Promised Land Homestead

Obama on Guns

As I've stated before in my post about the Assault Weapons Ban, I beleive it to be part of a subtle, but conserted effort on the part of gun-control advocates to begin the process of taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.  I've also expressed my concern that the Obama administration seems to share many of the same views, and can pretty clearly be defined as "gun control advocates" as well.  I recently stumbled across some information that lends credence to these concerns.

Obama Administration Job Application Form, Question 59

Do you or any of your immediate family members own a gun?  Is so, provide complete ownership and registration information.  Has the registration ever elapsed?  Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has ever been the cause of any personal injury or property damage.

Why is the administration so interested in an applicant's gun ownership?  Not only are they asking about the individual's ownership, but are scrutinizing immediate family as well.  Ownership, registration, and information about how it is used will obviously be used to assertain if the firearm type and use are "appropriate" in the eyes of administration officials.  Who's business is that?  Is owning a firearm illegal?  NO!  Is owning an unregistered firearm illegal?  NO!  Is the type of lawful use of the firearm anyone's business?  NO! 

This question disturbs me for two reasons.  First, it is obvious that the administration is negatively screening for gun owners or anyone even associated with gun owners.  Do I think they would automatically be rejected for employment?  No, but it's definitely not helping them.  Secondly, if the administration wants to be so careful about employees' associations with guns, they must be planning some kind of legislation that would open them up to scrutiny if the employee's associations are discovered...a conflict of interest or perception of hypocrisy perhaps?

The second piece of evidence I ran into this week was audio from an interview in which Obama said:

"I think the Second Amendment means something.  I think if the government were to confiscate everybody’s guns unilaterally, I think that would be subject to Constitutional challenge.  But I think that making sure that we don’t have assault weapons on the streets that have no function other than to harm individuals, making sure that we close gun loopholes that allow criminals to get weapons, making sure that we are enforcing the laws that are currently on the books…all those are common sense gun safety laws."

You have to listen to the audio to understand what I'm talking about, but the first two sentances were the most disturbing.  It sounded more like:  "I think the Second Amendment means...[LONG PAUSE, like he's carefully choosing his words]...something."  What "something" would that be Senator? 

Then the second sentence.  A unilateral confiscation of individual firearms would be "subject to Constitutional challenge"?  That's the weakest affirmation of a Constitutional right I've ever heard!  How about "an outrage", "a clear violation of Constitutional rights", "an incredibly disturbing turn of events", "the stuff revolutions are made of"?  Would he use such a weak affirmation if talking about all freedom of speech and expression being silenced?  I don't think so!

Then there's the standard line about assault weapons not serving any legitimate purpose.  What about handguns, Senator?  They are made to function SOLELY to harm individuals...IN SELF-DEFENSE!  They have no other purpose.  If assault weapons fall into this line of thinking, then don't you see how easily handguns can be painted with the same brush?

On the bright side, I think President Obama has bigger fish to fry when he takes office.  He's facing a $10 trillion dollar national debt, an economy spiraling toward depression, and two wars overseas.  I'm hoping he'll be too busy to even think about his agenda on guns.  Don't get me wrong, I don't want bad things to happen to our country, but if there's one bright side to all the negative news, maybe it's that President Obama will worry about more important things.

The Homestead Recycling Program

One of the great things about having a farm/homestead is that you can put so many different things to use that you would have considered junk otherwise.  Here are a few examples:

- Grass typically serves no purpose other than to cost me gas money to mow it.  Cow eats grass.  Cow gives milk.  Milk feeds family.  Cow produces manure.  Manure goes in compost pile.  Compost goes in garden beds.  Garden beds produce veggies.  Veggies feed family.  Leftovers go in compost pile.  Repeat.

- Fallen down cattle fencing makes great tomato cages.

