Shut Up Iris

Read the article here. When you're done reading that, come back here and I'll tell you why I call 'bullshit' on that. Back yet, okay, here we go.



As you can see from my picture above I like guns, an armed society is a polite society. No, I don't know why the picture is so bright, that was the first time I'd ever used my camera phone and apparently somebody was testing a nuclear bomb in my kitchen, maybe the North Koreans. Bad photography aside, that article is both spurious and fucking bull-diarrhea-shit. Now, that article makes it seem that Hawaii has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States, note where it says with it's 'strong gun laws' immediately implying that other states gun laws are 'weak'.

Now look at Hawaii's gun laws, and Illinois gun laws. Holy what is the Astroglide for Batman!? Illinois' gun laws are quite a bit more strict, so logically, Illinois must have lower gun ownership rates and lower gun deaths. No and no, see for yourself.



Illinois ranks right in the middle, how is that possible? Even stupider, Washington DC which had the nations strictest gun laws (the TOTAL handgun ban was thrown out by the courts) has the HIGHEST RATE OF GUN DEATHS.

So, what is the deal? I have several ideas. First off both Illinois and DC have much denser populations and much higher rates of drug related crime. If you sell drugs, you have guns to protect your business. Hawaii is partially insulated by it's distance from, well , everywhere. Hawaii is a place where tons of tourists go to relax and where hunting is marginal at best I would imagine on the small island which are made up mostly of parks and wild life preserves. So that's two reasons, less handguns because not as much smack to protect, less rifles because of less hunting. Now take a look at this Hawaii had nearly the exact same rate of murders as other states it's size.

Less gun deaths because of fewer guns, but the same amount of murders, so even if there were zero guns on Hawaii, I doubt that would equal zero murders.

So long story short: People have been murdering each other since Darwin invented people and long before any guns ever even existed and even with an absence of guns, people will still try and find a way to kill each other. A gun is a tool. People are killed with screw drivers, ice picks, frying pans, cars................why isn't anyone trying to outlaw them?



It's all very fishy to me, banning guns only makes sure that the people that use them to protect themselves will be killed by criminals that illegally have guns.

Abraham Lincoln

President Lincoln, the man who practically invented the Republican Party, a progressive thinker that believed that the constitution of the United States applied to all her people no matter what their race or social background happened to be. A man who rightfully believed that slavery in a state founded on the dedication to liberty was just silly. More importantly, he believed that the United States was a union worth fighting and dying for, so I'm sure he'd be happy as a pig in shit to see that today, his Republican party leads the country in approving of secession, and watch Republican Governors talk openly about secession.



I'm sure that Lincoln would be proud that his party was now a racist conglomeration of wealthy honkies and mostly southerners at that. The 'Big Tent' that Lincoln tried to put up, is now filled with clowns, and not the funny kind, the scary kind that make children cry.

I would've voted for Lincoln.

Theodore 'Teddy' Roosevelt

Holy Fucking Balls. Teddy was a man's man, he shot or killed with his bare hands at least one of each of God's creatures, including Spaniards. This was back when the Republican Party was progressive, a time when when it was okay for a big time Republican to take on large corporations and banks that profited from their own inequities that screwed the American people. A time when Republicans not only started conflicts, but actually fought in them! I'd like to see Dubyah or Cheney charge up San Juan hill.



Teddy fought for two things his whole life, first to keep Europe out of North and South America's affairs and second he was for every American getting a Square Deal. What was the Square Deal? That was making sure that businesses that refused to regulate themselves and screw the little guy were regulated or put out of business, it meant conservation, nature belongs to all Americans and should stay unspoiled as much as possible for all our benefit. Teddy was the first President to understand that businesses run only for profit and will not care about anyone or anything that gets in the way of their profit in a laissez faire capitalistic system, limits needed to be set and by gum he set them! If you didn't like them, he shot you in the fucking face!

Ronald Reagan

The Gipper, our grandfatherly, Grecian Formula 99 addicted humorous old President. While most of his social and domestic policies were laughable and he certainly let his Cabinet and advisor's get away with far too much there are two things that made him great.



