Scipio the Metalcon

Metal Steve - Heavy Metal Conservative with Issues


1863, Part I - Prelude
devil horns
scipio62
At the time, the United States was approaching the age of four score and seven years. The country was engaged in the Civil War, a conflagration which showed no signs of abating. On January 1st of that year, President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation took effect whereby all slaves in areas not under the control of the federal government were freed. While the effects were minimal and no slaves in the North were freed, the proclamation had shamed the United Kingdom and France, whose governments had recently ended slavery in their countries, in not recognizing the slavery-supporting Confederate States of America and supplying them with goods. The aim of the war had changed from one to bring back the South into the fold of the United States into one to finally free all of its people. But even as the proclamation took effect, it wasn't clear the United States would even remain as it was.

This post will discuss the situation as it was when 1863 began. Subsequent posts appearing periodically will each be of the major battles that took place in 1863.

Read more...Collapse )

Child Rulers of England
devil horns
scipio62
As today is President's Day, it is good to remember the nation's heritage. Unlike our Presidents, English monarchs, especially the males, know fairly early on in their lives what they will become. But as it happens, some came to the throne before they were considered adults.

While you may wonder what this has to do with today's politics in the U.S., I want you to think about it this way. Barack Obama knows only one job, campaigning for the office he wants to be elected to. Beyond that, he'd rather play. Obama likes games. Instead of doing what's best for the country that re-elected him to be President, Obama would rather bully his enemies. But when actually confronted, Obama changes the rules so that he can win and cries until he gets his way. Tell me if that isn't what a child does? On top of that, Obama has a party full of politicians and supporters willing to enable him to continue acting like he does. Take the recent actions of he and his gun grabbing proposals. Obama was smart enough to know he can't buck the 2nd Amendment with Executive Orders. So he sends out his enablers to bully and scare people into believing legitimate gun owners are wannabe child killers. Obama has acted this way for nearly 20 years; it is unlikely he'll ever grow up.

With that out of the way, back to the subject at hand. English law and custom has varied over the centuries when determining if a monarch has attained the age of majority, when s/he is old enough to rule on their own. So it doesn't make sense to rely on that for my list. Every one of the rulers listed below became monarch when they were considered minors by today's standards. Some grew up physically and emotionally stable, some didn't; some didn't live long enough to grow up. It is listed chronologically, and consists of all the monarchs of a united England, which occurred in the mid-10th Century under the House of Wessex. I hope you enjoy it.

Read more...Collapse )

The Hard Truth: Islam Has A Problem The U.S. Is Enabling
devil horns
scipio62
On August 8, 1942, six men, including a naturalized American citizen, were executed by electrocution after having been found guilty in a military tribunal of spying and sabotage for the Nazis during World War II (the other two involved had their death sentences commuted for turning in the others). This was following the Supreme Court's Ex Parte Quirin decision being released to the FDR administration a little more than a week earlier (it wasn't officially released for a further three months). While there is no evidence to support this, it remains unlikely that the Nazis harbored any more "grievances" against the U.S. than they already had, considering Hitler had declared war on the U.S. nine months earlier.

Via Glenn Reynolds, Bridget Johnson has a post at PJ Media about the trial of U.S.S. Cole terrorist Ayman al-Rahim al-Nashiri where the Obama DoJ is trying to request a competency review, apparently to avoid having a trial. Initially, the regime dropped its charges against al-Nashiri in order to facilitate ending military tribunals and moving all the terrorists at Gitmo to the civilian courts. When the public outcry against such trials were answered by the regime, the DoD refiled its charges in 2010 and al-Nashiri was going to face a military tribunal, with a potential death sentence carried out if the terrorist is convicted. There still hasn't been a trial, and it looks like Obama doesn't want one. In this sentence, Johnson may have the reason why [emphasis mine]:

Read more...Collapse )

The Newt Factor
devil horns
scipio62
No matter who won the Republican nomination for President last year, that person was going to have a tough time of it since, as it turns out, there were enough people in America who were stupid enough to vote for Barack Obama or not vote for Mitt Romney (they voted for someone else or didn't vote). While I hemmed and hawed through much of the primary season, I really found Newt Gingrich to be the best candidate, warts and all. Yes, he's had some problems; but, I believe his conservative credentials were solid and he was able to put them into practice (not always, but most of the time) when there was a Democrat in the White House. But by the time Arkansas had its primary, Gingrich was out of the race.

