Horse Facts, Information, & Lots of Trivia

There's all sorts of facts, information, and trivia here.

From general horse facts, facts about a horse's body, pregnancy and foals, horses in the wild, how to get to know them,  history and quirky pieces of horse information, there are things here that just might surprise you.


So Let's Get Started!

Around 75 million horses are alive in the world today.

There are more than 400 separate breeds of horses in the world

Horses first evolved in the Americas but they became extinct until the Europeans reintroduced them.

It's true. Horses began to evolve on the American continent over 60 million years ago but they later died out.
Lucky for us that they were reintroduced by Spanish settlers.

The horse was reintroduced into the Western Hemisphere with the voyages of discovery by Christopher Columbus for Spain at the end of the fifteenth century.

These Spanish steeds, derived from Moorish stock, first landed in the Caribbean in November 1493. The Spanish horses acclimated rapidly and within twenty years formed the chief supply for the Spanish mainland expeditions.

Other European explorers brought horses to eastern and western parts of the New World in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. English colonists imported European horses. In the British colonies as a whole, horses were valued for riding, hunting, and racing.

In 1918, there were 27 million horses and mules in America. That date is the all time peak of the horse and mule population in America.

Equine, a term used for things dealing with horses, came from the Greek word “equus” which means quickness   

In America, the horse industry is huge:

• 7.1 million Americans are involved in the industry as horse owners, service providers, employees and volunteers.
•  3.6 million and 4.3 million of those participated in showing and recreation, respectively, with some overlap in cases of people who participate in both activities.
• 941,000 people participated in racing in either a professional or volunteer capacity.
• 1.9 million people own horses.
• In addition to the people actually involved in the industry, tens of millions more Americans participate as spectators.

The horse industry directly produces goods and services of $25.3 billion and has a total impact of $112.1 billion on U.S. GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

Racing, showing and recreation each contribute more than 25% to the total value of goods and services produced by the industry.

The industry's contribution to the U.S. GDP is greater than the motion picture services, railroad transportation, furniture and fixtures manufacturing and tobacco product manufacturing industries. It is only slightly smaller than the apparel and other textile products manufacturing industry.

All horses, regardless of when they were actually born, are considered to have a common birthday of January 1. Even if a foal is born on December 31st he or she will have their first birthday the very next day.

Horses are measured in hands and fingers. Each hand us four inches

The scientific name for the horse is Equus caballus. Equus comes from the Greek word for ‘quickness’.

All horses (including zebras) belong to the genus equus.

Horse Categories

Horse breeds fall into four categories:

Ponies - Pony breeds are defined as being under 14.2 hands (one hand = 4 inches) or 58". Many pony breeds have developed in the wild and this has led to a natural hardiness that is not found in most horse breeds.

Coldbloods - Usually refers to the large, bulky draft horse breeds, such as the Shire, Clydesdale, Percheron and Belgian. These horses are known to be docile and insensitive,and are often called gentle giants.

Hotbloods - Usually refers to Arabians, Thoroughbreds and other horses of oriental origin. These horses are known to be energetic and sensitive, or hot.

Warmbloods - Originally a cross between a hotblood and a coldblood, resulting in a trainable, athletic horse with good size and bone and are often used as a sport horse for dressage, jumping, eventing and so on. European breeders have warmblood registries that represent particular lineage, such as Hanoverian, Holsteiner, Oldenburg, Trakehner, Dutch Warmblood and Swedish Warmblood. These European horses are highly sought after in other countries, resulting in a large exportation market.

Their Body

A small indent in a horse’s skin (usually on the neck or shoulder) is called a prophet’s mark and is considered good luck.

The average horse weighs about a half a ton, its brain is the size of a baked potato.

Some of the equine family's closest relatives are tapirs and the rhinoceros.

If you're curious, a Pony is any horse under 14.2 hands high is technically a pony

Colt is the name of a male horse, 4 years old or younger

Filly is the name of a  female horse, 4 years old or younger

Foal is the name of a newborn or very young horse, male or female

Gelding is the name of a male horse older than four that has been castrated, or gelded

Mare is the name of a mature female horse, a female horse older than four years old is called a mare

Stallion is the name of a male horse older than four that has not been castrated is a stud or a stallion.

Dam  is the term given to a mare when she becomes a mother

Sire is the term given to a stallion when he becomes a father

Horses have four different gaits:

• walk
• trot
• canter
• gallop.

