Monday, December 22, 2008

Haven't posted in a while.

I've been thinking on something though. For those who hate capitalism, I can follow your thought process and possibly agree with you on a few points, but then I will eventually diverge and here is why. Consider some other methods of rule. You have monarchical, communism, pure socialism, dictatorial rule, and so on. All of these seem to point back to one flaw. You don't have a choice. A king, a committee, or a despot makes your decisions. Here in lies my argument for capitalistic society.

Do you hate Walmart? It's an evil corporation(also learn why you hate corporations, I know why you should, aand its not why most do), so as a being who hates capitalism, you probably do, and thats ok. Heres an idea, don't shop there! Don't go around complaining about how evil it is and then buy a sixer of the champagne of beers there. If you have any IQ at all I think you see where I am headed. The beauty of capitalism lies in your ability to negate anything. You can literally make your own way. It may not be as monetarily successful as Steve Jobs way or Terrell Owens way, but it is your own. Deal with it. A choice against participation is a wonderful thing. Consider any other form of societal governing. In each of the ones listed above you would have to employee a few thousand peasants with bolt action rifles to storm the Kremlin to change your way of life. In a capitalistic society, you just have to say "naw I think I'll do my own thing."

Monday, December 1, 2008

A conversation with music76 from myspace

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: MUSIC 76:Right Wing and Libertarian music!
Date: Nov 22, 2008 11:58 AM

So is politics talked about regularly in your music? Also where do you stand on the following issues?

National health care, abortion, gun ownership, the patriot act, immigration, and the Iraq War.

National Health care... government shouldn't spend a dime. Also the FDA should be cut down or abolished.

Abortion... There is nothing to support federal involvement in this issue. It should be a states issue. It is viewed as a moral issue, but on the federal level it isn't, it's a non-issue, it should have never been placed on the national stage. As for myself I am against abortion.


Immigration... I am against the proposed border wall. It makes no sense. The government and many citizens have failed to see that our border patrol could be completely proficient at securing our borders if they were allowed to do their job. A pack of Javelinas (wild pigs) can't make it across the border without sensors being tripped and someone knowing. The problem is what border patrol is allowed to do when they find illegals. Ever hear of thee Texas 3? This is my point in one, minute, case. You build some border wall its only going to trap in the existing illegal aliens. I have not yet made a decision on a particular view on anchor babies.

The Iraq War... Honestly I wasn't completely convinced it was the right idea to go in, but now that we are in we must be full bore till the finish. The idea of mixing political correctness with war is the greatest flaw of the American society. Rules of engagement should be left to mean "If you see the enemy dispose of him." The biggest drag on finishing the war cleanly is the left and the anti-war fanatics. Let's be real honest here, who isn't anti-war? Does anyone really wish to be engaged in the killing of another human being? No one does, at least if they are sane. So let's realize this anti-war stuff is all leftist propaganda set against the not the war itself, but against conservatives republicans and the right in general.

Politics in my music. As I already stated I talk about liberty, personal struggles, individuality, and pure unadulterated freedom. I may not mention proposition 8 in a song written two days before election, but the ends I pursue in analogy and allegory directly relate to the ends you appear to represent. These ends being....

-The constitution was written to protect us from the government, not the other way around.

-The more government does for you, the more you pay for it.

-the fatter government becomes, the more unhealthy it is.

Just watched Last of the Mohicans...

Great movie.

Here's a little aside, if you don't like what the government is doing, tell them. Ever hear the saying "write your congressman"??? Try it.

That is all for now.

Friday, November 21, 2008

so intersection camera's...

need to all be chopped down. A rash of tickets via these pieces of the big brother government have been handed out lately. This is 1984, this is Equilibrium, this is Fahrenheit 451.

Have you ever seen 2001 Space Odyssey? The man asking the computer to open the pod bay doors, that's how I feel every time I enter an intersection.

"Hal may I enter the intersection?"...I say as I approach to which I am answered in a calm robotic voice "I'm sorry, if you do that I will have to charge you a 75 dollar admittance fee."

Chop 'em down to an steel stump. Thats what i say.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

I was going to say something about this but Romney already said it better

From his op ed in the New York Times:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.

So many brilliant things said here. No bailouts, no unions, no holding ourselves back from the competition because our workers feel they are entitled to more than they work for. Romney is right.
He should have won the GOP spot, Obama would have had alot harder campaign. But thats what you get for being Mormon I guess. I'm glad to see that hes still in the scene though. If he keeps making statments like this and people listen maybe he (and us) will have a future...

Thursday, November 13, 2008

A Theory/ A Prediction

Theory: Obama, the egomaniac that he is will forgo his liberal stances for a bid of popularity. The people that will hate on him the most during his tenure will be the leftists. This is not me approving of him. It's the farthest thing from that. It is just a prediction. He will do some highly liberal things, but I believe his narcissism will override many of his decisions.

Prediction: Troop Withdrawals will not happen, at least as he said he would be in favor of. He is no idiot. An all out retreat would be a disaster, he knows that. So if you voted on this idea of troop withdrawal now and forever, sorry.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Well I am reminded of a song...

Turn out the lights
The party's over
They say that
All good things must end
Call it tonight
The party's over
And tomorrow starts
The same old thing again.

Monday, November 3, 2008

A Tid Bit...

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

– Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism

All I have is…

It sounds a little like Obama’s talking points huh? In that case I have to say lookout for redemptive violence.

Election eve...

