Friday, April 13, 2007

Rudyard Kipling - Tommy

Haven't had a Kipling Night for a LONG time.

Given the shameful quarters for wounded soldiers at American military hospitals, Nancy's trip to Damascus, the pork-barrel Appropriations Bill, the failure of Congress to send a bill version that the President can sign ... perhaps this is the most appropriate of Kipling's Barracks Room Ballads.


I WENT into a public-’ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ’e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,—
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but ’adn’t none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-’alls,
But when it comes to fightin’, Lord! they’ll shove me in the stalls!
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, wait outside”;
But it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide,—
The troopship’s on the tide, my boys, the troopship’s on the tide,
O it’s “Special train for Atkins” when the trooper’s on the tide.

Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
An’ hustlin’ drunken soldiers when they’re goin’ large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin’ in full kit.
Then it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, ’ow’s yer soul?”
But it’s “Thin red line of ’eroes” when the drums begin to roll,—
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it’s “Thin red line of ’eroes” when the drums begin to roll.

We aren’t no thin red ’eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, fall be’ind”,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind,—
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir”, when there’s trouble in the wind.

You talk o’ better food for us, an’ schools, an’ fires, an’ all:
We’ll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don’t mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier-man’s disgrace.
For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ’is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!

The American Congress today is no better than British Parliament 120 years ago.

And the American public no more supportive of its brave fighting men.

Shame on us.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Ten Ways to Screw Up in England

Oh, where to begin.

Great Britain is becoming a prototypicaly Socialist "Nanny State" ... one where the government seems determined to deprive citizens of rights, then find fault in every conceivable aspect of life, and finally to designate victims as villains.

Here are Ten Ways To Screw Yourself In England.

(1) Blair has identified "Black Culture" as the cause of "gun and knife violence", and asserts that "Political Correctness Is Not Helping".

Here are a couple of the sweetest Money Quotes:
"... the recent violence should not be treated as part of a general crime wave, but as specific to black youth."
Well, he knows his national culture better than I do. But remember, GB has made it impossible for an honest person (and even some 'dishonest persons') to legally possess a firearm. What is the consequence? "Gun Violence" has degenerated into "Knife Violence". While the "Gun" part is somewhat shifted, the "Violence" goes on and on:
Giving the Callaghan lecture in Cardiff, the prime minister admitted he had been "lurching into total frankness" in the final weeks of his premiership. He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime. He said that "the black community - the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law abiding people horrified at what is happening - need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids"
Mr Blair said there needed to be an "intense police focus" on the minority of young black Britons behind the gun and knife attacks. The laws on knife and gun gangs needed to be toughened and the ringleaders "taken out of circulation".
The Home Office has already announced it is looking at the possibility of banning membership of gangs, tougher enforcement of the supposed mandatory five-year sentences for possession of illegal firearms, and lowering the age from 21 to 18 for this mandatory sentence.
What? I thought the Brits were already imposing draconian sentences of imprisonment for firearms possession and usage. Didn't they imprison some home-owner for umpteen years for using a shotgun against a home invader? (No link cited ... of course they did, several times in a continuing trend.)
Here's the juicy part:
He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime.
Oh, well done! You've imposed every possible restriction on firearms ownership, on the grounds that there is no legitimate use for a firearm, and your people are now using knives to kill each other.

Mr Blair spoke out as a second teenager was due to appear in court charged with the murder of 14-year-old Paul Erhahon, stabbed to death in east London on Friday. He was the seventh Londoner under 16 to be murdered since the end of January, and his 15-year-old friend, who was also stabbed, remains in hospital.
How will you justify the imposition of laws against the possession of knives? If you find a way, Tony, The Missus will be reduced to jointing a chicken with a cricket bat and the Yobs will be using their mum's cricket bats to clobber their neighbors.

Don't you GET it yet?

The problem is not the guns, or the knives, or the cricket bats ... the problem is the VIOLENCE. By mandating against means of personal defence, you're only disarmed the honest citizen. Yobs will always be armed.