The fastest gait is the gallop

No two horses are identical

Horses height is measured in units known as "hands." One hand is equal to 4 inches.

The left side of a horse is called the “near side” and the right side is the “off side”

The world record for a horse galloping over a short, sprint distance is 55 miles per hour.

Horses only breathe through their noses. They do not breathe through their mouths. In fact, horses cannot breathe through their mouths.

A horse has approximately 205 bones

Adult respiratory rate is 8-16 breaths per minute

The average horse produces 10 pounds of saliva per day.

A healthy adult horse should have a pulse of between 36 and 40 beats per minute while at rest.

The heart of a horse weighs about 10 pounds

Horses can require up to 10 gallons of drinking water each day, and can drink at least 25 gallons of water a day or more.

It's possible to tell a horse’s age by its teeth

Horses are herbivores (plant eaters).

All horses are grazers

Dogs and cats drink by lapping water with their tongues while cattle and horses make use of a sucking action

Horses eat short, juicy grass, and hay. Foods like barley, corn, oats and bran are good for working horses

Horses cannot vomit

Horses have bigger eyes than any other mammal that lives on land.

Horses can see in two directions at the same time

Their sense of smell of the horse is better than that of a human

Horses tend to rely more on vision than smell.

Their field of monocular vision is almost 360 degrees with a narrower field of binocular vision in front and slightly to the sides.

Horses have a blind spot directly in front of the nose and directly behind them.

They do have much better night vision than humans.

Horses have an advanced sense of taste which allows the horse to sort through grasses and grains to find the things that the horse would most like to eat.

Horses generally will not eat plants that are poisonous, but when the horse cannot find more adequate food, the horse will eat plants that contain toxins.

A horse's gut is designed to have food flowing through it almost continually, and horses graze most of the day if allowed.

Horses have two blind spots: one directly behind and another directly in front of them

Horses can lock the muscles in their legs so they can go to sleep standing up and not fall over.

Horses lie down only about 43.5 minutes a day

A horse only needs four hours of sleep per day at 15 to 20 minute intervals.

Horses can sleep both lying down and standing up. 

Horses sleep longer in the summer than in the winter

Male horses generally have 49 teeth, while females have 36

A horses stomach should always make gurgling noises

Horses’ teeth never stop growing

Soaking hay before feeding it to a horse helps reduce respiratory problems

A fully grown horse weighing 1,000 pounds contains around 13.2 gallons of blood

Horses with coats marked by large patches and white and another colour are known as pintos. While in Britain and Ireland they are known as coloured, piebald, or skewbald

Any marking on a horse’s forehead is called a star, even when it’s a different shape. In fact, most stars resemble diamonds

The longest horse tail ever measured was 22 feet long. It belonged to an American Palomino named Chinook

The highest speed recorded for a horse's kick has been recorded at 75 mph.

Domestic horses have a lifespan of around 25 years.

A normal horse has a body temperature of between 100 and 101.5 degrees Fahrenheit

A horse’s ear can be rotated almost 360 degrees and is controlled by 13 muscles

A horse’s upper lip is prehensile. This means it’s adapted for holding objects and is very sensitive and can feel small differences in the texture of an object

A horse’s hoof will grow about a quarter of an inch each month. A hoof is similar to a fingernail. It grows constantly, and should be clipped before it becomes overgrown and causes distress to the horse.

A horse’s knee joint is the equivalent to a human wrist, and their hock joint is equivalent to the human ankle.

Contrary to some beliefs, horse are not color-blind and can in fact see colours

Horse feathers are long hairs on the back of horses’ ankles which help to keep away water from the hoof

The Arabian horse is the oldest pure breed in the world. It is also the most likely to pass along its character traits through the generations

Arabian horses are slightly different from other horses in anatomy, with one less rib, one less lumbar bone, and one or two fewer vertebrae

Horses are not naturally predisposed to jumping. When able to do so most will go round the obstacle instead

Standardbred horses generally have larger hearts than other breeds

A horse’s head shape varies widely based on breed. Arabians usually tend to be dish-faced with a concave profile; draft horses have Roman noses and a convex profile

A mule is a cross between a male donkey (a jack) and a female horse (a mare).

Mules are usually sterile.

A hinny is a cross between a male horse (a stallion) and a female donkey (a jenny).

Hinnies are usually sterile.

Mules are known for having very long ears.   

Getting To Know Them

Studies have assessed equine intelligence in the realms of problem solving, learning speed, and knowledge retention. Results show that horses excel at simple learning, but also are able to solve advanced cognitive challenges that involve categorization and concept learning.