Gingrich matters because I see the battle lines being drawn for the 2016 Republican nomination between Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. I like them both, but my preference right now is for Paul (no, I was never for his father; Rand Paul is a much more pragmatic conservative, but conservative nonetheless). I believe Paul is a tad more principled a conservative than Rubio. But I see a problem for Paul, a problem that Romney never did address: illegal aliens. This is a problem the federal government has to be involved in, so this isn't an argument about supporting a "big government" solution. And right now, it is Rubio who has recognized the problem with illegal aliens, something Gingrich points out in a recent newsletter he sent out.

Read more...Collapse )

New York's Kermit Gosnell Abortion Bill
devil horns
scipio62
Today is the sad 40th anniversary of the travesty of Roe v. Wade. For those of you who may not remember, Kermit Gosnell is the monster (forget all that alleged crap) who: murdered eight babies because he couldn't abort them (he induced labor, then stabbed them to death with scissors); murdered at least one woman after aborting her baby; may have murdered other women aborting their babies; maimed countless other women aborting their babies, in some cases leaving parts of the dead baby in the womb; and, left body parts of the aborted fetuses lying around, sometimes in jars. The Pennsylvania Department of Health not only had not inspected Gosnell's butcher shop for nearly 20 years, they made it a point not to inspect ANY abortion mills during that time (this started when the GOP's pro-abortion Tom Ridge was governor, and continued during pro-abortion Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell's administration). Nobody knew what was going on in Gosnell's house of horrors; his abortion shop was raided by police during an investigation of Gosnell allegedly engaging in illegally dealing prescription drugs. Gosnell has not yet been tried in court. (Read the post I linked to above for more details.)

Pro-abortion zealot, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, the current governor of New York state, is urging the state's general assembly to pass an abortion expansion law that will allow New York's abortionists to exceed the monstrosity committed by Gosnell, and to make it legal.

Read more...Collapse )

Mythbusting Gun Grabber Policy
devil horns
scipio62
In response to the massacre in Newtown, CT, the government of New York state just passed a new law that among other things bans ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds for semiautomatic rifles and more than 7 rounds for semiautomatic pistols (I believe that is what New York's SAFE Act does; any lawyers, please confirm). It was introduced on January 14, passed in the state Senate that same day, passed by the Assembly on January 15, and signed by Democrat Governor Cuomo later that day. On his radio show the other day, Sean Hannity had one of the Democrat morons who voted for the new law and asked him about the speed with which it was passed. Paraphrasing the Democrat, he said it's an issue they've been looking at for a long time (I don't remember if he was more specific than that).

Myth #1. New York's state lawmakers took an appropriate amount of time to put together this comprehensive law. It's quite apparent the idiots who voted for it, along with Gov. Cuomo who signed it into law, didn't spend enough time on it.

Read more...Collapse )

Stopping Violence With...Signs? How About Bringing A Gun To Prevent Massacres?
devil horns
scipio62
The massacre of children in Newtown, CT has led a variety of people to say a variety of things. Naturally, the federal government has said something has to be done. It's quite understandable; this was a horrific crime. But if you think about, I mean really think about it, what more can the federal government actually do? There's talk about reinstituting the expired federal assault weapons ban; yet, it really never defined what an actual assault weapon is, it didn't do anything to prevent the Columbine massacre back in the 1990s, nor would the weapons used in Newtown be classified as assault weapons under the expired ban. Truly automatic weapons are already heavily regulated by the federal government (and state governments) and have been for nearly 80 years. Plus, we're talking real civil liberties here; gun banners and gun grabbers have been trying to get the courts to "rewrite" the 2nd Amendment for years to have it say something other than what it does. There's talk about doing something about those people who are mentally ill and could be violent. Yet, what constitutes mental illness has been expanded over the years so that the vast majority of people who live with some kind of problem deal with them to live normal lives. And those who are truly mentally ill, like every other American, has certain unalienable rights and can't just be picked up off the street and thrown into a facility just because the government says so; we don't live in the world depicted in Minority Report.

