Hardly "unthinkable" or even dishonorable. It is a natural occurrence for primary contenders to arise in an election even from the incumbent party. Reagen ran against Ford in '76, and Ted Kennedy ran against Carter in '80. My prediction for 2012 will be that Obama will face off with Hillary Clinton in the primary, and she might actually beat him. She has a crap load of money still sitting around and enough disgruntled Democrats who will blame Obama for their mistakes.

My prediction is this: If Hillary beats Obama it will split the Dem. Party into two factions ( kind of like in 1860 when you had Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats running). The Dem. Party will be in disarray with Obama drones abstaining from voting due to him being "robbed", and Hillary's people will try to regroup but will be unable. There is also the matter of the Clinton's unflattering portrait in "Game Change" as well as her husband. This leaves the middle open for a viable candidate to come in and work centrists and conservatives on domestic issues like taxes, limited government , and American exceptionalism. Issues that will be muted and derided by the Obama Administration for the next 2 years. The real issue is not whether Obama or Clinton will be able to win (they won't by themselves- too much baggage and broken promises), but whether the challenger in the race will be able to effectively seize upon the apparent disconnect Obama now has the public. If the challenger cannot seize upon it, the public will default to the incumbent (Obama). In reality what this says is we cannot afford a Dole or McCain in the next election we must pick someone with some stones who isn't afraid of criticism. What we need is someone who has worked in a Governor's role who has significant executive experience, and has a serious track record of reform against corruption and waste. Not many have that: Giuliani does, so does Palin, Tim Pawlenty does not. A case could be made for Bobby Jindal, but I don't think he has the name recognition yet among centrists. Overall, time is on our side, and not on Obama's. His hundred days is long over and the only thing he has managed to do is pass his "stimulus" bill, and pass Obamacare which is highly unpopular. Outside of that he has nothing but a series of missteps (Olympics, Copenhagen Climate conference, Cap and Trade attempts). This isn't shaping up well at all for him.

Nicholas Sparks proves that women are dumb enough to read the same book, and watch the same movie over and over and over .....Men never do this.

What time is the Dirty Dozen coming on?

Sexless Blue Devils

Back in the day, I went to a party at Duke. The chicks there were so frigid that I figured out that the Blue in Blue Devils most likely came from frostbite. Now that sex is illegal there, maybe they will start to warm up. In all seriousness, what business is it of the university to tell adults who they can and cannot sleep with?

Green......peace?

So the climate 'progressives" are ratcheting up their hissy fit after the Kenyan tanked in Copenhagen.

Check this screed which they have "taken down."

“We know who you are. know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”

So they know where I live? Where I work? I wonder if they know my group at 25-100 yds? Seriously, this is the type of crap that can discredit a movement, even one as lame as Greenpeace. Their disclaimer leaves little to be desired.

"Well, we’ve taken down that post from our website. It’s very easy to misconstrue that line, take it out of context and suggest it means something wholly different from the practice of peaceful civil disobedience, which is what the post was about. Anyone who knows Gene knows he’s an entirely peaceful guy. In the interest of transparency we have moved it off site to this location, where you can read the offending quotes in context and judge for yourself".

What I want to know is what "We know where you live" is meant to convey? Are they stopping by for tea and crumpets? Do they want a beer? Seriously, what is that supposed to mean? His entire article was open-ended on actions that need to be taken, and to do so outside of the law. When the "context' is lawlessness, anything goes. Animosity is rooted in the greek nomos meaning law, the a on the front end implies the absence. That is in essence what his action implies- outlaws have no law except for the ones they deem "necessary."

If I can vote, why can't I have a beer?

The 21 drinking age is a dinosaur and should be repealed at the state level. If you can engage in adult responsibilities (like joining the army or law enforcement), why can't you purchase and consume alcohol? In the video notice how the argument is framed as a "public health" issue and not one of responsibilities by the prohibition guild MADD.

This week's goal.

This week I will troll the comment sections and post highly irrelevant comments that are both absurd and fanciful! Wait I did that last week......oh nevermind!

Why can't we be like Europe?

Well because we might start looking like this.

"Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience."

So where are all the people who said that Obama would be embraced by the world as a serious politician? Where are they now?

The main goal of many in electing Obama was specifically for dealing with countries like Iran. They criticized Bush for taking the hard nosed approach with Iran (well not that hard...), but at least they respected Bush. At least they knew he meant business. What can they say about Obama now? The thing that escapes me is how could anyone take this man seriously. After his debacle in Copenhagen (both times), and his serious mismanagement in getting healthcare through. Obama is seriously deficient as a politician and has about as much street cred as Pat Boone in South Central L.A.

Meah! I am sore!

After spending the day planting trees in Spartanburg,I am sore as hell. I get these spurts of energy but when I sit up I realize my feet of clay, and have to sit back down. Looks like I picked the wrong week to........

Slow is smooth and peanut butter is chunky

In the world of the fine art of firearms there is a lot of provocation concerning the issue of proper gunhandling. One thing that seems to be erupting constantly is that "I am right, and you are doing it wrong." Now, in real life we judge things by the results. Seriously, I tolerate gun culture for the most part. It is usually filled with people who really know what they are doing (You can usually tell them because they are the ones who actually listen to you and do not dictate What you should do)and many of those who seriously do not (these are the ones who have shot for 20+ years, and still can't hit the broad side of a barn). Today after reading about the issue of trigger pulls Here and here I have come to the conclusion that shooting is purely subjective and thank God it is. It's one thing to insist on proper and safe gunhandling, but the inclination so much nowadays is that pistol shooting is a form of dogma developed by Jeff Cooper or one of the many people that slept in his guest house. Seriously, I think pistol shooting and any pistol shooting should be judged by the results. Is it safe should be an issue (something that was brought up at length in both articles on trigger pull), but also is it functional? Is what you are doing functional enough to safely operate in a manner that will preserve your life without hurting innocent people in the process? Shooting is an Art, but the sport is seriously lacking true artists and is plagued by over-zealous clergymen.

My First Post!

Wow, I can't believe it! Such a shameless attention whore as myself with a blog? I think I have just ruined blogging for the ages. I will foremost apologize ahead of time for pissing anyone off. It is inevitable. I learned something long ago- I am wonderful person that can piss anyone off quick. So, welcome everyone and all to my blog. Pull up a chair, grab a cigar, and stay awhile!