Here are other ways that Great Britain is invoking Big Brother:

(2) Are you a 'bad neighbor'. You will be sent to Coventry.

(3) Even if you're a perfectly law-abiding citizen, your children will be finger-printed in anticipation of future prosecution ... even if the school headmaster has to lie to them to do the job.

(4) Park your car in a 'no parking' zone? It's no longer an 'oopsy'; it's a criminal action which allows the Bailiffs to enter your home (without a warrant) to serve you.

(5) Got a good "Squirrel Joke"? The Bobbies will hunt you down to make sure you're not abusing rodents.

(6) UK Schools may no longer tell their students that the Nazi's slaughtered 6.5 Jews in WWII concentration camps. It may offend a Muslim, who has been told by his Imam that the Holocaust is a lie.

(7) Join the Royal Marines to defend King and Country? Okay, but don't you dare shoot anybody.

(8) Think that, just because you're a Brit you have privacy rights? F'gettaboutit! They can put a chip in your brain which will provide all of your personal information to anyone who has the equipment to read it, and there's not a thing you can do about it.

(9) Think you can walk down the street without causing an uproar? Now way, somebody is going to yell at you!

Finally, and perhaps most egregious of these measures ....

(10) Wanna Be a Hero? Think your country will love you for "Doing The Right Thing"? Forget about that, too. No matter your motives or your personal sacrifice, Great Britain won't give you public recognition because ... guess what.

That's right, it might offend a Muslim.

The sun has set upon the British Empire.

Don't let it happen here.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

L.A. 'Shooting Victims Bill Of Rights'

LA City Council Gives Supports For 'Shooting Victims Bill Of Rights' - News Story - KNBC | Los Angeles

NBC Television in Los Angeles reports (April 4, 2007) that the L.A. City Council " ... went on record Wednesday in support of four state gun-control bills dubbed the "Shooting Victims Bill of Rights."

The four California State Gun Control bills would:
  1. "... require all new semiautomatic handguns to be equiped with microstamped technology by 2010".
  2. " ... require retailers to have a license to sell ammunition."
  3. "... require firarms owners to notify a law enforcement agency within five days within five working days of discovering that a gun has been stolen or irretrievably lost."
  4. "... allow California's Law Enforcement Agencies to use and compare forensic and ballistic information kept on a national database."
The first law is eerily reminiscent of AB352, which was defeated in the California State Assembly late last year (October, 2006) when the sponsor of the bill failed (deliberately?) to defend his own bill. More later on whether this is actually a New Bill, or someone just hasn't got word that the bill was defeated six months ago. Or, if they know the bill is dead but tacked it onto their own private agenda for the sake of looking good to their constituents. ("Typical Political Trickery".)

Bill #2 has no obvious application to the usual justification of Gun Control bills ... to restrict access of firearms to "legitimate purchasers". It's just a way to put a roadblock in the way of honest citizens and, in doing so, advance their own political career. (AB362) Violation (selling more than 50 rounds of loaded ammunition in a month) is subject to a fine of $500.

Bill #3 also has no obvious reason for being, other than to put the hammer in the hands of The State in the unlikely case of a gun-owner not reporting a stolen firearm. This bill would allow the state to prosecute the victim. (AB334) A fine ($100 or $250) may be imposed for failure to report a lost or stolen handgun.
Simple tyranny, nothing to see here, folks. Move on.

Bill #4 is a cheek-kiss to firearms registration. The Brady Bill requires firearms purchasers to be vetted by The State, in order to prevent firearms sales to people (felons, etc.) who shouldn't be allowed to purchase firarms; but it specifically requires vetting agencies to destroy records in order to avoid the possibility of registration. This bill requires records keeping, specifically "forensic and ballistic information kept on a national database." If the only information was dimension and rifling on a bullet, it might be useful to connect a bullet used in a crime in one state to be connected to a crime committed elsewhere via retrieved bullets found at both crimescenes. However, any bullet retrieved from sources other than a crimescene would presumably include information on the owner of the firearm. This is just another backdoor approach to registration.

