
Once More, With Feeling:
Jim Snyder is
reporting at thehill.com about the improved possibilities of passing a
liability relief bill for firearms manufacturers, given that there are 5
newly-elected Senators who interested in both preserving the nation's firearms
heritage as well as assisting the President on his desire to implement tort
reform.
It also may be that the pro-gun bona
fides of Harry Reid (D-NV) will be put to the test over the issue sooner,
rather than later. It is certain that Diane Feinstein (D-PRCA) and Chuck
Schumer (D-DPRNY) will be looking to attach a renewal of the 1994 Ban on
Bayonet Lugs, Folding Stocks, and Flash Suppressors in a reprise of this
year's in-fighting. It will be interesting to see how the Minority
Leader-cum-Senator from a Class 3 Red State will be able to hold his party's
Left Wing in line while not losing more seats for the 2006 Election. Stay
tuned.
Story may be found at:
Now That's Revisionism!:
From Janeane Garafalo, Chris Matthews, and
Bill Maher, Americans are being treated to a spate of name calling and
breath-holding-until-cyanotic not seen since The Gipper ripped Walter Mondale
a new one in a 1984 debate. All of this has to do with the rejection of the
Liberal World View by approximately 3.5 million more registered voters than
the Party of The Flying Jackass was able to turn out (despite the help of
union "associates", Soros' and "Bomber" Bing's money, and Michael Moore) on
November 2nd.
For example, on Sean Hannity's radio show
yesterday, Garafalo treated the audience to a lecture with a socio-political
philosophy more commonly associated with Che Guevara and Jacques Derrida than
that of Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.
To Garafalo, voters who favor traditional
marriage, and vote accordingly, are simply bigoted. In addition, the home of
such bigotry (racial as well as orientational) lay with the Republican
Party since Nixon's "racist" use of a "Southern Strategy" in the 1968
Presidential Campaign. Of course, no recognition was made by Garafalo about
the 103 years that the Democrats had cornered the market on a "Southern
Strategy" (complete with Klan influence) prior to the evolution of modern
Southern Political philosophy. Nor was their any mention of the Democrat's New
Southern Strategy of the 21st Century, which effectively disenfranchises all
but African American and liberal voters throughout much of what was the
Confederacy, the Louisiana Purchase, and territories gained and/or purchased
from such states as Mexico and Russia.
Also in Garafalo's world, apparently there is
or was no racism, prejudice, or intolerance outside of "Old Dixie", or at
least north of the Mason-Dixon line. Apparently in Garafalo's world, Blue
States such as Michigan did not have a historical record of urban strife and
rioting like that demonstrated in 1967. Likewise, "forced" busing was not
necessary in cities such as Boston in 1973, given the long time "preference"
of Massachusetts residents for tolerance and multiculturalism in the public
schools.
Of course, such a lack of historical
perspective does allow the Garafalos of the world to ignore the old adage
about throwing stones and glass houses. Garafalo's trite use of the old "The
CIA created Saddam" claim scarcely recognizes the old foreign policy principle
first elucidated in the modern era by Franklin Roosevelt about Dominican
Republic strongman Rafael Trujillo- "...He may be an SOB, but at least
he's our SOB...". Saddam's original secularity was marginally better than
the misogynist leanings of the Iranian clerics, especially when containment of
Iran meant containment of the Soviets in their perennial search for warm water
ports to sortie naval forces from. And it surely is not the United State's
fault that Saddam bet in 1990 (wrongly) that he would be allowed to corner the
oil market by military means.
But if the United States is to be constrained
by Liberal philosophy from using force, even when trying to pay in blood to
rectify past "wrongs", then how are Americans going to "make amends" for all
the reputed mistakes of the past? In other words, if altruism were to be
applied without having the option of force, the United States today would be
unable to have foreign relations with everyone but Iceland (How much cod and
halibut does Garafalo think the American Public is willing to stand, anyway?).
This is, on the face, an untenable position for a Great Power in a hostile
world.
In yet another example of moral relativism
inappropriate to a time of war, Chris Matthews may have just taken the step
off of the high dive into an ordinary glass of drinking water 300 feet below.