So what's left? Well, there are the gun-free school zone laws at the federal and state level. But if you actually look at the gun-free school zone laws actually on the books in the U.S. Code (Subsection (q) of 18 USC § 922) and in the Connecticut General Statutes, they were as (in)effective as the expired assault weapons ban. But the Connecticut law needn't have been.

Read more...Collapse )

"How Can You Negotiate With Animals?"
devil horns
scipio62
DrewM. is on a roll at AoSHQ is on a roll today. He has a post on Obama's presser today that has me roaring mad. I'm still wondering why Boehner even bothered to work with the pathetic puke occupying the White House. Obama manages to be even more disgusting than he was during the last campaign. As Drew mentions, "He tied his tax proposals to the deaths of 20 innocent children" [emphasis mine]:

It is a deal that can get done, but it is not going to be -- it cannot be done if every side wants 100 percent. And part of what voters were looking for is some compromise up here. That’s what -- that’s what folks want.

They understand that they’re not going to get 100 percent of what they want. And for some reason, that message has not yet taken up on Capitol Hill. And when you think about what we’ve gone through over the last couple of months -- a devastating hurricane, and now one of the worst tragedies in our memory, the country deserves folks to be willing to compromise on behalf of the greater good and not tangle themselves up in a whole bunch of ideological positions that don’t make much sense.
I'll wager none of the Obama propagandists White House Press Corps called out Obama for this outrageous statement; even Jake Tapper, who did ask a fairly tough question to Obama about Newtown, of which Obama took "offense", didn't seem to hit Obama for the sentence I highlighted.

But it gets better. Quoting Drew again, "Obama says Boehner's Plan B is a non-starter because raising taxes on millionaires is really a tax cut for them and a tax hike on the middle class" [emphasis mine]:

The speaker is now proposing what he calls Plan B. So he says, “Well, this would raise taxes only on folks making $1 million or more.” What that means is, an average of a $50,000 tax break for every millionaire out there. At the same time as we’re not providing unemployment insurance for 2 million people who are still out there looking for work. It actually means a tax increase for millions of working families across the country, at the same time as folks like me would be getting a tax break.
Bless his heart, how does Boehner think he can negotiate with a jerk who says such things? Think about it; Boehner is debating a corrupt and indecent incompetent in Obama who is not only allowed a pass when he says a tax rate increase is somehow a tax cut but who also gets a pass when he exploits murdered children to hike taxes on "the rich".

Boehner has to take the only three steps available to him since the election. He needs to get the GOP to draft a bill that permanently cuts the regular federal income tax rates for everyone but the top level (a real middle class tax cut the GOP can own), get it passed there, then have the House set to have pro forma sessions until this Congress is over, daring Reid to not pass it in the Senate and daring Obama not to sign it if the Senate does pass it. That's it.

It's time the GOP and conservatives accept that there is no negotiating with the indecent and corrupt Obama on his terms, on his ground. The only way a jerk like Obama will respect those he tries to bully is if he is shown real strength. If Boehner and the GOP don't do this, then forget the debt ceiling fight; America would have already lost.

Cross-posted at RedState.

Screw The Math; GOP Should Cut Tax Rates Further
devil horns
scipio62
Mitt Romney ended up getting more votes in the 2012 election than John McCain did in the 2008 election. But despite the fact that Barack Obama had 4,000,000 fewer votes in 2012 than in 2008, he won because he managed to convince enough stupid people in key states to not vote for Romney. It didn't matter that Romney had Paul Ryan, one of the smartest guys in government, as his running mate; it didn't matter that Romney had been a success in his private endevors; it didn't matter that Romney was a good man. Obama ran a wholly unpresidential and dirty campaign to call Romney a racist, misogynist, corrupt murderer, and got away with it, with assistance from the immoral Democrat media.