Horses have a social hierarchy within their herds, with more dominant horses asserting themselves as the leaders. Just like humans, each horse has a different personality  

Horses make eight basic sounds: snort, squeal, greeting nicker, courtship nicker, maternal nicker, neigh, roar, and blow

Horses use facial expressions to communicate their emotions and moods. If a horse has its ears back and its nostrils flared, it may be preparing to attack

If you hold your hand out to a horse and it approaches you and blows warm air onto your hand it wants to be friends

A horse can sense its owner’s emotions and will mimics his mood. If you are in a bad mood, your horse will likely be in a bad mood also

A horse’s mood can be determined by watching their facial expressions and the positioning of their nostrils, eyes, and ears

Horses use their tails to send signals to each other horses about how they are feeling

Horses will mourn the passing of a companion

If kept alone horses will get lonely

Horses have a better sense of smell than humans

A healthy horse will be bursting with energy, displayed in its unrestricted movement

Horses will sometimes groom one another by nibbling around the neck region, in the much the same fashion that mares care for their young

Sacking out is the process of slowly introducing a horse to frightening objects in order to prevent it from spooking when it comes across them

Horses sometimes communicate vocally. The whinny means a horse is excited or agitated while a snort usually means that it senses danger

When a horse’s ears are lowered or limp, the horse is relaxed or resting

Horses will often rear up when startled, at play, or excited

Blue Horses

Perhaps one of the rarest colors of horse is the grulla (pronounced grew-ya) or grullo (grew-o), also known as the black dun, blue dun or lobo dun.

The coat color is the result of the dun gene on top of a black gene, which produces individual hairs that are a mousy gray, smoky blue or slate gray color. Grulla horses can vary quite widely, from a distinctive smoky blue to a mousy tan.

Often these horses have a dorsal stripe on their back, a dark face, dark ear tips and edging, dark mane, tail and legs and leg barring (called tiger striping)

The Spanish word "grulla" refers to a slate-gray crane.

Pregnancy, Foals and Breeding

A mare’s gestation period (pregnancy) is usually 11 months, but can sometimes be as short as 10 months or as long as 12 months

Colts may sometimes be capable of reproduction as early as 18 months. However, they are rarely allowed to breed until they are at least three years old

Most foals are born in the springtime, at night, when the herd is unlikely to be on the move and food is plentiful

Most foals are born at night

When first born, foals cannot eat grass because their legs are too long to reach the ground

Horses can run shortly after birth.

At birth, a foal’s legs are already 90 per cent of their full-grown length

Foals instinctively recognise the scent of their mothers

Newly born foals cannot reach down to eat grass because their legs are too long

It’s not possible to predict a horse’s colour when it is foal. It will experience several changes before the colour becomes fixed at about age two

A mare can give birth in as little as 15 minutes. But if someone is watching here she may stop foaling and wait until the observer leaves before she continues

Many young domestic horses are handled by people within the first few days of their lives in order to get them used to the touch, sound and smell of humans

A mare’s first milk is called colostrum. It is very rich and protects against disease in the foal

Just one hour after birth, a foal is able to stand. After just two hours, it can run

Horses in the Wild

Feral horses are the descendants of once-tame animals that have run free for generations

Wild horses (feral horses) that live in North America are called Mustangs

The Przewalski’s horse is the only truly wild horse whose ancestors were never domesticated. The last wild Przewalski’s horse was seen in Mongolia in 1968

A breed of horses called Akhal-Teke from Russia can go for days without water or food

Mature horses will kick both colts and fillies out of the herd when they reach sexual maturity, helping to prevent inbreeding

Horses and ponies feel safest in herds

In the wild, mares decide when the herd moves to another spot to find food

Mares decide when and where the herd will go while the stallions follow.

Ponies are able to survive in inhospitable climates because they conserve body heat so well

Like sheep and cattle, horses are browsers, constantly wandering as they feed

Mustangs are related to horses brought to the New World by Spanish explorers nearly 400 years ago. They are one of the few wild North American breeds

Horses and ponies always feel safest when they are in herds

There is usually only one stallion in any herd of horses

In tropical areas, horses are usually small, energetic, hardy, and capable of surviving with little food

In the wild, horses feed on grass and herbs. Combined with water, these alone are adequate for a horse’s sustenance

Horses expand more energy when they are lying down than when they stand upright

Herd bound horses become flighty and difficult to control when they are separated from the herd

In the wild, all horses eat for about 22 hours each day, and sleep for about two

For Horseshoers

A blacksmith, or farrier or horseshoer, is a person who trims and shoes horse’s hooves.