When I have found ALL the actual bills and have read them, I will be better able to report on whether suitable limitations on personal information have been included.

Best guess, lacking any other information, is that this last bill fails to include such limitations.

California residents are invited to provide more information on these bills, for the purpose of determining how loosely they are written.

Incidentely, AB854 provides restrictions on the transfer (including loan) of firearms. The bulk of this very long bill is generally devoted to 'exemptions', and I haven't done more than scan it VERY quickly so far so I can't profess to understand it. However, it bears a second, closer look. My summary on a first glance is that it does absolutely nothing. That suggests to me that the purpose of this bill is so buried in obfuscatory verbiage that something significant MUST be goiong on.

This is a good subject for future evaluation.

Translation: I don't know what these scum-sucking, bottem-dwelling low-lifes have plugged in here, but I'm morally certain that there are some unpleasant surprises here for law-abiding citizens.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Buy A Gun Day

Hey, I've got my Income Tax Refund (Grrrr ... don't get me started) and my gunsafe has a big gaping hole where a Defensive Shotgun should be.

And Cowboy Blog as designated April 15 as Buy A Gun Day!

What to do, what to do?

Actually, I'm thinking ... Mossberg 590.

(I'm also hoping that it doesn't come with a bayonette!)

A recent newspaper ad (Big 5) lists the 590 at $319, "Regularly $399". My research indicates that this is probably the regular 590, not the "590 A1". I have a vague understanding that the "A1" is superior, but I"m not sure what the advantage is. (I assume that the 'sale price' is for the older model.)

Also, my limited research shows this as an 8-round capacity shotgun, but the newspaper ad lists it as a 9-round shotgun. I'm guessing it has an 8-round tube, and the 9-round claim includes the chambered round.

Why am I writing about this?

I'm really interested in buying this type of shotgun, and I have the impression that this is a good shotgun in this price range. But my Internet research is not terribly enlightening, leaving me with more questions than understanding.

I'm hoping that there's someone who can read this and give me some answers. What I'm looking for is a lot of response which will tell me either:
  1. Why I should buy this shotgun over others in the price range, or
  2. Why I should buy another shotgun over others in the price range.
To clarify the question, I already have plenty of guns that seem perfectly workable for Home Defense. What I'm really looking for is a shotgun I can use in the local Practical Shotgun matches which crop up from time to time.

I bought a Mech Tech for Pistol-Caliber Carbine matches, and I have mixed feelings about it (mostly, the sluggish bolt action and the annoying wire-stock vibration.) But, for what I paid for it and considering my low expectations, I'm not disappointed in that purchase. I'm looking for someone who can predict any "Buyer's Remorse" if I get a 590, or alternatively a reason why I might be disappointed if, for example, I buy a Remington 870.

Remember, "Buy A Gun Day" is imminent, and I need information before I plunk the VISA card on the counter ... probably Monday, April 16, 2007.



Here's some of the information I've found on the Internet. This may demonstrate why I'm dubious about the authority of the presenters:

Home Defense

12 gauge shotgun. It dumps an immense amount of energy into your target at close range. It is less likely to overpenetrate than most other firearms, so you're less likely to accidentally kill a neighbor, while it is still plenty effective at the longest ranges you are likely to encounter inside your home. Other things like pistols and rifles will punch relatively small holes in an attacker, while a 12ga shotgun will blow significant chunks out and almost certainly knock them over. I recommend a pump shotgun for reliability. Some semi-automatic shotguns have difficulty reliably cycling some types of ammunition. A pump shotgun will still work when packed full of mud. You can get ammunition which is specifically designed for home defense that will kick less hard, and penetrate fewer walls, if it is to be used by a smaller person, or overpenetration is more of a concern to you. More magazine capacity is good. Some believe that a smaller magazine capacity and correspondingly shorter barrel length improves a shotgun's maneuverability enough to be worth the loss of magazine capacity. I prefer more magazine capacity.

