Monday, November 26, 2007

True American Values

I find this to be very interesting. I recall the original news story and all the flack this man caught for his straight-forward, common-sense approach to Constitutional values toward criminal treatment. If nothing else, this man is worthy of respect as an honest and very practical lawman. My hat's off to Joe Arpaio. May many more follow his footsteps and quit coddling the criminal faction in this country.

Note on the script: it's printed here as I received it, unedited, errors and all. I included the SNOPES link at the end so these facts can be checked by the reader (there are a 'few' liberties taken in this email from my buddy in New England).

This is who I was telling you about at lunch last Friday. Cool law enforcer!
Oh, there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay.
The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows. The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million.
Alesa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa County shelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost to us: $78.
The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.
I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take an interest in the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas.He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food,doing all the work and harvesting by hand. He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later. We have six trees in our yard from the Prison.
Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote. Now he's in trouble with the ACLU: again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his hotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's a "Git-R Dun" kind of Sheriff.
Update on Joe Arpaio:
TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO, HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY: Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Arizona) who created the"Tent City Jail". He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights Cut off all but "G" movies. He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.
Then He Started Chain Gangs For Women So He Wouldn't Get Sued For Discrimination. He took away cable TV Until he found out there was A Federal Court Order that Required Cable TV For Jails. So He Hooked Up The Cable TV Again and Only Let In The Disney Channel And The Weather Channel. When asked why the weather channel He Replied, "So They Will Know How Hot It's Gonna Be While They Are Working ON My Chain Gangs." He Cut Off Coffee Since It Has Zero Nutritional Value. When the inmates complained, he told them, "This Isn't The Ritz/Carlton.....If You Don't Like It, Don't Come Back." He bought Newt Gingrich's lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

More On The Arizona Sheriff:

With Temperatures Being Even Hotter Than Usual In Phoenix (116 Degrees Just Set A New Record) the Associated Press Reports: About 2,000 Inmates Living In A Barbed-Wire-Surrounded Tent Encampment At The Maricopa County Jail Have Been Given Permission To Strip Down To Their Government-Issued Pink Boxer Shorts. On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 Degrees Inside The Week Before. Many Were Also Swathed In Wet, Pink Towels As Sweat Collected On Their Chests And Dripped Down To Their PINK SOCKS. "It Feels Like We Are In A Furnace," Said James Zanzot, An Inmate Who Has Lived In The TENTS for 1 year."It's Inhumane." Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 Degrees In Iraq And Our Soldiers Are Living In Tents Too, And They Have To Wear Full Battle Gear. But They Didn't Commit Any Crimes, So Shut Your Damned Mouths!"
Way To Go, Sheriff!
Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders.
Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.
Sheriff Joe was just reelected Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Thursday, November 22, 2007


This BLOG spot is the result of a "joke" sent me by a Young Lady I'm acquainted with. She sent it in good humor and with no intent to anger or displease, but to tease me about the way I think politically. However, I had to respond to her, also in good humor and a bit sarcastically, yet honestly as I see it.

Lol, Lady

Laffin my buns off- your math is off by about 50 years.

Lemme 'splain...

In 1950 America was going thru a growth spurt after WW2- which was created by an Austrian who adored Charlie Chaplin's moustache and hated any who weren't like him. The cost of producing the lumber was $80, so the logger cleared $20, which was actually worth $20.

In 1960 we were involved in a war created by a Democrat President named John Kennedy. A lot of that lumber went to rebuilding a place called Viet Nam- because it was destroyed by Presidential and Congressional decree. Since there was a great need for lumber in other parts of the world and the United States was truly the most prodigious producer, the lumber was in demand and the logger cleared $20 because the dollar was still the most powerful monetary unit in the world.

In 1970, the United States was still involved in a Democratically created war in Viet Nam. Which we were still trying to rebuild after helping China bomb hell outta the place. Of course the logger was still selling his lumber for $100 a load, but due to Green Peace, the Sierra Club and other protesters, who, by the way, were destroying the logger's equipment because they think the logger was destroying the "wilderness". Therefore, the $20 the logger earned as profit was further cut into by equipment repairs and replacements, as well as having to pay more for the logs he cut because the Special Interest Groups such as Sierra Club and Green Peace were demanding the government put access to certain areas off-limits to logging. The logger therefore had to buy more petroleum products to reach the areas he was allowed to log. So, no, he did not make a profit.