- Dad and mom process 10 cockrels.  Breasts and legs feed family.  Carcass goes in pot.  Extra meat makes soups and casseroles.  Chicken stock used in multiple recipes.  Remaining meat and bones thrown to chickens.  Chickens peck bones clean.  Chickens produce eggs.  Eggs feed family.  Bones collected and washed.  Kids have fun homeschooling lesson recontructing chicken bones and discussing anatomy (at a kindergarden level, mind you).  Bones thrown to dog as evening meal.

- Lumber from fallen down shed used to make raised beds for garden.

There are so many great ways to reuse things around here and make them work for you.  Now if I could just find a way for dirty diapers to serve a purpose, I'd be golden.

Funny Motivational Poster of the Week

I Finally Did It

I've been pondering becoming a member of the National Rifle Association for a little while, and finally took the plunge today.  I've always liked the organization, but never had enough incentive to join.  While I'm not a doomsdayer (usually) I don't know what our new Congress and President have in mind concerning firearm legislation in the near future.  However, given Obama's, Reed's, and Pelosi's past statements and voting records on gun restrictions, I'm not optimistic.  I have a feeling the NRA will need all the help they can get.

Gun Accident Statistics

As stated in an earlier post about Kids and Gun Safety, I wrote that fatal accidents with children and firearms is much more rare than other dangers to our children.  This should not stop a responsible parent from keeping a firearm in the home to protect their family.  Here are some statistics to further prove my point:

Causes of Accidental Death of Children

• Motor vehicles (42.4%)
• Suffocation (18.7%)
• Drowning (15.5%)
• Fires (8.8%)
• Bicycles and tricycles (2.3%)
• Poisoning (1.8%)
• Environmental factors (1.7%)
• Falls (1.6%)
• Firearms (1.4%)
• Medical mistakes (0.9%)

Also worth noting is the fact that while the U.S. population has doubled since 1930 and the number of guns owned in the U.S. has quadrupled, the number of accidental deaths due to firearms has decreased 75%. 

Folks, firearms are extremely dangerous things and we need to treat them with sober respect.  However, according to these statistics we should be much more concerned about our children having access to plastic bags and pools than firearms.

Funny Motivational Poster of the Week

No More Turkeys

We finished the last of the turkeys yesterday and things turned out pretty well.  Three of the turkeys had bad spots on their breasts that are either wounds the dog (whom we got rid of this week) inflicted, or they are breast blisters.  It didn't effect the quality of the meat, but they didn't look good for roasting, so we cut them up.  They ranged from 14-18 lbs total.

DW is questioning whether to do turkeys again next year.   If we do it again we probably won't sell any.  We feel a lot of pressure for them to look and taste really good when people are paying money for them, as we should.  We'd just rather grow them for ourselves.  We think we'll probably grow 2-3 birds a year in the hopes that one of them will be good for roasting for Thanksgiving.  If they all die or have breast blisters then we'll just cut them up and buy a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner.

Next we have about 10 cockrels to process next weekend and we'll be done until probably early summer.

Processing Turkeys

I have 4 days off this weekend because of Veteran's Day so we decided to process our turkeys.  We should have done it 2 weeks ago, but we went on a church camping trip and then to see our parents, so this is the first weekend we've had the chance.

We decided to process the biggest one first to see how big he was.  We needed about a 15 lb turkey for Thanksgiving this year, so we were hoping he would be at least that big.  Uhhggg!  I could barely carry that sucker to the tree and it took three tries to hold him up with one arm while I wrapped the rope around this feet with the other hand.  After cutting his legs and head off I scalded him and put him in the plucker.  I flipped the switch and nothing happened!  The motor was trying its darndest to work, but he was so heavy that it just sat their humming, bogged down.  We tried picking him up, letting the motor work up to speed and then lowering him in.  No dice.  It just bogged down again.  Sooo...we spent the next 20 minutes hand plucking him.  After processing and bagging, we weighed him.