Hippo-sandals were used in the first century as a precursor to horseshoes. They were tied to the horse’s hoof with leather strings, rather than being nailed in place as is now done with horseshoes.

What was the average price for shoeing a horse in 1842 and 1920 in America? A shoeing in 1842 cost $0.5 or a load of corn. The average price for a shoeing in 1920 was $1.75

The first patent awarded for the machine manufacturing of horseshoes was to S. Decatur and W. Tatharn when they received a patent for a horseshoe making machine in 1809. The machine did not succeed in production.

There were 1,749 patents awarded for different horseshoe designs between 1822 and 1950

In 1860, the total daily iron consumption for making horseshoes was 397 tons per day. 43 tons were used in machine-made shoes and 354 tons were consumed in making horseshoes by hand.

The first successful machine to make complete horseshoes from a single piece of iron in one operation was patented in 1857. Originally the machine could make six shoes per minute. By the 1870's H. Burden and
Sons had six improved forging machines and they were capable of making six shoes per second.

The turning point for the acceptance of machine made horseshoes was when the Burden Iron Company of Troy, New York, received a contract in 1861 to supply the federal government with large quantities of horseshoes to be used in the Civil War. This was the first large scale demand for machine-manufactured horseshoes and marks the turning point for acceptance of the machine manufactured horseshoe.

The first successful horseshoe nail-making machine was patented by Thaddeus Fowler, who designed the first nail-making machine with pointed horseshoe nails. The brand name of the nails was "Vulcan".

The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals gave its endorsement in 1874 to the use of India-rubber horseshoes. They were made, lined, and worn like the rubber overshoe used by humans. The elasticity of the rubber shoe allowed the hoof to remain in its natural shape, while being protected from the abrasions of pavements. The rubber shoes were manufactured in sixteen sizes, weighed about 40% less and cost about one-third more than iron horseshoes.

Outspoken anti-horseshoe advocates in England began arguing in the 1880's that 90% of a horse's foot trouble came directly from the use of horseshoes. The movement suggested using no horseshoes at all on the more than 2.25 million horses then living in the United Kingdom. The movement died because of it's impracticality.

The US Calvary field-tested aluminum horseshoes in the 1890's. The report praised the ease of shaping, fitting and light weight but determined that the shoe would not wear long enough to be practicable for military service.

In 1897 Sears, Roebuck & Company catalog offered generic horseshoes and horseshoe nails in its hardware section. The price for 100 pounds of shoes cost $3.75, and 25 pounds of nails cost $4.25

Professor William Hunting in his 1898 work, The Art of Horse-Shoeing: A Manual For Farriers has suggested weights for shoes based upon the horses use. The suggested weights for: race horses, hacks and hunters, carriage horses, omnibus horses and draft horses varied:

Race horses: 2 to 4 ounces.
Hacks and hunters: 15 to 18 ounces
Carriage horses 20 to 30 ounces
Omnibus horses 3 to 4 pounds
Draft horses 4 to 5 pounds

Did You Also Know?

The first horse lived around 50 million years ago and was called Hyracotherium. It had four hoofed toes on the front feet, three hoofed toes on the back feet and was about as big as a fox.

Horses were domesticated by at least 2000bc and there is evidence that they could have been domesticated as early as 4,500bc

Both the ancient Romans and Asians looked upon their horses as great warriors. Although the Romans prized large horses in battle for their strength, Asians preferred smaller, more nimble and sure-footed ones

On the Greek Island of Hydra, horses and ponies are the only legal for of transportation

Horses have been found in cave paintings that date back to around 15000 B.C.

Asian nomads probably domesticated the first horses some 5,000 years ago, and the animals remained essential to many human societies until the advent of the engine

The first veterinarian text written that included a section on the horse's foot was written by De Arte Veterinaria in 430 BC by Simon of Athens.  

Chariot racing was the first Olympic sport in 680 B.C.