1980 was a very wonderful year for loggers. Not only were they having to travel longer distances to get the raw material, they were now paying exorbitantly high fuel prices due to Democratic President Jimmy Carter's Energy Embargo, emplaced in the mid-70's (remember the long lines at the gas pump?) at which time a gallon of gas jumped from 35 cents a gallon to .75 or more. Too, the Sierra Club and other "environmental" organizations were swaying more and more of the Democratic Congressmen and Senators to put more and more restrictions on areas that could be logged- such as the Oregon and Washington forests, in order to preserve habitat so an owl would not become extinct. Not mentioning that the owl has since gone off the endangered species list, the areas still have not been opened to logging. Naturally, hundreds of loggers and mills were put out of work and began to collect welfare and other government benefits, which were paid in part by the logging companies. Also, to compensate for this, the logger now had to transport his logs hundreds of miles farther to mill them, resulting in higher transport costs. Then he had to transport them back to the shipping ports, costing more. Meanwhile, Special Interest Groups such as the Sierra Club got more land put out of the logger's reach- guess what? There is nothing to underline since again, the logger made no profit.

1990 was a peculiar year for loggers. Primarily, there were more acres of timbered forests not only ripe for harvest, but dieing from disease and over-growth, storm damage and plain old old age. Naturally, the Sierra Club, among other less notable Special Interest Groups, had more timbered land put off-limits to logging access and these old growth forests burned- all that timber going to waste and putting many beautiful scenic sights under a growth of black ashes and brush growth. Oh- about the loggers: they had by this time replanted more timber than they were allowed to harvest. Areas in which this timber- planted at ten to one ratios- was declared off-limits to logging because the Special Interest Groups managed to convince a Democratic Congress that the trees and wild areas were more important than jobs for people whose livelihoods depended upon a renewable resource they had planted. Of course, the logger had to travel farther and cut less and therefore, his $20 profit was cut into even more, especially since a Democratic President decided that kow-towing to Foreign Special Interest Groups and signing environmental treaties was more in keeping with American tradition than allowing Americans to work, so jobs were outsourced to places like China, Mexico, India, Malaysia, etc. Oh- that $20 profit? That was worth 71 cents on the World Market. So, figuring costs and all, the logger was probably clearing closer to $3 per hundred sold.

2007 is going to be a wonderful year for Illegal Loggers. 2008 will be even better since there will be more illegals in the United States than ever in its history. Naturally, these illegal loggers will work for less than the going rate so they can send the money to Mexico. We know this will tremendously help American Loggers because they're going to be sitting back collecting unemployment and other government benefits and lose all sense of their worth. Too, 2007 was an interesting year for American Pulp and Timber Industry workers because this is the year the United States government allowed China and Canada to purchase many mills in the United States. These mills were closed because it was cheaper to produce the materials in China and Canada and ship them to other destinations around the world.

That $20 profit from the loggers? Fact, Dear Lady: None of it went to American Loggers. I know this from first-hand experience, Fine Lady. I appreciate your sense of humor and sure hope you understand what I am trying to say here. I live in a logging area and see the "benefits" of all these government programs every day. So, in my opinion, what we really need is another Democrat in office who will sell the United States piecemeal to other countries. After all, having been the world leader in production for so long, we should share and share alike- let other parts of the world come up to our standard of living even though they didn't earn it but gained it through "diplomacy" by taking jobs away from Americans.

Oh, yes- we have to give the Sierra Club and their ilk a great big round of applause, as well: without their pushing and shoving, we would still be logging forests we have replanted and of which we now have more loggable timber in this country than anywhere in the world but Canada. Oh, right- I forgot to mention: the Sierra Club didn't plant any of this timber, it was loggers.

God Bless, Lady- no offence taken or meant by this.