First: Reagan almost singlehandedly dismantled Communism. How did he do that, who did we have to invade? Nobody. Reagan understood better than anyone that not talking to your enemies gave them no reason to like you. Reagan unconditionally sat down and had a good earnest talk with America's greatest enemies ever and lo and behold, THEY LIKED HIM! Then by extension they liked America, and then they signed treaties, opened markets and the dominoes kept tumbling until Germany was re-unified and the Iron Curtain rusted.

Compare that to Dubyah, Condi, Cheney's and Josh Boltons insistence that we never talk to enemies because it 'legitimizes' them, so what happened? At the beginning of Dubyah's first term North Korea had an agreement in place, Iran had a pro-American moderate President. Then all of the sudden they became the Axis of Evil, now Korea most likely has the bomb, Iran has a hard line President determined to have a nuclear reactor. Good going guys. Every true conservative knows that were Reagan alive today he'd punch George Dubyah Bush right in the mouth, he'd promptly forget why, but he'd still fucking do it.

Third, I mean Second: Reagan also saved the economy, even defeating Jimmy Carter's 'Stagflation' Monster single handedly! How did he do that? Fuck the deficit, if the government spends money, people go to work and get paychecks. The only difference between Reagan's economic plan and Obama's is that Reagan didn't call it a 'stimulus' he called it 'building weapons to scare that birthmark off of Gorbachev's head!'. Reagan poured money into defense creating MILLIONS of high paying, union, industrial jobs that jump started the economy and finally shook off the last of Carter's 'Wait it out malaise'. Obama is doing the same thing , except he's giving money mainly to banks, which as we've seen, is pointless. IF Republicans today were the party of Reagan they would have applauded the stimulus but insisted that more went to projects that rescue the working people, defense, infrastructure and manufacturing should have been the main thrust of the stimulus.

The Gipper knew that sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

Ron Paul

I wrote him in, you can't blame me. Ron Paul is an old-time Goldwater Republican, that is, the government should cut waste, lower taxes, not make any law that restricts freedom, get the government out of the job of trying to police morality and stop invading people damn it! How can you argue with him? Dr. Paul is ALWAYS right!



Let's take a look:

Ron Paul said that invading Iraq would be a financial logistical and military disaster, he said that when even DEMOCRATS were supporting the war, and he was right.

Ron Paul warned about the housing bubble and that when artificially high home prices collapsed so would the economy, he was right.

Ron Paul wondered out loud on the House floor why the Federal Government had ANYTHING to do with mortgages with Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, he was right, we've now spent billions to fix them.

Ron Paul advised that the assault weapons ban would have no effect on gun crime, homicide, or crime in general, it didn't, he was right again.

Ron Paul warned that the Patriot Act would be used to erode American Citizens freedoms, it has , he was right.

Ron Paul warned that the 'surge' in Iraq was a false positive, that the reason violence was low was Dubyah's buying off of the Sunni tribes, he was right, Iraqi violence is rebounding since the Iraqi government has reneged on integrating the Sunni tribes into the army and security forces.

It must be frustrating as fuck to always be right and lose your Party's nomination because you think that things like the constitution, freedom and not wasting tax payers money is more important than gay marriage.


So that's my point. the New Republican Party's agenda is all about social issues. They want more laws that restrict what people do, the Republican Party has lost their roots as the 'Small Government' party and instead have become the Christian Right's water carrier and are more concerned with legislating morality instead of good old Republican Progressive governmental reform.

Conservatives need to roll up their sleeves and take the Republican Party back from the American Taliban in the Christian Right and the racist talk show hosts and get to work doing what Conservatives do best: Making government work better by keeping it out of citizens lives.

We shouldn't, and I don't but I just wanted to state publicly that I would totally do Bristol Palin.



Having said that abstinence does work IF the abstinancees never have sex. EVER. That's the tricky part especially when you name your son 'Levi Johnstone' which is so close to being a porn actors name that it is a porn actors name if I ever heard one. Teens, are going to do the sex, at least once and then gobs after that 'once' because sex is pretty fun. Well, until of course you get jaded.