It is 11:56 on November 3, 2008. I am just wondering now what kind of country we’ll have tomorrow. Either way my dream will not be realized, in this election by any real account. So the question remains what kind of country will we live in? What kind of country is The United States now? What will it be after January 14th 2009? All I ask is think before you vote. If you can vote for a man who cares nothing for the constitution, cares nothing for its current validity, its modern pertinence, then vote for Obama. He has stated its limited outdated irrelevance, and DO NOT BE MIS-INFORMED; he has not and will not recant those statements. He will in fact act on them. His problem with the Constitution: it protects you and me from him. His solution: alter and add to the Constitution to protect his power from you and me. He understands there is weight to the document and it is restrictive to his power. He will work to alter it. If you don’t mind living in a country where you power and rights can be changed at the whim of big brother, vote for Obama. His brand of socialism sets the government up as a Demi-god, a government who decides who prospers. I have heard the news media toss around that word socialism for the past two or three weeks. The obviously left wing media condemns those who use it. The right to center media mulls it over in speech and essay. I am here to tell you that socialism is antithetical (Obama likes to use this word) to the American way of life. Now I know we have been dabbling in socialism for years now. I HATE IT. On the eve of the election of 2008 I now see an all to horrific horizon.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Since they won't let him on the debates...

The Voters Guide and more…

The following is especially important to TEXAS VOTERS.

I’m just mulling over the free market voters guide. It is or should be the staple document of all voters in Texas. It is legal to take into the voting booth, and via highly readable grid, a voter can quickly find where each candidate stands on all major issues that effect him or her in office. The information is gathered by way of a questionnaire sent out to ALL candidates. Their choice to fill it out is of course their own, and most of them do. If you do not know whom you can vote for, or what district you are in, can tell you. It is a great tool, for Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, anybody. I am sure, or at least hopeful that there are publications as this one in other states.
Some issues infringe on issues of personal freedom, others regard issues of your money, a personal freedom admittedly, but should, in my mind, remain separate for the sake of argument. Some issues regard foreign affairs. I urge you to look at the issues and decide what, you can stomach, what you think is tasty, and what looks like pure excrement.
When it comes to my decision I see it three ways. Is someone going to spend private citizen’s money? Is someone going to empower or increase the size and scope of government? Is someone going decrease my rights as a separate entity?


Make no mistake the Democratic Party and many Republicans feel that you can gain freedom via restriction. If you just read that phrase and didn’t understand it, you’re not dumb, you are a logical human being. Vote for freedom. If it seems weird that the federal government, under the constitution might have their hands in something, your suspicions are probably right.

With that I urge you to go to

I’ll close with a list of things that just do not make any sense for a government to have its hands in, in other words restrict…

-Abortion Ban (fed. has no power here, for or against)

-Sexual Orientation (a law banning workplace discrimination of sexual orientation, laws like this historically work in the reverse)

-Healthcare (once again there is no platform for the fed. To stand on in running such a system)

-School Choice (this is a right, a choice, it should not be restricted)

-Gun waiting (There is already a Federal background check, I’d like to see some numbers that would attest to the effectiveness of this, sounds to me like one more step to keep guns out of the hands of citizens)

-Government Childcare (we already have this, its called Juvenile hall, just kidding, but seriously, we already do this it’s called welfare, so in a way its like government child and whoever else lives with the child care)

-Marriage Amendment (I can’t say that if you changed the definition of marriage I would care, I would still think women were way hotter, and better for procreation, on a serious note there is no federal power here, nor would I say a state power really)

-Border Wall (It will be Berlin all over again. Also ever heard of the Texas Three? They are border patrol agents who are in the pen now, for trying to protect our border, the problem is interwoven in the country, not solved by walling it up. Plus seems to be a stretch for a federal issue.)

-Faith Based Initiative (It is a government grant or funding however you look at it to faith based organizations for charitable purposes. Regardless of to whom the money goes, Jew, Christian, or Atheist, its not right, the government is handing over YOUR money to charities, without your consent, tell me this doesn’t stink.)

-Illegal Immigration Citizenship (first off, it shouldn’t happen, but if you build that damn wall you are going to have to do this, it is a mess)



Sunday, October 12, 2008

Public lands

One issue that is very prevalent in my life is Public lands. And its something I am torn on. The libertarian in me knows that public anything is wrong and that all land should be private. Nobody knows the best way to manage land better than a private landowner. Letting politicians and bureaucratic organizations who have nothing at stake manage anything is, at best, inefficient, and at worst, dangerous.
BUT, at the same time I LOVE public lands. Thousands of square miles of beautiful country that I can explore, hunt on, hike on, camp on, shoot on, all right out my back door that I don't have to get permission to use and I can do nearly whatever I want on.
That doesn't mean there aren't rules, that just means "what I want" is within the confines of what little is actually allowed out there. In fact there are mountains of regulation governing public lands which, to me, takes away from the whole idea of them being public. Public would mean "owned by everyone". To me though, it feels more like "owned by the government but they kinda sorta let me use it".
But it's not just me and the other campers or hunters that want to use it. The thousands upon thousands of acres that the government owns but hardly uses contains vast amounts of mineral and petroleum resources, rangeland, and timber that everyone NEEDS. Well, to manage all of this land use, they put various federal and state bureaucracies in charge, most notably the Forest Service (USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These guys are going to get paid no matter what happens on the land so there's nothing in it for them whether or not it gets drilled, forested, mined, or grazed. In fact operations like these taking place on their land are going to make life harder for them so its easier just to cave in to environmentalist pressure and designate the land as a wilderness or study area and close it completely. No exploitation, no motorized access, no nothing. Public land is suddenly not so public . . . while we pay taxes out the anus to fund their fat paychecks for their (mis)management and get no resources out of the deal either. When they do grant access to industry, there are so many regulatory hoops that the companies have to jump through that costs get passed onto the consumer like higher prices at the pump, higher wood costs, higher food costs, and higher material costs. All to keep their land from getting "raped". We are the ones getting raped instead.
One thing nobody seems to think about is the fact that the people who use the land are the ones who care about it. It is their bread and butter. They have no motivation to destroy it, and actually have more motivation to manage it well.
THIS ARTICLE illustrates exactly what I am talking about. It is written by one of the Wyoming representatives in US Congress John Barasso. Reading it made me feel ecxtatic knowing that not only is there someone who feels the same way I have always felt about the issue, but that this person is in office, making descisions that directly affect me and the state I live in. I only found this article because I was doing research on who to vote for this election. We have heard all we need to know on Obama and McCain. Its the smaller offices that may affect us even more. Do your research, find out everything you can and give full support to the candidates you believe in.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Consider this...