Shy Wolf

Here is the letter/joke(?) that started it all:

Teaching Math :
In 1950A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?_____

2. Teaching Math In 1960A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?____

3. Teaching Math In 1970A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?____

4. Teaching Math In 1980A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20._____

5. Teaching Math In 1990A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate.... And cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)_____

6. Teaching Math In 2007Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

Monday, November 19, 2007

Gun Control

Got a good chuckle from a friend who viewed my BLOG a few days ago. Actually made a suggestion for a BLOG and I had to laugh at him.
"You've got to be kidding?" I asked.
"Not at all- serious as a heart attack. You gotta do it."
Thinking about it a while now, I imagine he's right: I do have to write about gun control, one of my favorite topics. So, with apologies to Mark Twain and Sam Clements, here goes. Oh, yes- and to whomever it was that wrote about Ransoming Red Chief, Mr O'Henry.
Liberal Democrats have long considered gun control a very major issue to their campaigns. Right alongside abortion and equal rights for all but whites. Of course, we all know who they hold as Exhibit Number One on their list of heroes: that Austrian with the funny Charlie Chaplin moustache who made an attempt at dominating the world. Some of you in reader land may recognize him as a German named Hitler. He took away the guns and nearly took over Germany, murdering about 12 million Jewish people on his way.
So, my answer to the Soros bunch, and others of his ilk, is a simple solution to the question of, "How do we get better gun control in the United States?" Perhaps not so simple, when I think about it: there will be some major costs involved. Naturally, rich as they are, these people can afford to help all us "lesser" individuals by footing the bill for the whole country.
To begin. Here you go, folks: a lesson on how to control guns in America.
Let us start with stature of the individual, since not ALL Americans are built the same. Some are tall, others short, a majority in-between. Too, some are 16-penny slim, others fat as walrus. Most are probably in-between. As well, some are fit as fiddles, others about as fit as cooked spaghetti. Again, many fall in-between. So proper gun control begins with the category of "Get a gun that suits your stature."
If you have big hands, something along the lines of a Colt 1911 full-size will be no problem for your grip. However, if you have weak arms, drop to a Colt 1911 Combat Commander size: it's smaller frame and lighter weight will aid your control. My suggestion is a caliber such as the century old .45 Colt ACP, or the more modern .357 or .44 magnum. A 9mm is okay if you like to fire off lots of rounds. If, like my Lady, your hands are a bit smaller than a man's, or if you're just effeminate, go for one of the smaller, light-weight 9 mm's on the market. They're kinda wimpy in firepower but make up for it in number of rounds you can expend at one sitting. Well, not a "sitting" per-se, but without having to reload. If you are kind of the squeamish type and feel handgun combat range is kinda too close for comfort, you can go the long-gun route. Beginning with a .22 long rifle (don't waste time with less), you can easily learn to handle this and extend the combat range a few feet. But if you really want to stop an altercation, nothing works better than a 12 gauge, best is the pump action for repeatability of firing, but my fave is a twin barrel: over/under. (Only because I like the looks and have a pump as well :) . Naturally, there are some out there who really want to control a situation and nip it in the bud. For those really gung-ho types, there is a true long-gun, a rifle with man-sized calibers such as .243, .6mm, 7mm, 308, 30-06, etc. With these babies, you can pick off an argument before it even becomes a thought.
Naturally, you'll want to insure yourself that YOU have proper gun control. To do this, get a set of grips (for pistols or revolvers) that fit your hand and aid in reducing recoil so follow-up shots are more easily accomplished. If you like, get the barrel ported so muzzle blast is used to help tame recoil on those big honking smokepoles. Don't worry about silencers or flash suppressors- the idea is to scare poop outta the critter if you miss with the first shot and lots of noise and light may well do that. For shotguns, have a good recoil pad installed on the butt or buy a shotgun that has an action that dampens felt recoil thru mechanical means. Rifles can be more well controlled through recoil pads and stock configurations. Naturally, smaller calibers will have less recoil than the big boys, but what the heck- we're men and we can handle recoil. Well, maybe: my rifles all have Uncle Mike's recoil pads. Come to think of it, so do the shotguns. Another method is to have the barrel ported on these if recoil or a follow-up shot are prime concerns. Not that I have problems with following up shots from the 30-06 with just the pad, but some may and these help. Also, a bipod on the working end of a rifle helps gun control, also.
Which brings us to the second part of good gun control legislation.
