Dan Simpson (yea, I’d never heard of him either) the former ambassador to Somalia under the Clinton Administration, has an interesting solution to gun violence in our nation. And I mean interesting in a purely “what the heck color is that vomit?” sort of way.

LAST week’s tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America’s finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: “How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there.”…

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

It would have to be the case that the term “hunting weapon” did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for “carrying.”

And this guy calls Bush crazy.

But we must never forget, it’s conservatives who are the fascists.

Well, there’s always the old punchline about their lips moving, but here are a few tips I picked up the other day to help you be a bit more discriminating in what you believe or disbelieve.

I attended a presentation about identifying deception by Dr. Anna Salter. Her site is pretty ugly and doesn’t give much thought to usability (not that we can complain about that around here, right Brian?), but it has lots of useful information if you dig around. I’ll try to keep this limited to what politicians are guilty of.

Some of the tips on recognizing deception:

• Looking away doesn’t necessarily indicate a lie, and looking somebody in the eye is a horrible criteria for determining truth, as people are aware of it as a test of truthfulness and can control where they’re looking.
• How long a face holds an expression: if its over 5 seconds, its likely phony. Bill Clinton did this a lot
• Couching statements with “I would say”, “I want to believe”, etc. If you know something to be true it tends to be stated very matter of factly.
• Having to be asked the same question again. The idea being that even liars don’t like to lie, preferring to avoid and evade. Imagine how the debates would change if the moderator actually asked a question until they got an answer.
• Overstating an opinion on a matter of value or morality. Dr. Salter’s examples were of sex offenders talking about how disgusting that behavior is to them.

I didn’t include body language, emblems, voice pitch, etc, as most politicians are too polished and coached on these matters. If you’re interested in seeing if I missed anything check out the slides section on Dr. Salter’s site. **Warning** I haven’t thoroughly gone through Dr. Salter’s site, and as her work deals with sex offenders specifically and deception in general, there may be some uncomfortable material.

The senate has approved the Iraq surrender measure 51-46.

In anticipation of the veto, the Nevada Republican Party went on high alert for this guy:

Picture from Webster’s Dictionary under heading: nutroots.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

The democratic party has set up this little petition on its site to gripe at Rudy Giuliani for daring to suggest that the Democrats want to put us on defense in the war against Muslim agression.

Let’s recap:
- The democrats voted to go to war in Iraq, and now want us to bug out with our tails between our legs.

- The democrats are presenting an “alternate foreign policy”, apparently trying to make a separate peace with this country’s enemies. i.e., Speaker of the House Pelosi went to Syria (one of the most notorious state sponsors of terrorism) and met with it’s leader, sending mixed messages about America’s intention to hinder their designs.

- Democrat Senator Jim Webb introduced legislation which would limit the president’s ability to take military action against Iran (the prime state sponsor of terrorism) which has been providing material support and, for all we know, manpower to the insurgency which is killing Americans in Iraq.

- The democrats want to close the Guantanamo detention facility which holds some of the vilest human beings on the planet - who also happen to be terrorists - and bring them here to America to enjoy all the constitutional rights of citizens. You can’t fight a war like that.

- The democrats want to roll back the Patriot Act to reduce the number of tools at the disposal of American agents working to prevent future terrorist attacks.

- The democrats refer to intercepting phone calls between people in this country and suspected terrorists overseas as “spying on the American people” and want to make it as hard as possible to do so.

- The democrats have even banned the phrase “War on Terror”. OK, whatever. But if only they were willing to call it what is really is, a war against systematic Islamic agression which is occurring over most of the planet. But nobody is willing to describe it in those terms either, because it could appear “islamophobic”.

- Far too many liberals seem to believe that we are partly responsible for Islamic aggression and terrorist activity because of our actions. Our support for Israel or our military presence in Saudi Arabia, for instance. And that it is possible to placate our enemies by first understanding what makes them angry and then altering our actions accordingly.

- The democrats believe there is a diplomatic solution to jihad. This is folly supreme. This is a global jihad against everything non-Muslim. Thailand, the Phillipines, Chechnya, Australia, India, Spain, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia - these are just a few of the places where the Jihad is also occurring. I take it these nations have all done something to bring it upon themselves.

The most important thing to remember is that we’ve seen how Democrats deal with terrorism when they are in power. They treat it like a law enforcement issue instead of war. Granted, this was fairly common among both parties pre-911. But since then, most Republicans have developed a different perspective on the issue. Most Democrats apparently have not. Law enforcement is defensive by nature. Innocent until proven guilty. Miranda rights. And Lawyers. Remember, Clinton was handed Osama bin Laden on a silver platter, and he refused to act because he didn’t feel he had a legal basis to hold him. That’s how they want to fight this war.

What Rudy said was 100% correct. They see this as an opportunity to poke Rudy in the eye. However, I see this opportunity to poke the democrats in the eye. They intended this petition for their base. To tear down Rudy and demand an apology. But we are going to use their own petition against them.

I encourage you to write a short message of support and affirmation for America’s Mayor and tack it on this petition. Then pass it on to your pals and let’s all send a little message of our own.