Julias Caesar rode a horse with three toes. The condition results from a rare genetic mutation that can affect the front of rare hooves

Alexander the Great’s horse was named Bucephalus. Alexander received the wild horse as a boy and was able to tame it

The Roman emperor Caligula made his horse, Incitatus, a priest of Rome. The horse had nearly 20 servants, a jewelled collar, and was often feed oats dripped in gold

The Greeks used horses for the first ever Pony Express

The Spanish Riding School in Vienna, Austria, was founded in 1572. It is one of a handful of schools that still teaches classical dressage

Upon his death Napoleon's war horse was presented to the Royal United Service Institution. Its hooves were made into snuff boxes

The first recorded horse-jumping competitions were held in Dublin, Ireland by the Royal Dublin Society in 1864

So how long is a furlong? Well, 1/8 mile or 220 yards

The sole survivor of Custer's Last Stand was a buckskin named Comanche.

Comanche had twelve wounds and spent a year in slings before becoming fully recovered. The US Cavalry headquarters allowed Comanche complete freedom for the rest of his life at Fort Riley, Kansas.

Comanche was officially retired and it was ordered that no one would ever ride him again. He was called "the Second Commanding Officer" of the 7th Cavalry. His only duties were to be lead in the front of official parades occasionally. It is said he developed a fondness for beer in his later years, and was such a pet at the fort that he was often indulged in this habit.

Comanche lived to the age of 29, and when he died his body was mounted and put on display at the University of Kansas, where it stands to this day.

So everyone knows Silver was the Lone Ranger's horse, but what was the name of Tonto's horse? Tonto's horse was a paint named Scout.

The largest number of horses ever assembled for a US movie was the 8,000 horses that were used in the movie War and Peace.

From the middle ages to the 1930s, wealthy women were expected to ride side saddle because it was through improper for them to sit with their legs astride

How old was the oldest horse? So far, the oldest recorded horse on record was Old Billy who lived in England to a ripe old age of 62. Old Billy from Lancashire, England, was born in 1760 and died in 1822 at age 62. I repeated myself because I have a hard time believing it, even though its true.

A 42-year-old Australian brood mare was the oldest horse ever to give birth

The smallest pony ever recorded is called Sugar Dumpling. She weighed only 30 pounds and stood just 20 inches tall

The oldest pony on record died in France aged 54

The Palamino horse we know as the talking Mr. Ed was in fact an American Saddlebred.

Mr. Ed, the talking equine star of the 1960s television series, was a golden palomino. He learned an enormous amount of tricks for his role, including answering a telephone, opening doors, writing notes with a pencil, and unplugging a light. Apparently, Mr. Ed would occasionally have a fit of temper, as befitting his star status, and would stand stock still, wheezing and refusing to move.

After elephants, draught horses are the world’s strongest land animals

The world record for a horse galloping over a short, sprint distance is 55 mph.

The record for the highest jump made by a horse is held by a horse named Huaso who jumped 8 feet, 1 and 1/4 inches on February 5th, 1949 in Vina del Mar, Chile. He was ridden by Captain Alberto Larraguibel.

The record for the longest jump over water is held by a horse named Something who jumped 27 feet, 6 and 3/4 inches on April 25, 1975 in Johannesburg, South Africa. He was ridden by Andre Ferreira.

Depending on the sporting event, a horse’s mane can be worn in many ways, from naturally down to roached to various kinds of braids

Untrained young horses can be brought cheaply, even those with top bloodlines. Once a horse is trained, however, its price can easily triple

Riding a horse burns between 148 and 690 calories each hour, depending on the gait of the horse and the weight of the rider.

Some fox hunters ride horses called field hunters that are specially trained for the pursuit

Dressage is the art of training a horse to perform precise movements. It requires an equal amount of skill and concentration from horse and rider

When horses are teamed during riding sports, such as in a group of four, either of the two foremost horses is called the leader

There is an archaic British law which states that an Englishman may not sell a horse to a Scotsman

The Society of Horseman’s Word was a club in Scotland in the 1800s. Elder members were believed to have supernatural abilities to understand and control horses

The Battle of Komarow on August 31, 1920, was the last major cavalry battle

On April 7, 1933, the Clysedale horse became the Anheuser-Busch brewery symbol

A German horse, Meteor, won show-jumping medals at three consecutive Olympic Games, in 1952, 1956 and 1960 

It is illegal to open an umbrella near a horse in New York City

New Jersey’s state animal is the horse

Ribbons were once braided into horses’ tails to keep the animals safe from witches

The bows used on string instruments are often made from the tail hair of horses

In Canada, drinking before or while riding a horse is punishable as a DUI. A horse and carriage is classified in the same category as a car, while horseback riding is the same as bicycle riding.