23 LBS!!!

Wow.  I guess you could say we grew him too long.  I love leftover turkey, but that's going to make a lot.  We knew all the others were smaller, but if we had to hand pluck those birds it was going to be a long day.  We did two more hens and they weighed in at 14 and 15 lbs respectively.  The Whizbang plucker had no problems with those and didn't bog down once. 

After those were done we processed one cockrel that was getting too old.  He'll probably be tough so we'll have to crock pot him.

We were beat after that and decided to call it quits.  Monday we're going to gauge how much room we have in the freezer and see about processing some more chickens.  We have three more turkey hens to process, but no room in the freezer to keep them.  I'm going to deliver two of the turkeys to some friends this coming week to free up some freezer space.  Then we'll process the remaining turkeys next weekend and deliver them as well.

We still don't know how much poundage we have total, but if our estimate on the weights of the remaining bird are correct, the turkeys came in at a cost of just over $2 per lb.  Not bad.

I would have taken pictures but our new digital camera has been in the shop for warranty work for a couple of weeks.  It's anyone's guess when we're getting it back.

Assault Weapons Ban

By way of a fellow blogger, I was pointed to President-elect Obama's website where he lays out his plans for "change".  One of the things mentioned under his urban policy plan to deal with gun violence was:

"[Obama and Biden] also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets."

http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

The reason this caught my attention is because I have come to learn what a useless law the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was, and how it was the start of a subtle campaign by anti-gun lobbiests to slowly chip away at the Second Amendment.  Now, before you think I'm being a conspiracy theorist, hear me out on this one.  I'm not saying President Obama is against the Bill of Rights and wants to take away all our freedoms.  What I am saying is that he interprets the Bill of Rights very differently than I do in some areas.  Referring to the Second Amendment specifically, he even interprets it differently than the U.S. Supreme Court.  Based on everything I can gather from his voting record and statements, he subscribes to the notion that the right to bear arms is tied only to service in a militia.  (Read the majority opinion of the Heller vs. D.C. decision to hear that theory blown out of the water by Justice Scalia).  Because of his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, President Obama supports limiting individual gun rights.  I honestly believe he simply thinks its the only way to deter crime, and he has good intentions.  That doesn't mean it's still not a violation of the right.

So back to the ban itself.  What did it say exactly?  It defined an assault weapon as "semi-automatic firearms  that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons (M-16s, AK-47s, etc)."  It went further to detail certain compenents that were outlawed based solely on the fact that the legislators found them "unnecessary".

So why should this concern the average American?  Because for years the anti-gun lobby has tried to convince the American people and our leaders in Washington that the only legitimate use for firearms is hunting.  I have no doubt that they would soon question the legitimacy of hunting as "necessary" one day as well.  But in the meantime, they have tried to squeeze gun rights into applying only to this small group because it's a relatively small group of Americans, and easy to marginalize.  Their problem is that they cannot propose an immediate ban on all guns not related to hunting.  It's too drastic.  They have to start with something obtuse and unusual, like assault weapons.  They try to scare people into thinking assault weapons are somehow more dangerous than other firearms, and question the motives of any American who might want them. 

What they don't tell you is that assault rifles operate EXACTLY like any normal semi-automatic hunting rifle.  There are few differences.  The only noticable one is that assault rifle magazines typically hold more rounds than a hunting rifle.  Should that matter?  A determined assailant could just buy 50 magazines and change them out quicker than greased lightening.  It makes no practical difference.  What they also don't tell you is that "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of crimes.  Handguns are by far the favorite choice of criminals.  So why not ban handguns?  It's too drastic.  That will eventually come, but first they have to attack something less controversial.