How do you view government?

Do you view it as a dear friend, perhaps even given to a fatherly nature?


Do you view it as a wild beast on a chain? The beast keeping harm at bay, but the chain being equally important keeping the beast at bay.


The government bailouts haven't worked, nationally and globally, when will we admit Keynes wasn't right about somethings?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008


I cannot hold back anymore. I cannot take it. Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. What is the matter with these idiots in Washington? Do they think we elected them because they knew better than us? they probably do, but no we didn't. We elected them because we assumed they would do as we wished. Is this not a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY? This is at least why I elect men and women to, congress, the House, and the Presidency. You spend and you spend and you spend and you don’t ask permission. Then guess what you spend again! Spend more and when you don’t have the money, well dang, I guess we have to print some more. I can’t take this anymore. I used to believe that maybe it was ok. I couldn’t figure why they did what they did. I couldn’t understand what the NUT HOUSE D.C. was, but I accepted it. “Heck Austin you’re only in High School, you’ll get it one day.” My imagined older version of me would say while rocking in a chair and smoking a particularly wise looking pipe. Well my imagined older version of me was naive. I was right to question it then. I am right to speak out against it now. These IDIOTS should not be reelected (if you voted for a small market champion and he/ she turned out to be an entitled aristocrat). These IDIOTS should have term limits! These silver spoon new money aristocrats will not leave their expense accounts on their own. Force them out! If Nancy Pelosi’s followers or should I say voters want to keep her? Fine. It’s democracy, they can choose their representative. They know she is a leftist. They know she’s a socialist. For those that elected people who promised they wouldn't spend your money without you knowing, I have a message, get rid off these fat slobs. You accidentally made them fat. Tell them to get out of D.C. Tell them instead to hangout out with Jared at Subway. McCain and Obama both have decided that health care is some birthright. They both exist in this dreamland of spend and spend and print some more and spend again. Obama, literally said in the second debate, he wouldn’t spend anymore money, then in the same sentence separated by a comma or a colon said that he would invest around 80 billion dollars in some piece of feces government program. HELLO, dear savior, that’s spending!!! You couldn’t tie your Florsheim’s in the morning without starting a government program to fund the action. McCain wants to buy mortgages. Number one, that’s already in order, go talk to Paulson. Secondly do you not have a clue what that does to our free market? It destroys it. The largest loaner in the American free market is now the government. That's treason.

With the preceding being my complaint, here is my resolve.

Don’t vote for idiots.
Don’t vote for either of these candidates.
Don’t listen to CNN, they are so far up the democratic parties rectum they can’t see the light of day.
Don’t listen to Pelosi, oh but she’s got such a good heart.
Check your state and national representatives voting records.
Don’t vote for names you don’t know.
Vote for people who actually like the constitution.
Vote libertarian -or- Write in Ron Paul.

Best Skit Ever...

I know the mainstream media is pretty far left, but comedy is based on truth. So in fact to be funny you have to be truthful.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

I think its funny that in normal circumstances, the liberals and democrats, who fundimentally oppose big business and trickle down economics, seek to raise the taxes and otherwise stifle the corporations and the big investors, but in situations of impending economic doom, suddenly they are the loudest when it comes to the question of dumping tons of money into the big businesses. This just goes to show that they truly do understand economic principles, and they really do know that the corporations are what keep our economy running. They just choose to ignore that knowledge unless:

a) it will make them look good
b) they can use it to take more legislative control over people and markets
c) they have something to protect (like their own guilty corrupt deals)

All of these are the case this week.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Most Frustrating

I watched "A River Runs Through it" last night. It's setting, Montana in the 1910's-30's. I watched in awe of what our country used to be like. We are no longer kin to those Americans of less than one hundred years ago. We are no longer a people built on self reliance. We are no longer a people who look no further than our own two hands to provide the necessities and luxuries of life.
How can you miss something you never knew? I do though. I feel the dream I was told was distinctly American as a child is no more than a myth. Where is Thomas Jefferson's "Yeomen Farmer"? There was a time when Americans thought the government ought not do much. Now Americans look for the government to save them, save their companies, and their hard earned money. The free market has been nationalized. Corporations now are propped up by government funding. It is madness. I cannot stomach this. This is a slap in the face of our forefathers.

How weak are we? I hear cries who shall save us? You shall and you shall only!