In a Monday night edition of "Hardball",
Matthews posed a hypothetical question to a guest as to whether if Americans
had witnessed an "execution" of an American by the enemy, would they call it a
war crime.
This last is because recent news reports
allege that a Marine had shot a wounded, possibly unarmed mujahedeen
in front of the NBC cameras in what is being hyped as a My Lai-type event.
Military commanders have pulled the soldier in question from the field, and
are currently conducting an investigation as to the circumstances of the
shooting. Suffice it to say that the mujahedeen of Fallujah (those
few still left breathing) would not subject their fighters to such legal rigor
should the tables have been reversed.
Given that Legacy Media journos are all
Olympic-class athletes in the event more commonly known as the "Long
Jump-To-Conclusions", and have made the same type of histrionic statements
when dealing with certain kinds of police shootings, the public would be well
advised to withhold condemnation of the service personnel involved. Since it
has not been established conclusively that the wounded "muj" had been disarmed
by Marines the day before, it may be more than reasonable for the soldier to
have shot an illegal combatant at the first sign of any movement whatsoever.
Until the wounded fighter had been checked by combat engineers for booby
traps, and had been pronounced "clean", it would be more than reasonable for
the Marine to have viewed the "muj" as being armed at the time of the
shooting. War, and the desire to both protect one's fellow soldiers (as well
as wanting to go home to loved ones), should trump the kind of "hands tied
behind the back" ROE's that Liberals have been hamstringing the troops with
since before TET of 1968.
Lastly, in one of the most pristine
examples of a "Let's Get It On" challenge yet made by a public figure, Bill
Maher has posed the rhetorical question on his website as to whether it would
be okey-dokey to "...apply a final solution..." to Republicans.
Those who are oriented towards the history of
WWII will remember that the Final Solution referred to the Wannsee Protocol
developed by the Germans, where a large scale program of ethnic cleansing was
to be applied to Jews, homosexuals, Communists, gypsies, and anyone else
considered to be Untermenschen by the Nazi party.
Now, Maher's timing is a bit
unfortunate on two key aspects. Such a reference, using National SOCIALIST
terminology, is coming out at an inconvenient moment for Maher personally. He
is currently being sued for "palimony" by an African American woman who is
alleging physical abuse and racist comments on Maher's part. Any indication by
Maher that he considers such concepts as a Holocaust as acceptable may go a
long way towards establishing the plaintiff's claims of a racist attitude.
But a second aspect as to Maher's discussion
topic lies in the age old observation that Liberals who believe in gun control
are not usually in a position to effect private physical retribution against a
majority of voters. Nor are they armed to the levels necessary to fulfill the
"dreams" of secession currently making the rounds of AirAmerica and Pacifica
Radio affiliates as well as Blue State psychiatric facilities. Suffice it to
say that the 4 million members of the NRA would most likely maintain their
right to armed self defense against any and all disaffected Kerry supporters,
given that the NRA played an important part in a Bush victory in such states
as Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and possibly even Iowa.
In addition, Mackubin Thomas Owens notes in
yesterday's NationalReviewOnline column that Blue Staters do not have the
soldiers (given that most soldiers come from Red States, or at least are
registered preponderantly as Republicans, as pointed out by Thomas Ricks of
the Washington Post) to effect anything more than what may be called by others
as "pacification sweeps" through Downtown Beantown and the Mission District in
good Ole' Frisco. That is what is called as "winning the hard way", if it can
be called winning at all.
Owens actually wonders that, for some strange
reason, should Liberals attempt a "Blue Voter" Revolt, that an 1866-style of
Reconstruction would be appropriate (not to mention poetically ironic). Given
the uncertainty of the seriousness of these SoreLoser Liberals, and to whether
they may not have the cojones to even emigrate to the welcoming arms
of the Great White North or President Jacques "Jerk" Chirac of
Not-So-Belle-France, Owens seems to be reserving judgement as to the
seriousness of those disaffected by the results of Election Day. Suffice it to
say that, like the Minutemen of old, law-abiding gunowners will be there to
defend their lives, their communities, and the Constitution from all
"enemies", foreign and/or domestic. Anything else would be un-American, and
uncharacteristic.
Story elements may be found at:
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
SFVMC-NRA
Copyright 2004 Anthony Canales
All rights reserved.
|
|