Conservatives know for a fact that increasing tax rates on the rich will do nothing to solve the federal government's spending insanity. We know for a fact that following the 2003 tax rate cuts, federal revenue increased to record levels by 2007; unfortunately, spending never did go down, although the deficits were reduced year after year. We have empirical data, the math, proving the problem with the federal government is the spending. Yet, Obama is winning the tax argument in spite of the facts. Worse, he's got the dummies running the Republican Party falling for Obama's lies, confirming the GOP is the stupid party.

So how does the GOP stop being stupid? Simple. Be politically bolder and turn Obama's arguments against him. Obama wants the tax rates of the top two percent of income earners raised. Republicans should write a bill that leaves in place the rates for those income levels, but reduces the current tax rates for the rest of the income levels. And forget all this nonsence of closing out deductions.

Read more...Collapse )

Perspective
devil horns
scipio62
Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas are supposed to be sports journalists, people who report the news about the sports world. Professional football player Jovan Belcher, a sports figure, murdering his girlfriend and then killing himself is obviously sports news. Nobody knows exactly what happened with Belcher, whether he was a bad man or mentally impaired due to having had too many head injuries playing football; in fact, why Belcher did what he did is something real sports journalists are paid to discover. What real sports journalists don't do is go on a rant blaming guns and the mythical American "gun culture" for the deaths of Belcher and his girlfriend before knowing all of the facts. To go on such a rant is a breach of ethics, a terminable offense as far as I'm concerned. Of course, Democrat media types masquerading as news journalists make it a point to be unethical on a regular basis; I guess Whitlock and Costas didn't want to be left out.

Along with a lapse of ethics, Whitlock's and Costas' rants lack perspective. With the Belcher incident, a gun was used in the killing of two people. Guns were used to kill people by murderers in many highly reported crimes and thousands die every year in which a gun is used. But Whitlock and Costas would have their readers and listeners believe that absent the proliferation of guns, all of these dead people would still be alive, as they believe Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive if Belcher hadn't had a gun. Maybe these two idiots should tell that to the families of those thousands murdered without a gun being used:

Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were both stabbed to death in 1994. Officially, the murders remain unsolved.

Eight student nurses were murdered by Richard Speck in 1966. They were all either stabbed or strangled to death.

Thirteen women were murdered by strangulation by the Boston Strangler. The Strangler was thought to have been one Albert DeSalvo, who did kill some of the women and was convicted of those crimes, but evidence has come out in the last 40 years that has cast doubt on DeSalvo being the Strangler.

Seventeen people were murdered by Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered his victims in a variety of ways, but without a gun.

Approximately thirty people, perhaps more, were murdered by Ted Bundy. He usually raped his victims before beating or strangling them to death.

Another 33 men and boys were murdered by John Wayne Gacy. As with the others, he did not use a gun to murder his victims.

A further 27 known victims, possibly up to 200, were murdered in the 1890s by Herman Webster Mudgett. While I admit to some oversimplification, Mudgett's weapon of choice was his house (known as Chicago's "Murder Castle"), specifically built with secret rooms and trap doors in order for Mudgett to torture his victims before killing them, often by asphyxiation.

More than 3000 were murdered by Al Qaeda terrorist vermin on 9/11/2001. The terrorists used knives and box cutters to hijack the planes they were on, then used those planes as missiles and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, PA. No guns were used.

Unless they publicly apologize very quickly, both Whitlock and Costas should be fired immediately. Not because they spoke their minds, as is their right, but because what they said was a complete breach of journalistic ethics, engaging in an unqualified rant without knowing all of the facts behind Belcher's crime and suicide, and doing so while abusing the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press Clause.

Cross-posted at RedState.

You are viewing scipio62