In statues of a horse and rider, if the horse has both front legs in the air, the rider was killed in batle; if the horse has one leg raised, the rider died as a result of wounds received in battle; if all four legs are on the ground the rider died of natural causes

In Rosario, Argentina, horses are required to wear hats in warm weather

The national sport of Afghanistan is Buzkashi, a game in which riders on horseback attempt to capture a goat carcass

A zedonk is the offspring of a zebra and a donkey

Hippotherapy is the use of horses and horseback riding in physical, occupational, speech and psychological therapy

Hippophobia and equinophobia both refer to the fear of horses

Hippocrates translates to ‘horse master’

Horses like classical music.

The oldest pony ever recorded was named Teddy E. Bear. He lived to be 55 and was owned by Kathy Pennington of Virginia Beach, VA. He was still alive in 1998.

The tallest horse ever recorded was the English gelding Sampson (also known as Mammoth). He was born in 1946 and by the time he was four-years-old stood seven feet two inches tall.

The World's Largest Horse was a purebred Belgian stallion named Brooklyn Supreme. He stood 19.2hh (6'6") at his withers. He weighed over 3,200 pounds and is entered in the Guiness Book of World Records. He was foaled in 1928 and died in 1948. He lived in Iowa, USA.    

After reading all of this, you probably won't get fooled when folks ask you a question of two about horses.

But then again, be careful. Remember, what runs all around a paddock but doesn't move - is a fence.

The side of a horse has the most hair is in fact the outside.

And yes, just in case some wise guy asks what kind of horse can jump higher than a house? Remember to tell 'em that all kinds of horses do -- since houses can't jump!

Marine Sends Letter to Feinstein Regarding Gun Control

Marine Sends Letter to Feinstein Regarding Gun Control


By GOPUSA Staff
January 10, 2013

Sometimes someone just gets it right. Whether it is in a speech, an interview, or, in this case, a letter, there are times when the person says exactly what others are feeling, but in a way that makes complete sense. That is what happened when a Marine sent a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding proposed gun control legislation.

Here is the text of the letter as supplied by Fox News from Marine Cpl. Joshua Boston:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

No one should be a "subject" of the federal government. The government was designed to serve America, and now it is out of control.

Guns And Freedom

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Published January 10, 2013, FoxNews.com

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty.

It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny.

And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West.

Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is.

Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us.

A natural right is an area of individual human behavior -- like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy -- immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The essence of humanity is freedom.

Government -- whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force -- is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up.

From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution.

Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty -- the personal dominion over self -- by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government.

This constitutes liberty permitting power.

But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights.

Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment.

As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century -- from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad -- have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government.

If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense.

Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.

Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us.

If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government.

Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

Reprinted here with pleasure.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.

 

Do You Carry A Gun To The Movies?

On Thursday, my wife and I went to the movies for her birthday. While watching people walk into the theater, because of what took place recently in a Aurora Colorado theater, I couldn't help but wonder how many were packing a pistol under their heavy winter coats?

Since we were there to see Parental Guidance with Billy Crystal and Bette Midler, a comedy, I was sure that there wouldn't be anyone jumping up trying to imitate Billy Crystal in the same way that the murdering jerkweed in Aurora Colorado did when he tried to imitate the Joker from a Batman film and kill everyone in the theater.

As we watched the movie, I realized that this movie should be watched by everyone raising kids today. It was just that good. It was well done without vulgarity or violence. And really, it didn't need any sort of violence to present to its viewers a wonderful story about grandparents, parents, and raising kids.

Was it funny? Absolutely, but not really stupid type of funny. It was great. After the movie, as I sat through the credits, I remember thinking that this is one movie that I'd recommend to anyone to watch and learn.

And there's the point, since people can watch and learn something good and wonderful from a great movie like Parental Guidance - why does Hollywood and people who support ultra-violent films assume that people can't watch and learn how to carry out extreme acts of violence from extremely twisted films like say Pulp Fiction, Taxi Driver, or the latest Batman film The Dark Knight Rises?

Fact is, they can and do!

And yes, while sitting there, I could not help but wonder if there were safe movies versus un-safe movies to go to? Are there ultra-violent movies that attract ultra-violent nutcases who want to do horrific harm to others? Maybe there are?

Maybe there are people out there who love the sight of blood and gore in movies ripe with gun violence, just the same as there are those who love the horror genre with all of that blood and gore? Maybe they enjoy it for some sick reason?

Quentin Tarantino is an American film director, screenwriter, producer, and actor. He has received many movie industry awards, including an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, and so on.