Mossberg 590, 8 round magazine

mossberg I prefer the Mossberg 590, with an 8 round magazine. This is a combat style shotgun with a large magazine capacity

Monday, April 09, 2007

PA. Gun Control Mania

In Pa., it's high noon in battle over gun control | Inquirer | 04/08/2007

Philly dot Com (Sorry ... The Philadelphia Enquirer) has an article about the FIFTEEN Firearms Control Bills backed up in the state legislature.

(We already talked about at least one of them, here.)

You can read the whole thing .............. here:

I have to admit, that is the longest URL I have ever seen. I'm sure there are some conclusions to be drawn from this, but I am not man enough to accept the challenge.

Well, it's probably not significant that Philly's newspaper doesn't know how to generate a short, unique URL, but it probably IS significant that:
  1. PA introduced a dozen gun control bills seven months ago ... all of which were defeated.
  2. "... the number of slayings in Philadelphia is edging painfully upward - 105 at last count, the majority of them at the point of a gun."
  3. "Gov. Rendell has turned up the volume on his pleas for stronger gun-control measures, and Democrats now control the state House. All this comes at a time when a new poll suggests a majority of Pennsylvanians are willing to accept handgun-sale limits. "
  4. "... the bills face an uphill battle in the General Assembly, which is dominated by lawmakers who support gun rights.

So, if there is such a ground-swell of popular support for gun control in Pennsylvania, why is it so difficult to make new laws?

Answer: Politics. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, the lawmakers are keenly aware that (a) their main priority is to be re-elected; (b) their constituents don't REALLY want the State to take their guns away, and; (c) if they vote for gun control laws, the politicians will NOT be re-elected!

Think I'm making this up? This is a direct quote from the article:

From House Speaker Dennis O'Brien (R., Phila.), who blocked gun-control bills as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to the current leaders of the committees in the House and Senate, there is reluctance to support gun bills for fear they will fail or bring lawmakers defeat in the next election.

Rep. Dan Surra (D., Elk) said that while he sympathized with residents living in high-crime areas, he could not support any gun-restriction bill because in certain quarters of his district, a hunting stronghold in the north-central part of the state, guns are a single-issue item at the polls.

"They will vote you out on this," Surra said.

(Governer) Rendell's mention of gun control in his February budget in the Capitol drew a chorus of hisses from Republicans - and likely some Democrats in the Capitol - underscoring the largely geographical, rather than political, divide on the issue.
This sounds serious. The Public has identified a problem (heightened murder rate in major urban centers); The Politicians have offered a legislative solution (specifically, limit gun purchases to one per month, in an attempt to limit "straw purchases"; The Public has rejected that offer.

The Politicos are wandering around Harrisburg, scratching their pointy-haired heads, asking each other "What's wrong with this picture?"

As far as I can tell from the article, they have decided that voters are a fickle bunch. They not only want a 'solution', they want 'the RIGHT solution'. This is beyond the competence level of the Pennsylvania State Legislature, so their response is to -- what?

That's right, they are determined to JAM Gun Control down the throats of their constituents, as soon as they can figure out an acceptable way to reword the phrase "Take Your Gun Rights Away From You".

Well, good luck to you, PA Pols. (Not really, you slimy scum-sucking bottom-dwelling Lawyers! I hope you try, and I hope you choke on it.)

"Voters are in a different place than some lawmakers," said Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), the poll's sponsor and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Yeah, you think? That's something new in American Politics, especially when there's a new Democratic Majority in the State Legislature.

But deep philosophical differences separate those in rural areas who treasure their Second Amendment rights, and for whom a Winchester .30-06 is for shooting deer, from those in urban areas who associate gun use with murder.

"The feeling out here is that proposals that deal with firearms in general are inched toward the precipice, and once you start eroding Second Amendment rights, it's a cascading effect," Surra said.

"Guns are part of our culture, too. The difference is we don't shoot each other," said Surra, who recalls teaching students to build guns in shop class.

Well, not shooting each other seems an uniquely intuitive step in a situation which has already been defined as "we have too many people shooting each other, what should we do about that?"