We are fine as long as this false security of government economic protection holds. The government bailouts of, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and A.I.G., secure the crooked business dealings of unethical business heads. Let them burn. I say let them burn, and I will fiddle my guts out.
If I can't get America back to its roots I want to live in a place where I can't be bothered by government bailouts and social programs. I want to find a place where the only rope I use to pull myself up by is a rope I paid for by sweat or hard earned cash.

There are no free gifts from the government.

Austin Sense


Something I have been ranting about for a long time.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008


TAKING NATURE BACK: A Brief Rant on Humanity and Nature

I love how if you are a tree hugger or a hippie you can lay claim to nature. If you cannot detect the sarcasm in these words, I’ll help you, it’s there. The elite, the go green nation, has hijacked nature. They have pitted humanity versus nature by promoting humanity itself as nature’s mortal enemy. There is no greater place to be in understanding a human’s relationship with his world as with being swallowed by the enormity of nature. Nature is bright and gloomy soft and rigid. These contrasts promote feelings I cannot fully detail in black and white text.
I have seen dunes of sand taller than most buildings in my town. Inactive volcanoes in the southwest of the United States, snowcapped mountains, and lakes sequestered within these ranges. In these times I have never been closer to an understanding of what I am as a spiritual and physical being. In these instances I have known greater my God, and known more fully the foolishness of society.
The hippies and the tree huggers, I’ll share it with them as long as they let me have firewood, and meat to cook over this fire. I’ll let them have their alfalfa sprouts and organic produce that comes in plastic containers (try that one for an enigma). I will not allow humanity to be viewed as an enemy or separate from the lifeblood that supports it. I’d like to consult my bud Ted Nugent on this case, sadly I do not know him and I fear he doesn’t call me his bud.

Austin Sense

Monday, September 22, 2008

Reading Material

Walter Williams is one of my heroes. And he writes better articles than I will ever be able to on the subject of freedom and liberty. Go read all of them. Especially the Economics for the Citizen series. If you don't know these basic concepts, your opinion on economic matters is worthless.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

A non political blog, but still useful if you care

I really really hate the M-16 and the M4.

These guns have no place in a battlefield. They are fine for police, they are fine for a normal civilian shooter, but for a soldier who takes their gun into every possible condition and requires this gun to do its job every time, the M16 can't even come close. It is a piss poor design, not only for reliability, but in so many other ways. Here are some things I've found that really suck about it:

Gas system - Obviously the number one thing wrong with the rifle. It doesn't use a piston like every other rifle in the world (and even the Desert Eagle!), but instead directly shoots hot hot gas straight into the action where it loads the bullets. The gas then condenses right there and not only does this make a mess right on some important components to the feeding process, but it also cooks off any lubrication that was present.

Bolt - The bolt has eight lugs instead of the one or two that a normal rifle has. Seven of them are in a complex star shape that are hard to clean . The recess in the reciever they fit into is even harder to clean. Tolerances in the gun keep a dirty bolt from closing, and for some reason, the designers didn't make the charging handle physically attach to the bolt. Instead they made it a flimsy rod that can't push the bolt closed. So, they had to design a button who's sole purpose is to close the bolt when the gun is dirty. Now I don't know everything about design, but I know that when features are added on in the case that something doesn't work right, there is some very poor engineering going on. Why can't they design it so it works right all the time, instead of putting a band-aid on it?

Magazine design - I was going to put it on the list of good things about this gun. But I forgot it doesn't always latch easily into the weapon and that this is a major cause of malfunctions. Besides this I actually like the design of the magazine system.

Stupid handle - nobody carries a rifle with a carry handle. Its a waste of time, except being a platform for the rear sight. I guess the intention is to lower the barrel to make the gun more controllable, but it induces alot of parallax that can cause problems short range. It also lowers the stock and ruins the traditional cheek weld. If you try to put optics on it, they are going to be WAY too high and they will suck because there isnt a good mounting point. (Yes I know nowadays some dont have the handle. Thats a good thing.)

Forarm - big and uncomfortable to hold. Also nowadays they put rails all around it so the comfort is even worse and so they put covers on the rails that make the forarm even fatter.

Takedown system - A good battle rifle should be easy and quick to strip in the field, easy to clean, and should have no small parts to lose or complicated parts to connect. The M-16 is none of these things. Also, on one of the times I've shot one, it jammed and locked up so bad we couldn't take it apart at all.

Tolerances - The gun is claimed to be one of the most accurate assault rifles out there. This is partly due to the stricter tolerances the keep it from operating if there is any kind of dirt or sand anywhere near the gun. The whole point the assault rifle concept came into service, and thus the M-16, our answer to it, was made the standard issue rifle, was that most combat was short range, fast, and low accuracy. All that was needed was a gun that was light, fast, and carried alot of ammo that was easy to put out. Obviously in this case accuracy is not important. You would think reliability would be more important. Nope.

Cartrige - The 5.56mm round that the M-16 shoots is probably one of the worst choices they could have made. Yes, it is small and light, alot can be carried, and it's pretty fast, but sheesh, its a .22 caliber bullet! The original bullet they used, the M193 sort of made up for the fact by having a fragmenting effect when it hit a body at high veliocity. This could blow big holes in someone if everything was just right. But then, NATO, who was forced by the US to adopt the 5.56 round, decided to use the SS109, a heavier bullet with "armor piercing" abilities. It has more penetration, but it doesn't fragment as well, so it mostly ends up punching .22 caliber holes in people rather than blowing out their insides. This is especially relevant when using a shorter barrel like an M-4. The velocity never reaches the levels it needs to fragment at any decent ranges.