He is someone who director Peter Bogdanovich has called "the single most influential director of his generation."

Maybe so, but what kind of influence? A good influence or bad influence? I believe a horrible influence!

In the early 1990s, he began his career as an independent filmmaker with films employing satirical subject matter and the aestheticization of violence that often results in the exhibition of neo-noir characteristics.
His films include Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Kill Bill (2003, 2004), Inglourious Basterds (2009), and Django Unchained (2012), all incredibly ultra-violent movies bathed in buckets of blood.

The aestheticization of violence in high culture art or mass media is the depiction of or references to violence in what Indiana University film studies professor Margaret Bruder calls a "stylistically excessive," "significant and sustained way."

When violence is depicted in this fashion in films, television shows, and other media, Bruder argues that audience members are able "to connect" references from the "play of images and signs" to artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols, or concepts. But remember, connect to incredibly violent artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols, or concepts

In Xavier Morales' review of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Vol. 1, entitled "Beauty and violence", he calls the film "a groundbreaking aestheticization of violence."

Morales says the film, which he calls "easily one of the most violent movies ever made" is "a breathtaking landscape in which art and violence coalesce into one unforgettable aesthetic experience".

How anyone can put together the words aesthetic and violence is beyond me?

I suspect it takes a warped mind to think that extremely violent acts can be "aesthetically pleasing" to anyone.
How can any thing be aesthetic, which means relating to, or dealing with beauty, as being pleasing in appearance, as attractive, as being something appreciative, or something pleasurable to the senses, and be remorse or ultra-violent?

Aesthetics is all about emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

Morales argues that "...Tarantino .. presents violence as a form of expressive art...[in which the]...violence is so physically graceful, visually dazzling and meticulously executed that our instinctual, emotional responses undermine any rational objections we may have."

He goes on to say, "Tarantino is able to transform an object of moral outrage into one of aesthetic beauty...[, in which,]...like all art forms, the violence serves a communicative purpose apart from its aesthetic value."

When the female sword-wielding protagonist "...skillfully slices and dices her way through...[the opposing fighters]...we get a sense that she is using them as a kind of canvas for her expression of revenge...[,]...like an artist who expresses herself through brush and paint,...[she]...expresses herself through sword and blood."

Yes, this jerkweed Morales is a Film Critic. And yes, we wonder why films that disgust everyone else passes film critics.

In my opinion, film critics like Morales who see ultra-violent films as "physically graceful" or "visually dazzling," really appear to have deep seated psychological problems that I don't see even many years of counseling helping.

According to one source, film critics analyzing violent films that seek to "aesthetically please the viewer" mainly fall into two categories.

There are those critics who see depictions of violence in film for what they are - superficial and exploitative. They argue that it leads audience members to become desensitized to brutality, thus increasing their aggression.

Then there are those film critics with their heads up their ass. Those critics view violence as a type of content, or as a theme. And believe it or not, they claim it provides "acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses."

That's right, some of the jerkweeds see no harm in ultra-violent films see them -- and see them acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses.

Imagine that for a moment, then ask yourself, how many of these jerkweed critics saw nothing wrong with the use of ultra-violence in The Dark Knight Rises? How many of them changed their minds now that they have seen the effects that that new Batman movie had on just one sick individual?

And yes, of all of the millions who see violence in the movies and in violent video games, all it takes is one to act out what he saw in a film.

The mass murderer in Aurora Colorado used a film to inspire him to violence.  The film makers knew their film was extremely violent. 

The film makers knew they crossed the line between a film being art -- and their making an actual instructional how-to film for those wanting to commit  murder on a large scale. They film  makers must have  have known that their film would be inspirational to someone who wanted to play out their anti-social impulses.

Adrian Martin argues that critics who hold violent cinema in high regard have developed a response to anti-violence advocates, "those who decry everything from Taxi Driver to Terminator 2 as dehumanising, desensitising cultural influences."

Martin claims that critics that value this sick twisted logic called "aestheticized violence" defend gory shocking depictions onscreen on the grounds that "screen violence is not real violence, and should never be confused with it."

Martin claims that their rebuttal also claims that "movie violence is fun, spectacle, make-believe; it's dramatic metaphor, or a necessary catharsis akin to that provided by Jacobean theatre; it's generic, pure sensation, pure fantasy. It has its own changing history, its codes, its precise aesthetic uses."

It seems Adrian Martin is dead right on all accounts!