Obviously, that's too simplistic and the Pa Pols have ignored what may seem "a common-sense approach" to some of us.

Clearly, a battle looms over one-handgun-a-month in the Capitol
The Gun Owners' Advocate Speaks:

"We're opposed, of course," said Melody Zullinger, executive director of Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen, an umbrella group representing 300 hunting and outdoor organizations.


"All [the laws] do is infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights," Zullinger said. "The criminals get illegal guns on the black market. It's not going to curb the crime problem."

The Gun Control Advocate Speaks:

This time around, gun-control groups have a new advocate: Philip R. Goldsmith, Philadelphia's former managing director, who is now president of CeaseFire PA.

"The time is ripe," said Goldsmith, who wants to build a grassroots movement like the one that defeated the controversial pay raise that legislators voted themselves in 2005. "The paradigm is changing on this."

and ...
Pennsylvania "is a priority state for us," said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence, which teamed with other gun-control groups to form the coalition Pennsylvanians Against Trafficking Handguns in 2005. "We believe there is enough political ability in the legislature to enact change."
That looks good to the Democrats, I suppose. But here's the Money Quote:

State Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R., Bucks), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he supported one-handgun-a-month but would not bring up a bill for a vote in his committee that is doomed to failure.

"I run what I think I can get through, and this didn't come close to passing," said Greenleaf. "Still, we have to do something that will have an impact. It's a war."

Yes, it's a war. The conflict is between Citizens who want to reduce the murder rate in their (gun-control intrusive) urban areas, and politicians who can see no other solution than to take firearms out of the hands of honest citizens.

As my old friend Bumstead is fond of saying: "When all you have is a hammer, all of your problems look like a nail."

.. and as another friend, Earthworm, would say:

"What a bunch of Maroons!"

Letters, I get Letters ...

... From Paul, The Soccer Coach:

I know you'll say I'm hurting myself but I had a thought and think I'm onto something here. As we get older they have all sorts of drugs for memory loss, eyesight and sex problems. Why isn't there a drug for poor shooting.....
I too think you're on to something here, Paul.
And whatever it is, it's not working for you.
My suggestion: change your prescription.


Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. Reports Sale of Non-Manufacturing Real Estate
March 8, 2007
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE-RGR) announced that it sold 42 parcels of non-manufacturing real property located in New Hampshire for $7.2 million today. The purchaser of the property was William B. Ruger, Jr., the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.

The Company expects to realize a gain of approximately $5.1 million from this sale in the first quarter of 2007. In December 2006, the Company announced its intention of selling non-manufacturing real property assets and artwork. This sale included substantially all of the Company's non-manufacturing real property assets in New Hampshire.
About Sturm Ruger
Sturm, Ruger was founded in 1949. The Company's business segments are engaged in the manufacture of the world famous RUGER® brand of sporting and law enforcement firearms and steel investment castings for a variety of customers and end uses. Plants are located in Newport, New Hampshire and Prescott, Arizona. Corporate headquarters is located in Southport, Connecticut.

The Company may, from time to time, make forward-looking statements and projections concerning future expectations. Such statements are based on current expectations and are subject to certain qualifying risks and uncertainties, such as market demand, sales levels of firearms, anticipated castings sales and earnings, the need for external financing for operations or capital expenditures, the results of pending litigation against the Company including lawsuits filed by mayors, attorneys general and other governmental entities and membership organizations, the impact of future firearms control and environmental legislation, and accounting estimates, any one or more of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made. The Company undertakes no obligation to publish revised forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date such forward-looking statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of subsequent unanticipated events.

Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens

(From the Ruger "Corporate News" website.)

Comments on my original article about the sale of Remington have caused me to do a little more research on Ruger.

Ruger's "Corporate Directory" website again lists facilities in Southport, CT, Newport, NH and Prescot, AZ. I see no listing of a 'foreign' factory.

And I note in passing that I'm please to learn that Bill Ruger, Jr. has purchased the "non-manufacturing real property" in Connecticut. I'm not sure why he did that, but it suggests a continuing interest in his familial endeavor and, as noted in the news release, the transaction added significant depth to Ruger's financial health.