What the assault weapons ban constitutes is a prohibition on an entire class of weapons based solely on the fact that they "look scary".  They are no more dangerous or likely to be used in crimes than other weapons.  The anti-gunners try to apply what they consider to be "common sense" to the 2nd Amendment, but that's not the way our rights were laid out.  They are not subject to "modern interpretation".  They are basic, God-given, and untouchable.  Those who want to limit the right seek to apply the "legitimate use" theory to the 2nd Amendment, but folks, that is not the point of the 2nd Amendment.  It makes no prevision for hunting rifles only.  It does not seek to limit the definition of arms because the founders did not want government to start defining and reinterpreting our rights.  They knew one of the best ways for a tyrannical government to quell rebellion was to disarm the people.  I'm not suggesting armed rebellion.  I'm simply reminding you of the world in which the 2nd  Amendment was drafted.  Let's be clear.  The Constitution does not GIVE us our rights.  Our rights are not dependent upon that document for their existence.  The Constitution exists to PROTECT those inherent rights.

Once assault weapons are banned, the "legitimate use" theory creates a slippery slope that will eventually envelope all firearms, even those designed for hunting.  That's one of the things that makes the anti-gun arguement so laughable.  They believe the 2nd Amendment is tied to service in a militia, so why do they constantly refer to hunting as an acceptable use of a firearm?  Hunting has nothing to do with serving in a milita.  It goes back to what I said earlier.  They can't outlaw all guns at once, so they seek to do it slowly.  The "hunting provision" has to be maintained or their true intentions would be obvious.

I've really really contemplated buying an assault rifle.  They are very expensive, and likely to get more expensive in the future.  It's not that I necessarily want an assault rifle.  I just abhore the idea of my government eventually saying I can't buy one.  I want one as a testimony to my belief in the the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.  Maybe my money would be better spent supporting organizations like the NRA that can actually influence votes in Congress.

One final note.  Below is a picture of a Secret Service detail escorting President-elect Obama to the gym.  Notice what the Secret Service agent is carrying?  That's right.  It's an assault rifle.  Someone tell me why I'm not afforded the right to protect myself with a weapon that the President of the United States is protected with.  Is my life less valuable?

The Next 4 Years...

Funny Motivational Poster of the Week

Kids and Gun Safety

One of the presiding excuses I hear from people about why they don't own a gun is the perceived danger to children.  So I thought I would address how we have tackled this problem.  First of all, I respect a parent who cares enough about their children to fear for their safety.  That is more than some dead beat parents can boast.  But that desire for their safety should drive a parent towards gun ownership, not away from it.  The main problem is the gun-hating media.  For years we've been bombarded by stories of kids who shot themselves or a sibling/friend with the parent's gun, and have been frightened into thinking that you must ban guns completely from your home in order to be a responsible parent.  To some extent, stories like this are useful in that they drive parent gun owners to seriously consider how to protect their children from such an incident.  Unfortunately, it is also used as ammunition (pun intended) by the anti-gun lobby to both frighten parents away from guns, and pressure lawmakers to enact asinine laws mandating gun locks that make the firearme totally unsuitable for self-defense. 

More children are killed every year by swimming pools or cars than by their parent's guns.  Parents should not let an irrational fear drive them to give up firearms.  There are practical and inexpensive ways to protect your children from your gun while also protecting them with your gun.

When my children were babies we kept a loaded Smith & Wesson revolver on a high shelf in our bedroom closet.  While my children were still barely able to walk, this was a viable solution.  However, as our childrens' climbing skills improved and our collection of pistols increased, we wanted to take more precautions.  Texas law requires that parents either keep guns unloaded (completely, not just keeping the magazine full and leaving the chamber empty) or to secure loaded firearms in a safe or with a trigger lock.  Both options make it extremely difficult to access your firearms quickly in a self-defense situation.  Our solution was two fold.  We either keep our firearm on us at all times, or it is secured in a "quick access safe". 