Accessories - Additional junk to weigh down the rifle, catch on stuff, and fail. Nothing beats a barebones rifle with open sights for ease of use and reliablitity. In alot of cases this stuff is useful, but most the time, I don't think it is. Apparently the USMC disagrees with me though, with all of their rifles being equipped with optics now, so what do I know?

To keep this fair and balanced, here's a list of stuff I like about the M-16 family of guns:

The bolt locks back when the magazine is empty - I feel bad giving this as a compliment because all guns should do this. But AKs don't do it, Galils don't do it. I don't know what else, but if you don't have the feature, you know what an amazing help it is to have it.

The magazine system - If it worked right, it would be the best of any gun. Only one simple movement required, pushing straight up loads the gun. No complicated latches to hook onto, no pins to line up, no smooth swinging motions required to seat the mag properly. AK and Garand style guns have nothing on this design. Just shove it straight in. Ejecting magazines is just as easy.

Sights - The open sights on the M-16 are really heavy duty and precise. Not any nicer than most US military rifle sights, from the 1903 to the M-14, but definately better than HK, FAL, and especially the AK.

Adjustable stock - As ugly as it is, having an adjustable length of pull on the M-4 is a really good idea, especially on a military rifle that has to fit millions of different people, as well as collapse down in CQB situations. I could see the adjustment system get jammed up with alot of sand, but as we all know, soldiers never have dirty guns....

Ergonomics - the rifle is pretty easy to operate and lines up and is more comfortable than an AK or HK. I don't know how sold I am on a pistol grip, so that part is kind of a wash.

So there are some good things about this rifle and thats why it is a decent rifle for many applications. But in the end none of it matters because for soldiers in battle, it just isn't reliable. The rifle has gone through a multitude of harsh condition tests by militaries and police forces around the world, and it routinely falls short. Everyone who praises the gun says it's reliability is great . . . as long as its kept clean and lubricated. Apparently they didn't notice we are fighting two wars IN HARSH DESERTS. Wars don't give time to clean weapons, or even to clear jams. Battle rifles need to work every time no matter what, not have a discalimer.

Don't get me wrong, no gun is without it's shortcomings. But to seriously be stuck with an inferior weapon for almost fifty years now is ridiculous. It should never have even been adopted in the first place. It happened to come along at the right place and the right time with no competition, impressed the right people, and all of the sudden, it was rushed into Vietnam. A war is probably the best place to test a rifle, and with as many problems as it had, we should have scrapped the entire design by the end of it. Somehow, I guess, we were in it too deep and it was too inexpensive to let go of during the cold war. The cold war's been over for almost twenty years and we've been in two more wars for eight and we STILL have it. Why the H do they keep scrapping their programs for newer better rifles?

Probably the worst part is people go on, living their lives thinking this is a good gun because it looks so BA and it's what all the soldiers use. Military programs on TV all say how great it is... Arrrgh the ignorance and stupidity of it just kills me!
Once again, the moral of the story: Get educated and help make some positive changes.

Last note: In a Red Dawn, Zombie, Hurrican Katrina, Mexican Takeover, American Revolution, Cold Dead Fingers, or any other Crap Hits The Fan scenario, and we need to run for the hills and use guns for ourselves, the M-16/AR-15 gun may or may not be a good idea. I would say no, due to lack of cleaning supplies, range, and stopping power. You could argue though that the ammo is light and if our enemy is the US governement, access to ammo might be plentiful. In that case, use a SIG, HK, Galil, SCAR, or this:

NRA Mini-14. Straight from the factory it's simple, has good sights, is decently accurate, a VERY reliable action, has a twenty round magazine, and shoots a 5.56mm round.
I want one so bad.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

What happened to the free market????

Hey guys I stole my mothers credit card and went to Vegas. I maxed it out. I have no way of repaying it, so I’m sending a collection agency to your house, if you don’t take care of the bill I’ll have you sent to Huntsville, San Quentin, or a local prison in your area. This is essentially what the government said today. The government bailed out AIG today and made the mistakes of a corporation YOUR problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but one can go to jail for tax evasion, and that’s who the government is sending t your house to pick up the bill, the I.R.S. The abuse of the free market is flagrant and disgusting. The bailout by the government of the private sector undermines, the dollar, the market, and the freedom of the people. There is utterly no responsibility on the government, or the people who validate the government, to bail out these idiots who absolutely screwed up. I do not have a degree in economics, but I must say this, this reeks of socialism. This is ridiculous. What does this do to risk, as a corporation? If you are big enough there is none, and you can be as fraudulent as you wish. We have no advocate in D.C. to keep this from happening again (except Bob Barr who the media refuses to recognize, and all too recently Ron Paul), both major party candidates back this and it repulses me.

Obama says… “Its a stark reminder of the failures of crony capitalism and an economic philosophy that sees any regulation at all as unwise and unnecessary."

To: Obama From: Austin Sense, “Get a clue dingus, there is regulation and that’s what is screwing us right now.”

McCain says… “The government was forced to commit $85 billion", "These actions stem from failed regulation, reckless management and a casino culture on Wall Street that has crippled one of the most important companies in America.”

To: McCain From: Austin Sense, You’re a maverick?

I feel like these guys took a fall from the stupid tree and hit every branch down.

Both favor this collusion of federal government and big business. I have to hearken back to the days of yore on this one. Thomas Jefferson took issue over the creation of the National Bank on the same grounds. The government was a fallible entity and must not be allowed in the mingling of private commerce. Those who benefit from the market’s benefit know this is a terrible move. The market dropped today like it was tied to a one-ton fishing weight. The previous bailout encouraged a one-day boost and the next a significant drop.