Other comments found on the website include an observation that

And the Archived News site provides a history of Municipal and State "liability" civil suits (based on mis-use of firarms which had been sold according to current restrictions and laws) which were rejected. In a sense, this is a mini-history of the events which lead to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms" act (S.397 - August, 2005).

You may find a tour of the Ruger website interesting.

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Remington Sale - Part 3

Update, Day 3: April 5, 2007
(Posted: a few days later)

Michael Bane's website offers More Content in respect to not only the Remington Corporate Garage Sale, but also in respect to the fall-out.

Specifically, The Word is that discredited outdoors writer Jim Zumbo may be the 'spokesman' for what Bane describes as "Big Green" (apparently a reference to the predominant color of ammunition packaging and marketing efforts of Remington ... both Arms and Ammunition.)

I don't know about you, but I consider this an astounding about-face for Zumbo who not only infamously poo-pooed Black Rifles as a legitimate sporting arms only a few weeks ago, but has since offered A Sincere Public Apology for his provincial 2nd Amendment attitude AND written to congress a defense of Black Rifles.

Excuse me. I mean, a defense of firearms which seem to have No Legitimate Sporting Purpose.

Now, there may be a tiny window of opportunity for Mr. Zumbo to creep back into the arms of NSSF inasmuch as he could be positioned to voice support of not only Remington, but also Bushmaster.

(I won't bother searching for the links; they're all over the gun-osphere.)

Amazingly, he may be proven to have survived the demise of his Flux Capacitor!

This isn't about Zumbo, his career or his mercurial attitudes toward the 2nd Amendment. It's about the future of Remington, and how the marketing of a failing firearms market may lead to some surprising changes of attitude (changes of latitude) for the designate spokesmen of said firearms market.

Nobody is paying me to write about the Firearms Industry, so please understand that I may be guilty of having not Got The Word. But if this rumor should be proven true, it will serve to prove my own ignorance. It will be a very interesting world for the next few months as we watch the tap-dancing exhibition.

I don't know how to take Zumbo's miraculous conversion. I never read his stuff before he became infamous, so I have no take on whether the conversion is/could be sincere or disingenuous. All I know is that he had an attitude, he got stomped into the mud and the blood and the beer from people who arguably should have known that it was ignorance talking rather than disenchantment with ugly semi-automatic rifles, and now the trend seems to be that he was just didn't make the connection because HEY! How many times do you see AR-15 knockoffs in an Elk Camp?

If you find yourself confused by recent events, please don't feel alone.

I just wish someone was paying me to know what to think about all of this.

I wouldn't be any less confused, but at least I wouldn't care any more.

Here is the official announcement from Remington, courtesy of The Bane Blog.

Bigger NOTE:

Here are some comments from the "official announcement" which may be of interest. Interpret these comments as you will:

This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements give the Company’s current expectations or forecasts of future events. These forward looking statements include expectations regarding (i) the proposed sale, (ii) the anticipated benefits of the sale and (iii) the timing of the proposed sale. The Company cautions that these statements are qualified by important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include the demand for the Company’s products, the Company’s growth opportunities, and other risks detailed from time to time in the Company’s reports filed with the SEC, including its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.

The Company assumes no obligation to update publicly such forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Immigration Gumballs

Immigration is a 'hot button' in America today.

The Administration wishes to keep an Open Borders policy, even though a majority of Americans are concerned about free passage of Terrorists.

Some people even think that immigration is putting an unbearable burden on our nation's infrastructure, because we are unable to provide services and support for a rapidly growing population. These people are just racist scare-mongers who are unwilling to share the bounty of this prosperous nation with the less fortune. They don't realize that, by accepting the poor of the world into this country, we can help alleviate the poverty and suffering of the Third World.

They're just mean, and selfish.

Or are they?

Here's a presentation which may cast some doubt on that perception of the "mean, selfish racist" America.

YouTube, 9-1/2 minutes long, worth the viewing.

H/T: The Hobo Brasser