Then, assuming they don’t censor us out, the democrats will be kind enough to “personally deliver” our message of support directly to Rudy’s office. Gotta love the irony in that. And it’s twice as satisfying as simply sending a supportive email directly to Rudy’s campaign. Even if the dems do filter our messages, at the very least we’ll have given them a piece of our minds.

Add your thoughts to their petition.

I’m sure some of you have noticed fewer posts here recently. As my first semester of grad school comes to a close I won’t have much time for blogging. But fear not, as my other contributors are still here to post when they can and I’ll be back full time in about a week. What’s more, some surprises are in store for the future. So stay tuned and be patient, the conservative compendium is going to continue to grow and we appreciate your patronage.

It’s out in the open, for anyone who cares to see it. Treason, in the highest positions of our government. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) says that the war in Iraq is lost. Which of course is far from true. Unlike his fellow democrats who are content with boycotting General Petraeus’ reporting on war progress, Reid is at least willing to hear him out. And by hear him out, I mean ignore everything he says. But why? Why not listen to what he reports and then judge it on the merits. Answer: he and his party are invested in defeat. In his own words: “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.” But only if we lose. If we win, there’s no political spoils to be had by the party which has been crying defeat since the start. Therefore winning is off the table. They’re selling out the soldiers and surrending to Al Qaeda and Iran all for the sake of senate seats.

Whatever the eventual outcome in Iraq, I hope we can look back on this as hubris. A monumental political miscalculation for which the democrats suffered dearly. I hope there is enough sense left in the American electorate to punish these opportunists severely. So severly as to eradicate the dangerous and treasonous tendency to put political ascendancy above country. And to exorcize it from the entrenched political culture for generations. If not, if we as a people tolerate this, I see little hope for the republic.

The Special Counsel office is gearing up to join the investigation into the firing of 8 U.S. Attornies, missing emails, political maneuvering, and other such non-criminal and perfectly ethical activity. This as Representative Sniveling Kucinich prepares to bring impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney for daring to take what action he saw fit to defend this country’s interests. All part of the effort to create a new crime called not-being-a-democrat in the first degree, punishable by up to life in a prison of disgrace, a fine not to exceed your life savings, as well as forfeiture of your career, dignity and good-name.

Patient denied use of medical marijuana, despite doctors’ warnings that it may save her life.

Exactly what right does the American government have to tell private citizens what they can or can’t do with their own bodies, in any case? Nicotine and alcohol are both legal, and yet somehow marijuana, which actually has verifiable medical use, is not.

Taxpayer dollars should be going toward issues that matter. The criminalization of drugs is precisely what makes ‘drug culture’ so dangerous. A market economy with competition and quality control would limit deaths by overdose as well as the spread of disease.

In a response to criticisms regarding his votes on certain tort reform bill during his tenure in the Senate, Fred Thompson defended his stance at RedState with an insightful and principled analysis of what it means to support federalism. It’s clear that Fred Thompson has much more to offer this presidential race than just an actor’s experience in front of cameras. This is a principled thinker who is willing to stand up against overwhelming opposition to advance what he believes that proper role of the government should be; something the Republican party is in desperate need of.

. . .This discussion is not an idle exercise. Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles. It is something we all give lip service to and then proceed to ignore when it serves our purposes. During my eight years in the Senate, I tried to adhere to this principle. For me it was a lodestar. Not only was it what our founding fathers created ? a federal government with limited, enumerated powers with respect for other levels of government, it also provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: ?Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government??

As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don?t).

Those who are in charge of applying the conservative litmus test should wonder why some of their brethren continue to try to federalize more things ? especially at a time of embarrassing federal mismanagement and a growing federal bureaucracy. I am afraid that such a test is often based more upon who is favored between two self-serving litigants than upon legal and constitutional principles. Isn?t that what we make all the Supreme Court nominees promise not to do?

Read it all.

A Washington Times op-ed exposes this fairly standard democratic tactic of economic demagoguery.

Originally called the Fair Share Health Care Act, the Wal-Mart bill would have required companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care or else contribute to a state fund for the uninsured. If that sounds “progressive,” it isn’t. Only one company met the criteria, and it was Wal-Mart, the bete noir of liberals voters everywhere, which employs 16,000 in the state. Meanwhile, hidden in plain sight last year were the approximately 800,000 Marylanders not employed at Wal-Mart who lack adequate health care. They received nothing from the political circus surrounding this bill. They continue to be underinsured.

Of course, the bill’s Democratic backers were much happier to wear the reformer’s white hat and discuss the evil of a company from Arkansas that dares to open its doors in Maryland — all the while letting union bosses all too happy to finance this charade fill their electoral coffers. That’s much more congenial for Democrats in an election year. The statesman’s option, after all, would have been much more difficult. It is never easy to speak frankly about the fiscal choices that any real reform of Maryland’s health-care system requires. Attacking Wal-Mart is a free lunch.

. . . Here’s what this pointless debate has gotten Marylanders: Electoral victories for Democrats, a continuation of the health-care crisis, time and money wasted in two federal courts and another round of battering for the state’s already sub-optimal reputation as a place to do business. With leadership like this, no wonder state Democrats need a big multinational to demonize.