SO if you read this Bristol Palin, I'll be your new man, so long as we can sell your baby on the black market (I can get $50,000.00 for a white baby............) so click on the 'contact' link and let me know. Oh and keep your mom away from me, she's one whacked out cunt. Oh and keep your dad away too, the 'First Dude' looks at you like he's jealous that Rock Johnstone knocked you up instead of him.



Someone from Alaska contact me and let know: Does living in Alaska fuck with your brain? Seriously.

Consumer Reports says 'No'. That's good enough for me.

Looks like we have a ton of space left, so let's look at something else: Mercenaries. That's right, mercenaries, oops, I mean 'Security Contractors' because if you call them 'Mercenaries' they are illegal. Now to the point, the United States of America employs anywhere from 30,000 to 90,000 'Security Contractors' in Iraq and one has to wonder why? Why wonder why? Well the United States starting off had a very bad image of the mercenary, we all learned in grade school about how General George Washington fought the dastardly Hessian Mercenaries hired by King George the Third to kill, rape and pillage the colonials and of course to the Hessian Mercenaries there were only two types of colonials, those that were actively fighting you and those that were going to eventually be fighting you and they killed both. This made them extremely unpopular.

Of course the problem was that by the standards of the day the Hessian Mercenaries were exceptionally brutal, in fact all mercenaries in the 1700's were exceptionally brutal. Armies were expected to fight a certain way, take prisoners and act with a modicum of decorum, that is don't pillage, rape or kill anyone unless your commander says it's okay. Mercenaries of the day of course were not so nice, they had no place to send prisoners of war so they killed all the wounded and captured after a battle, their pay was supplemented by explicit permission to pillage and rape and since they were poorly paid they supplemented their pay at every opportunity they could. Ever since man invented warfare, mercenaries were not far behind and were always universally hated.

We should hate them too, just read this article and you'll start to see why. First if we take the example of Triple Canopy 'Security Services' we see that in a year the Defense Department pays them TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION dollars a year to provide ONE THOUSAND security personnel, now let's say Triple Canopy's cut is a generous 50% that means each mercenary is paid on average $125,000.00 per year. Good for them, you say? Well take a hot steamy look at this! In the same year the average US Army Infantryman made UNDER $40,000.00!

'Wow' you're saying to yourself 'Mercenaries, er Security Contractors must do the most dangerous work in Iraq!' you would think so, but have a look at this next picture:

Now, you see there, it's Paul Bremer, the guy Bush put in charge of Iraq because of his, uhm, nation building expertise? Anyhow see the fat guy with the gun and beard, he is a Blackwater, er sorry, Xe Mercenary, er Security Contactor, now you see the military personnel and state department personnel behind him? He makes more a year than ALL of them. Why are mercenaries guarding US officials instead of say Marines? Well, Marines don't cost enough. Dubyah, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer and Wolfowitz all had the same mindset that 'More money = Better' and so to guard them, our troops aren't good enough because our officials (the same guys that underpay them) want the most expensive, best equipped security in the world, and they know that they don't give our troops the pay , support or equipment they need. Just using mercenaries is a kick in the teeth to our own underpaid, under equipped soldiers and having mercenaries guard our officials sends that message to our troops each and every day.

There are other reasons to hate them too. Besides their ridiculous pay for doing the least dangerous jobs they are not in any chain of command and they do not have to follow the military's rules of engagement and until recently they could not be charged with a crime in Iraq or the United States for breaking the law! So you have heavily equipped , highly paid and heavily armed mercenaries who take orders from practically no one and can't be held accountable for their actions. We know what the outcome is, that is that mercenaries end up only engaging unarmed targets and often times for no apparent reason. Think about it, you get paid whatever you want, it's not your patriotic or legal duty to do anything why would you ever even get tangled up with actual armed insurgents? You wouldn't you'd spend your time shooting civilians that can't shoot back and of course try and cover it up.

Supporting or even being a mercenary is by definition un-patriotic and the United States is one of the few nations in the world where it is legal to hire them, heck where it is legal to BE them. Our nation should not have to stoop to hiring them, if anybody at the Defense Department had half a brain, they'd use the BILLIONS of dollars spent on mercenaries giving pay raises and the proper equipment to our brave troops.

Support our troops.