Keeping the firearm on us at all times may seem extreme, but it serves several purposes.  First, and most important, it makes the firearm inaccessible to the kids.  My wife's gun is carried in a hidden holster under her pants.  It doesn't even have the ability to fall out.  Should could do somersaults (although they're not advisable when pregnant) and the thing is not going anywhere.  Second, it makes the firearm immediately accessible from anywhere in the house.  If a similar situation as the one in the previous post occurred, she wouldn't have to try to make it to the bedroom safe before they caught her.  It's right there ready to go.  Lastly, it gets us in the habit of carrying all the time.  I'm a big proponent of carrying your firearm everywhere it is permitted by law.  If carrying becomes a daily habit, we're much less likely to forget it.

But I don't prefer sleeping with my gun on, so a solution had to be found for night time.  A quick access safe was our answer.

It's a nifty little safe that has 4 buttons across the top to correspond with your four primary fingers on either hand.  You punch in a simple 4-button sequence of your choice and the front door springs open.  It's not as easy as pulling one out of a nightstand drawer, but it's better than nothing, and brings us into compliance with state law.

The last thing that must be stated is that no amount of safes or trigger locks can substitute for educating your children about guns and gun safety.  My children hear constantly about how dangerous guns are, and we talk about any instances in the news of a child shooting themselves accidentally to drive the point home.  The goal is not to scare them away from guns but to instill a sober respect for them and the damage they can do.  I make it a point to let my children handle a gun (unloaded of course) anytime they ask, so they know they don't have to sneak into our room behind our backs when they're curious.  However, they're required to recite the 4 Rules of Gun Safety beforehand.

Some logical and easy practices can be instituted in your home to make your children safe from firearms, while also giving you the ability to protect them with them.

Denial

I was talking self-defense the other day with some co-workers and all three of them mentioned they don't have guns in their homes for self-protection.  That didn't necessarily surprise me.  Most people just don't think about it.  I mean, my town is not a particularly crime-ridden one (especially compared to the one we moved from) and people generally feel safe here.  So I gently prodded them for an explanation as to why they don't have one.  Two said that, while they didn't mind them, their wives hated guns and wouldn't permit them.  The third said he and his wife shared the same opinion on guns:  not in my home.

Now, I would never suggest a man totally disregard his wife's conviction on something like this, but I fail to understand the logic...mainly because there is no logic.  Seriously.  These people fully admitted that they have no logical arguement against keeping a gun for self-defense.  They just "don't like them."  This kind of thing literally makes me squirm in my seat.  I can't abide this type of mentality.  It would be one thing if these people outright stated that it is wrong to take another person's life, even if they're trying to take yours.  Fine.  It still makes me mad that you're willing to possibly forfeit your kids' lives too, but at least you have a good (in your own mind) reason.  But to categorically shun firearms because you "just don't like them for some reason", is utter stupidity.  When pressed to apply some logic to their decision, their answers were utterly unimpressive.  Either they don't feel that a threat enough exists, or they fear for their children's safety. 

Let's deal with the first one, shall we?  The threat exists everywhere.  It doesn't matter if you live 40 miles from any town with a stop light, or you live in Manhattan.  The world is full of evil people who prey on good people.  I know because I just had $10,000 put on my credit card by someone who had no reservations about stealing from a perfect stranger (don't worry...I don't have to pay for it).  Now I'll admit that my town is safer than Manhattan, but how bad do things have to get before the "need" is perceived?  How much effort does it take to buy a gun and keep it loaded in a closet?  How much chance do you think you have of escaping harm without a gun while the police try to find your address?  If anything, living in the country should make you want a gun more.  It takes the police a lot longer to respond to a rural address than to a city one.

As far as the second thing is concerned, it is a pathetic excuse based on an irrational fear perpetuated by a gun-hating liberal media.  More children are killed by swimming pools or cars every year than guns...a lot more.  There are very practical and inexpensive ways to protect your children from ever shooting themselves with your gun.  But people don't think logically when it comes to this sort of thing.  It's totally emotion-driven.