Even the Father of American 20th century socialism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed the idea of the F.D.I.C. as an insurance program would potentially encourage irresponsible bankers. We now have a government that falsely props up corporations. They deem them “too big to fail.” This is IDIOTIC! The idea of a free market allows for failure. Failure is why success is success. That sounded like a locker room speech by an over zealous football coach. It is true though. The risk is part in parcel of our system. That is why a market free of government intervention only succeeds when the business and consumer groups are honest. If they are not, the market strangles them. When the government acts as an executor of the market risk is diminished or even deleted. “Too big to fail” companies can and will, exploit, deceive, and lie.

I’m sorry sir or madams, when you say corporations are evil, you are flat out, (delete expletive), wrong. Government backed corporations are EVIL. They make for a tyrant beast that must be acted against.

I am disgusted with our Nanny government. I might as well live in a model socialist nation; at least they would not lie about their feelings toward the free market.

Vive la Consumer et Vive la Marche,

Austin Sense
Down with Tyranny! Down with the I.R.S!

PS. Feel free to hate on me for using French, like oh he hates freedom or some blah nonsense. Get over it.

This kinda pissed me off

I was checking my Utah 4x4 forum the other day and someone posted this email they got that has been circulating the internet lately. I guess they posted it because they thought it was awesome and they agreed with it. From some of the things it says, I assume the poster considers themselves conservative, or at least republican. The email is supposedly written by Bill Cosby, and his presidential platform. It isn't, its been debunked, and it shouldnt even need to be its obviously not by him. In fact its really really stupid. Here it is:

Bill Cosby for President
(1) Press 1 for English is immediately banned. English is the official language; speak it or wait at the border until you can.
(2) We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude. NO imports, no exports. We will use the 'Walmart' policy, 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.'
(3) When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it.
(4) All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many observation towers on the southern border. (six month tour) They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens.
(5) Social security will immediately return to its original state. If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out. The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it.
(6) Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade.
(7) Professional Athletes --Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive you're banned for life.
(8) Crime - We will adopt the Turkish method, the first time you steal, you lose your right hand. There is no more life sentences. If convicted, you will be put to death by the same method you chose for your victim; gun, knife, strangulation, etc.
(9) One export will be allowed; Wheat, The world needs to eat. A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of a barrel of oil.
(10) All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whether it's a worthy cause.
(11) The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day in Congress.
(12) The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc.
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes but a vote for me will get you better than what you have, and better than what you're gonna get. Thanks for listening, and remember to write in my name on the ballot in November.
God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!!
Bill Cosby

My commentary:

Bill Cosby for President
(1) Press 1 for English is immediately banned. English is the official language; speak it or wait at the border until you can. Sure its annoying, and I definately agree that our government should standardize to only english, but FORCING someone to speak a language? America has never been about that. Our country has always been about letting people do whatever they want. Eventually they reached the point where they realized they couldn't progress unless they learned english. Government pandering to other languages won't help anything and should certainly be illegal, but forcing a private enterprise to do anything is definately against liberty.
(2) We will immediately go into a two year isolationist posture to straighten out the country's attitude. NO imports, no exports. We will use the 'Walmart' policy, 'If we ain't got it, you don't need it.' Ummmm, ok? So now we no longer have the freedom to enjoy anything other than the limited selection of what we offer in the US. That is completely ridiculous. Prices for everything would skyrocket. Quality would plummet. And the rest of the world would laugh at us as they enjoyed a much higher standard of living because they are able to buy cheap, quality foreign goods. We would also not be able to sell anything abroad, so many industries would make no money and go under. What is supposed to be the point of this? I seriously hope its just sarcasm.
And what is wrong with our attitude? What does imports and exports have to do with our attitude?
(3) When imports are allowed, there will be a 100% import tax on it. Why? Would anyone be happy about this? Is this supposed to help US producers and manufacturers? If people are forced to buy from the US producers, why would the producers care anything about quality? Their goods are guaranteed to be bought. Cutting out the competition cuts out the quality, the lower prices, and consumer choice. Less freedom and happiness for us. Freedom to choose what we buy makes us all happier and more wealthy.
GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OF THE MARKET MAKES THINGS WORSE NOT BETTER. Government control of the market is called socialism. Don't support it. How in the world is a static entity supposed to decide things that are fast changing and fluid like an economy? Seriously!
(4) All retired military personnel will be required to man one of our many observation towers on the southern border. (six month tour) They will be under strict orders not to fire on SOUTHBOUND aliens. This is probably a good idea. Too many problems come through our southern border. I don't mind immigrants, but its kind of out of control.
(5) Social security will immediately return to its original state. If you didn't put nuttin in, you ain't gettin nuttin out. The president nor any other politician will not be able to touch it. Why don't we just get rid of the whole cockeyed mess? Social security is socialism anyway.
(6) Welfare - Checks will be handed out on Fridays at the end of the 40 hour school week and the successful completion of urinalysis and a passing grade. Whats the point? Welfare is socialism anyway too. Sure this is well intentioned, and too many people abuse it. Thats why you get rid of it.
(7) Professional Athletes --Steroids - The FIRST time you check positive you're banned for life. Agreed, but government has no place in sports. Why make laws for something stupid. If there is a market for people who inject themselves full of drugs in order to do things that normal people can't do, then maybe we should let them do it. If fans don't want that kind of influence in their sport then their refusal to buy tickets and watch it on TV will reflect that. Lets let the people decide. Thats real freedom.
(8) Crime - We will adopt the Turkish method, the first time you steal, you lose your right hand. There is no more life sentences. If convicted, you will be put to death by the same method you chose for your victim; gun, knife, strangulation, etc. This is plenty fair. As long as the judgement process is fair.
(9) One export will be allowed; Wheat, The world needs to eat. A bushel of wheat will be the exact price of a barrel of oil. What is the point of this? Why would we fix a price? Especially in some ridiculous roundabout way? And are we setting the price of wheat to oil? Or oil to wheat? If it was the former, why would wheat cost so much? No one would be able to afford it. How would that feed anyone? Farmers wouldnt make any money because no one would buy wheat, some other alternative would be used that cost a thousand times cheaper. Foreign wheat producers would make a boatload because their wheat is cheaper while we sell none. If it was the latter, then oil would be so cheap that oil companies would quit producing it because they wouldn't make any money off it. If they did produce it for some silly reason, then we would run out really fast and have no motivation to create an alternative until it was completely gone. High prices serve as the motivation. Also, what about foreign oil? They wouldnt sell it here because they wouldnt make any money off it, so we woundn't get any of that either. We would all be hurting. Forcing prices is not freedom. It's socialism. Again.
(10) All foreign aid using American taxpayer money will immediately cease, and the saved money will pay off the national debt and ultimately lower taxes. When disasters occur around the world, we'll ask the American people if they want to donate to a disaster fund, and each citizen can make the decision whether it's a worthy cause. This is a great idea and pretty much the only pro freedom thing on this list so far.
(11) The Pledge of Allegiance will be said every day at school and every day in Congress. This is fine. If its what the people want. Let the ones who want to have the option. No biggie.
(12) The National Anthem will be played at all appropriate ceremonies, sporting events, outings, etc. It already is. But forcing it on us is isn't freedom either. It's disruptive.
Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes but a vote for me will get you better than what you have, and better than what you're gonna get. Thanks for listening, and remember to write in my name on the ballot in November. I think we have it alot better right now, thank you.
God Bless America !!!!!!!!!!!
Bill Cosby