Once we all have a firearm that FITS us, thanks to the millions of dollars our enemies have, we need to learn better gun control. There is a simple solution to that, as well, but does require some effort. Since the Libs have lotsa money to spend on gun control, it won't matter, though, so we can all afford to have the absolutely best optical sights made put on our weapons. What's the best? You decide. Some people like Fords (I do) and others like Chevvies (I do) and some even like those cute little foreign imports (my Lady does). Get whichever you prefer. After all, it's the Libs and DNC who'll be paying for it.
Now that we have our weapons fitted and glassed up- oh: don't forget a couple VERY good flashlights to illuminate our night time targets- we can go to the range and get some major input on gun control.
Regardless what you get: .22, .380, 9mm, .44, .45, .357, .308, 30-06, .50BMG, you're going to need to learn PROPER gun control.
THAT begins between your ears.
First: NEVER assume a gun is empty (or loaded, for that matter); always check!
Second: NEVER point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. In other words, keep it pointed DOWNRANGE!
Third: (and maybe most important) keep your finger AWAY from the trigger until ready to shoot.
Fourth: there are ten commandments to gun safety, every one viable and important and more than the scope of this dissertation. To learn more, go to and take a safety class.
Now that we've covered the basics, understand that good gun control begins with knowing where that muzzle is pointed and that there is a bullet in the chamber. Now you need to learn that most important part of gun control: target acquisition and finger twitch.
Target acquisition isn't all that hard. For purposes of this demonstration, we're going to assume it's a paper target but we all know better: since Libs and DNC seem to think guns are only for killing people, that's what we are thinking as we sight. Don't believe me, just ask one. Oh, yes: also, killing poor little Bambi. Don't worry that more Bambi are killed by cars every year than hunters. I digress, 'scuse me. Back to targets. Two things concern us here: our target and what's behind it. We want to have a clear picture of what we are aiming at. If you can't identify it, forget finger twitch. Ditto if you have an unsafe backstop.
Triggers are not pulled back like a dentist pulling a tooth. Nor are they yanked back like a carpenter pulling a nail. They are squeezed ever so gently, like your baby girl's nose in play. And , like the bugger you pull away, should be a surprise when it goes off. When it does go BANG!, count "One". The second BANG count "Two", etc- so you know how many you've shot off. Keep track so needing to reload won't be a surprise. This is where REAL gun control begins: learning proper sighting and trigger control. If you can't see the target, you can't hit it. If you can't hit it, you missed and may as well not have shot. So lots and lots of practice is mandatory. Which we normally couldn't afford, but since the Dems are paying for the ammo, we can waste a couple here and there so long as we practice diligently and hit what we aim at.
And there we have it- a short discourse on gun control. Much of this is tongue in cheek, as you can see. But it's very serious as well.
Liberals and Democrats (usually one and the same) want world domination and the only way to accomplish that is as Hitler did in Germany. An unarmed populace will be easy prey and when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The honest citizen will be defenseless, as we are when liberal gun control laws are passed. Statistics prove that when firearm ownership is banned, crime against the people rises. Don't take my word for it: research it. And don't take a lib's word on it, either. Weigh the facts, then decide.
If less crime is wanted by the populace, enforce the laws already on the books: hang the murderers and rapists and child molesters; imprison the thieves and make them fulfill the entire sentence, no time-off for good behavior. No plea bargains, no insanity pleas- anyone who commits a crime or murders or molests another has to be insane anyway, so why allow it as a defense? And allow any honest law-abiding citizen who wants to to carry protection against the criminal element. Guns don't kill people- they protect them.
Naturally, everyone can find holes in arguments about guns taking lives or not, it just depends on your view. What about cars? How many people are killed by drunk drivers each year? Yet the drunks are on the streets, driving again- legally or otherwise. They should be in prison as far as I'm concerned before they kill again.
What about the abortionists? More children are killed yearly by "doctors" than all the criminals in the last hundred years. Of course, tell a Liberal or Democrat that they're killing their tax-base and they won't understand at all. But they are. All because some woman decided her appearance was more important than a life. No, don't use the rape-incest-medical reasons argument on me: it doesn't matter since the number is minuscule compared to those killed for appearance sake.
So if any Lib wants to tell me guns kill people and should be taken away, then let them create laws to eliminate all forms of killing. Of course, that would be a consistency and we know Libs and Dems can't be consistent in anything. Or honest.