Well, the perception of our town being "safe" was shattered last week.  A local woman, arrived at her house one morning after dropping her child off at school.  The house was located in a very nice, quiet neighborhood where the greatest disturbance might be a dog barking too much.  Unfortunately, living in a nice neighborhood in a nice town doesn't protect you.  Three hispanic men spotted this mother as she headed inside her home.  It was the perfect opportunity.  Her husband and most of the neighbors had left for work already and she was totally alone and defenseless.  They followed her inside through her open garage, raped her, beat her and fled.  They have yet to be apprehended.

Upon hearing the news I immediately called my wife, to warn her.  Our house is miles from the one where the woman was raped, but it was on the same side of town, and I wanted her to be aware.  Was I still worried about her?  Sure.  But I was much less worried knowing she's has her .380 pistol strapped to her all day everyday.  She killed two birds (or arguements) with one stone.  Not only was she prepared to defend herself, but the kids have no way to mess with her gun when it's on her 24/7.

So did these co-workers or their wives change their minds after this?  Not a chance.  Fingers inserted in ears, eyes tightly shut, thinking happy thoughts.  They're oblivious.  Did it matter that the woman who was raped was in the same Sunday school class as one of these co-workers and his wife?  Nope.  Fingers inserted in ears, eyes tightly shut, thinking happy thoughts.

How bad does it have to get?

The Camping Bug

I love camping.  Always have.  That's one of the reasons I loved Boy Scouts.  All the leadership and responsibility was good for me, but camping was the fun part.  Luckily, my wife enjoys camping too.  Up until we married, she had never been tent camping.  Her parents owned a pop-up camper and then a 5th wheel camper when she was growing up, so she never got to experience "real camping".  She has really enjoyed it.  Although I think tent camping is the only "authentic" way to camp, there are many advantages to having an RV.  Primarily you can camp all year round fairly comfortably.  With tents, we are pretty much limited to spring and fall when the weather is comfortable.  I'm willing, and have, tent camped year round in both freezing and swealtering weather, but it's not ideal for the family.

For a while I REALLY wanted an RV.   I had grand dreams about driving all over the U.S. camping.  However, the price tag was a deterrent, and having a farm means we can't just leave at the drop of a hat for long periods.  So, I've relegated myself to tent camping, which is really the cheapest option anyway. 

Every once in a while I'll get the camping bug and start looking at all the Texas State Park websites to plan our next trip.  There's lots of good camp grounds within a reasonable distance of our town.  However, we keep running into the "baby dilemma".  If history is any indicator, we will be having babies for a while yet, and our experience has been that babies don't do well on camping trips.  There is an age when they sleep a lot that provides a window of opportunity, but pretty much from the end of that to about the time they're 2 years old, they don't sleep well outside their cribs.  And as the Lord wills, just about that time (if not sooner) another baby happens along.  In the past we've tried to force it and just camp anyway, but DW invariably takes the brunt of the lost sleep.  As you might imagine, this makes the camping trip much less enjoyable for her.

So, we've had to institute a new camping policy:  either we camp close enough (within 1 hour of home) for DW and the baby to drive home at night to sleep, or we only camp for one night.  For the one-nighters, we can drive out to the campground early the first day and stay late the second day.  That way we still get in a good trip.  This policy will have to be the norm unless we have that random kid who sleeps well everywhere.  DW has also suggested the option of just me taking the older kids camping by myself every once in a while, which is fine with me.

One dream I've had for a while was to take my older kids primitive camping.  That's the kind of camping where you backpack all your things in and camp on the trail with no amenities.  You purify your own water and sleep under the stars.  To me, primitive camping is the ultimate camping experience.  Since DW has no interest in that type of camping, I'll take my kids when they're old enough to actually carry their stuff in.

We just finished one of our semi-annual church camping trips, and while it was a blast, I still have the bug.  It's getting too cold at night to camp now, so I have to squash the camping bug until spring.