This stuff scares the piss out of me. People who clearly don't understand economics, government, and their own freakin freedom, even if they are well meaning, are pretty much as bad as liberals. Don't be retarded. Learn about issues. Understand economics. Holy crap!

Monday, September 15, 2008

Libertarians vs. Liberals

Let’s consider the liberals and the libertarians. It’s a funny thing to consider really.

LIBERALS are generally aligned with the Democratic Party. This is a generalization; there are other parties of course, but for the sake of argument deal with me. Ok so the Democratic party is very broad. It has no boundaries, because it cannot, it applies itself to the constituency of many social groups, all of which consider themselves liberal. The Dictionary ( Unabridged) defines liberal as, favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties, or favoring or permitting freedom of action. The Democratic Party has no specific base or crowd because it claims a desire to permit personal freedoms and how could you define a crowd of individuals right? The catch is in the definition though, “secured by governmental protection.” So they become less individualistic as the essay goes on. Now there uniting quality is the promotion of governmental action. The Democrats and liberals all see the securing of rights to be found most assuredly in government intervention. How exactly does one secure personal freedoms by government mandate? You cannot govern morality. You cannot govern free will. You cannot change a mind by changing a law, yet the policy toward securing personal freedom is through use of the government as your advocate. That sounds great on paper does it not? The government, as Democrats and liberals see it, says, “You go ahead and be who you want to be, and I’ll make sure nobody can do anything about it.” I must admit, it sounds almost pleasing to my ears.

Yay though I walk through the valley of idealism I will not bow to this rhetoric.

The government in this instance attempts to protect five thousand people groups with ten thousand laws and only provides greater national debt to enforce the laws and develops new problems because by freeing one group another is encumbered. ‘Tis the greatest lie ever told that governmental intervention meant freedom.

The LIBERTARIAN on the other hand may align himself with the Republican Party, Libertarian Party, or another lesser-known party oft on the state level. The libertarian agenda, if you can call it that, seeks personal freedom. The Libertarians greatest roadblock is in fact government, as it seeks to involve itself in too much. The Libertarian can in fact belong to many people groups, be of many different faiths, or ethical schools of thought. The uniting factor is liberty, but not a liberal/ Democrats liberty. The libertarian’s liberty is derived from cinching up government and anchoring to a short tether. Freedom is found through use of the market and determination. Freedom is secured by keeping the governments fingers out of your life. The outlook remains, if government ever gives you something you have already or soon will pay for it. This can be seen easily with recent events. The 2008 tax rebate was the taxpayers hard earned money, before it was ever handed back to their wallets. The money just came out the taxpayers paycheck at some point, and oh how grateful we are that the good old government was so nice and gave us some of our hard earned money. The government just re-gifted our hard earned cash. If you know anything about Seinfeld (a gem of a 1990’s sitcom) you know about re-gifting, and how infuriating it is.

Plain and simple all the government can give is what we have already contributed to the government.

I think you know what side I am on it’s fairly obvious. It’s like I told a friend the other day, The Democratic Party in this hand says, “We want you to succeed, so we’ll do it for you, so you don’t have to.” In the other hand The Libertarian Party says, “We want you to succeed so we will get out of the way.”

With this I am done, Ronald Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

How right he was.

Austin Sense
I originally posted this blog on another website, but I think it needs more discussion because frankly there was very little of it when first posted. Have at it.