Funny Motivational Poster of the Week

Early Voting

DW and I stopped by the polling place yesterday on our way back from errands and voted.  It always makes me feel patriotic when I vote.  It's not something I want to take for granted.

Anyway, Bob Barr was our obvious choice for President, so we voted that way.  After that I started choosing Republicans for every other position but stopped myself.  No, the Republicans totally blew it on this financial bailout mess.  I'm not voting to elect them!

So I went back and changed all my votes to Libertarian where there was one running.  Yes, that's how angry the bailout fiasco makes me.  If there wasn't a Libertarian running I chose a Republican instead of a Democrat because they're obviously a better choice.

It's the first time I've not voted straight-ticket Republican and it felt weird.  I'm honestly starting to think I have more in common with the Libertarians than with the Republicans lately.  I have to do a little more research.  Although I disagree with some of the policies of both parties, I may just have less disagreements with the Libertarian Party.  We'll see.

Now I'm Getting Scared

I ran across an article today highlighting some things Joe Biden said recently at some campaign rallies, and I have to tell you, I'm getting worried...

"Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

'Mark my words,' the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. 'It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.  Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.  And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.'"

Source:  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html

Does this not send up any red flags for anyone else?  Here you have the presumptive Vice President GUARANTEEING that a crisis is going to come along that will force Barack Obama to make unpopular decisions that won't seem like the right choice at the time, but ultimately will be for the best in the long run.  Wow.  I don't know what to think.  One thing that comes to mind is that every government official or leader who has ever taken away any freedom has done so under the guise that it is necessary for security or prosperity and will ultimately be better for the people.  You can see it actually happening in Venezuela right now.  And crisis has a way of making people panic into giving over their freedoms in order to feel safer.

Something just doesn' sit right about this.  Forgive me if I sound conspiracy theorist here, but Biden is making it sound like Obama is just looking for a crisis to be the catalyst for "change" that he knows will be unpopular, but ultimately believes in as a liberal and closet-Socialist.  For better or worse, this is going to be an interesting time to be an American.

5 More Cockrels in the Freezer

We spent this Saturday processing 5 more cockrels.  They were ranging WAY off of our property because the roosters were driving them away.  They were big enough, so we went ahead and processed them.  The first three didn't pluck so well in the new plucker and I was getting frustrated.  Then it hit me.  The plucker is working just like it is designed to.  I must not be scalding them long enough.  So I scalded the next two twice as long and WALAH...beautiful pluck.  Every feather gone!  Can't beat it.

In about another month we will process the remaining turkeys and cockrels.

Funny Motivational Poster of the Week

National Debt

Ever see the National Debt Clock in New York City?  I remember seeing it when I visited there in 1998.  Well a disturbing event has just happened...It ran out of room.  That's right.  Due in part to Congress' passing of the $700 billion "bailout" plan, our national debt has now reached over $10 trillion.

This is what the clock looked like before:

This is what it looks like now:

The owner had to change the digital dollar sign to a one and paste a dollar symbol next to it.  The clock will likely be revamped again soon when the individual family's share goes past $100,000.

Did you know that 8 years ago, when George Bush took office, the national debt was only $5 trillion?  Not that I'm blaming George Bush.  It's Washington's fault, not just his.  But there is something very scary about a nation that doubles it's national debt every eight years.  Countries like that don't stay in the lead long economically.  When are we going to start making some changes?  Do we really have to sink into another depression first?  My thoughts...probably.

Just to give it perspective, does anyone really comprehend how large a trillion dollars is?  That number gets passed around so often that it means nothing to people anymore.  Let's consider an analogy.

If you had a 4 inch stack of $1000 bills, you'd be a millionaire.  To be a billionaire, that stack would have to tower 385ft in the air.  Want to know how tall a trillion dollars would be?

65 miles high!

Let's not fool ourselves.  $1 trillion is alot, let alone $10 trillion.  This country has got to end its glut of uncontrolled borrowing.  We're borrowing ourselves into economic ruin.