Oh do I have a question. I must first say, I am on neither side of the argument; I am as Switzerland on this, due to the involvement of federal powers in this affair on both sides. I must pose my query now. If you are a liberal, vegan, vegetarian, leftist American this applies to you. Remember I only ask to understand. Without further ado, if you are a VEGAN or VEGETARIAN and do not believe in the killing of animals for the nourishment of humans, as it is morally reprehensible, how then can you be pro-choice in the favor of federal statute sanctioning women’s right to abort unwanted children? Moreover the practice of infanticide birthed infants aborted outside of the womb. I must remind you I am not a dark knight for the religious right, or a liberal devils advocate. I am posing a question to understand the logic of such thought.
In my mind I see many liberal vegan/ vegetarians who live the bumper sticker life of the liberal left. It seems a bit strange that they might support abortion/ infanticide, but have disgust for those who find it moral and ethical to eat meat. Maybe we should eat babies?
I happen to, like I proposed above, be out of this, argument and latest query, by way that I am neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Choice. I am Pro-Federalist (better known to the elementary confines of history in America as the Anti-Federalist, the party of Thomas Jefferson.) I believe it is not a question of morality; it is a question of constitutionality. You might think, oh Austin how dare you, well I dare, because to me government plays only the role of the federal uniter and protector of its states, which subscribe to it. The government shall protect the people and the constitution shall protect the people from the government. That is my soapbox, but I shall show restraint as I only bring it up to show my interest in the question.
So in conclusion what say you? No matter where you stand on this issue, let me hear your opinion or rhetoric as the case may be. I want to know in the most honest of tones.

Austin Sense

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Wyatt's Introduction

Alright, this blog, as Austin Death Death has already outlined, is for us to complain about politics, offer our personal insight, rally people to our cause of liberty, and probably be silly and ridiculous while doing it.

Both of us have been following the national and world events of our time and, being of higher than average education and intellect regarding politics, economics, and history, we are noticing and the fact that our freedoms are being torn down. Don't get me wrong though, we aren't overeducated elitists, or coffehouse intellectuals. We are regular Americans who love our families, love our friends, and love our guns, and our way of life. Most of all we love the ideas of liberty that this country were founded on, and we love what those ideas have built. But as we watch, those very principles are being taken away, leading us away from what is not only rightfully ours, but backwards, away from our supposedly guaranteed happiness, equality, wealth, and progress.

Despite the fact that most of our complaints will be at the government, our biggest enemy is not the government. Even now - when the size and scope of our governemnt has become completely blown out of porportion, and continues to inflate itself - the blame still rests in our own people. Our govnerning system is not so far gone yet that we no longer have the say; in fact anything that happens here is because we let it happen. And that is the most important principle in not only upholding liberty, but also in the fight for it: Responsibility.

People are getting lazier and lazier, and rather than take responsibility for themselves and the problems facing them, they give their problems - and thus responsibility and with it their freedoms - to someone else to take care of. That someone is generally the government.

I could go on forever about how the government is less efficient at solving problems, creates its own problems, corrupts, inflates, and wastes, and we'll probably be talking at lenght about those issues at later dates, but the point is, government is a problem, but its not THE problem. The people allowing this to happen are the problem. And these people are us, American citizens. So rather than take the fight for freedom directly against the governmen, we're taking it home, to the people all around us. The people with the power to do something about it. Thats why Austin and I started this blog.

And if you don't like it, you can JOG ON over to Canada. We won't miss you.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Life Liberty and Mandatory Government Funded Happiness

It's 9/11. Sitting at the computer I do not know what I could type that would mean a thing concerning those events. So I'm just left speechless over the issue and maybe thats for the best...

Someone said to me once as I became a delegate to my state political convention “That’s so cool that you are a delegate, are they going to fly you to Austin, Texas for the convention?” To which I replied, “No, why would they?” This is what faith and human politics boil down to with me. In my faith and political view the ends are much different then the populous would suggest. I believe that no one has responsibility to my existence save myself and of course my creator. This holds true through my day to day. I wish for no one to pay for my food. In this I also wish no one to tax my food. Plain and simple there is much responsibility to being human. I do, within my means, and lend no responsibility to anyone for my existence or being. Yes it would be nice to have everything at my fingers, but I would never dream it at the cost of others. There is an attitude of entitlement in this country that has brought the mindset of happiness as an end. We are entitled to the equality of the race not the equality of the finish. We are not all entitled to billions of dollars and a Ferrari. The equality of the finish is ridiculous. The equality of the finish ends up, in this modern society as the equality of material goods. This is not true happiness. This is not natural law, nor is it practical or affordable. So called “classes” are a creation of man. Not of absolute truth and existence. We are not set into this world destined to fulfill a standard class or affiliation. I believe we are set here to do with what we can produce and what we are given dominion over. Material happiness is not a right. It never was, nor should it be.

Uncommon Sense

Wednesday, September 10, 2008


This blog is a product of a duo of liberty minded individuals. We hope to stimulate and enlighten the minds of the masses. We shall strive to return true liberty to the individual by educating the public and highlighting the failures of the status quo.
It's an election year, Obama and McCain are screaming from their respective soapboxes they are the voice of change, or the original maverick. The problem remains, the left wing and the right wing of mainstream American politics are just that, different wings of the same bird(thank you Lou Dobbs). Uncommon Sense adheres to a strict constructionist mindset, and we see two parties headed to the same destination, just at different speeds. It is our goal to live in an America that knows that the government should not take care of you, you should take care of your government. The government shall protect its innocent citizens from attack and the constitution shall protect the innocent citizens from the government.

To The New Revolution,

Uncommon Sense