Margaret Bruder, a film studies professor at Indiana University and the author of "Aestheticizing Violence, or How To Do Things with Style" proposes that there is a distinction between aestheticized violence and the use of gore and blood in mass market action or war films.

In movies with aestheticized violence, she argues that the "standard realist modes of editing and cinematography are violated in order to spectacularize the action being played out on the screen"; directors use "quick and awkward editing", "canted framings," shock cuts, and slow motion, to emphasize the impacts of bullets or the "spurting of blood."

But of course, according to Hollywood, none of that incites or inspires others to violence. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, Hollywood mega-star and director Quentin Tarantino said that shootings happen because of guns and mental health and not violent movies.

But how can that be the case since the creep who shot all of those innocent people at the theater in Aurora Colorado got the very idea to do what he did directly from an extremely violent movie?

Quentin Tarantino, the director of Pulp Fiction and the recent box office hit Django Unchained, has once again spoken out against accusations that film violence could be responsible for massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.

Speaking to Terry Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air," Tarantino said "I think it's disrespectful to their memory actually, the memory of the people who died, to talk about movies," Tarantino said of the 26 shooting victims.

"It's totally disrespectful to their memory," he said, before trying to pass off the use of violence in the movies as a small issue - asserting that "obviously, the issue is gun control and mental health."

The tense and often excruciatingly awkward exchange on the popular radio left the director feeling "really annoyed." Tarantino seemed surprised when the genial conversation suddenly turned to the serious subject of violence in movies.

When pressed on whether the tragedy, which claimed the lives of twenty children and six adults, has made movie violence "less fun."

"So, I just have to ask you, is it any less fun after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary? Do you ever go through a period where you lose your taste for movie violence? And what do you like about that?" Gross asked.

"What do I like about it?" Tarantino asked with surprise, before laughing nervously. "It's fun."

Gross asked: "Are there times when it is just not a fun movie experience for you, either to be making it that way or to be in the audience?"

"Not for me," Tarantino said flatly. Then added, "Would I watch a kung fu movie three days after the Sandy Hook massacre? Maybe. Because they have nothing to do with each other."

"You sound annoyed?" Gross responded.

Tarantino wrapped up the subject with his thoughts on movies and violence by defending his influence on murdering rampages this way: "I've been asked this question for 20 years, About the effects of violence in movies relating to violence in real life. And my answer is the same as 20 years ago. It hasn't changed one iota."

Tarantino added that violence in movies does not affect violence in society, saying, "Obviously the issue is gun control and mental health." 

So according to Tarantino, he says that tragedies like Sandy Hook are all about gun control and mental health -- and not movies or video games violence. Yes, like most of you, I think he's full of shit.

And we're not alone. In fact, even the star of his new movie Django Unchained, Jamie Foxx feels differently than he does.

"We cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn't have a sort of influence," Foxx said in a recent interview. "It does."
Back in late August of 2012, another of many reports came out to dispute creeps like Tarantino. The report agrees with Jamie Foxx and others. It found that violent images in movies, TV or computer games can act as triggers for aggression.

After that took place, an international panel concluded that media violence can act as a trigger for aggressive thoughts and feelings.

"Violent TV, films and video games do increase aggression," that's from an international panel of experts who are warning parents to keep an eye on what their children are watching saying, "Ratings are not substitutes for parents watching, playing, or listening to the media their children use."

The report for the The International Society for Research on Aggression (IRSA) concluded that that evidence shows that the consumption of media violence can act as a trigger for aggressive thoughts or feelings already stored.

The panel is only one of many groups who study violence, and have concluded that exposure to violent images in different media, such as movies and video games, increases the relative risk of aggression. The panel also warn parents that a ratings system is no substitute for the watchful eye of a parent.

Grand Theft Auto IV was a critically-acclaimed 18-rated game, but there were concerns about younger players emulating the violence they saw on-screen.

The IRSA appointed the International Media Violence Commission in December of 2011. In their report, the commission concluded that aside from being sources of imitation, violent images such as scenes in movies, games or even pictures in comic books -- act as triggers for activating aggressive thoughts and feelings already stored in memory.

If these aggressive thoughts and feelings are activated over and over again because of repeated exposure to media violence, they become chronically accessible, and therefore more likely to influence behaviour.

The commission concluded, "One may also become more vigilant for hostility and aggression in the world, and therefore, begin to feel some ambiguous actions by others (such as being bumped in a crowded room) are deliberate acts of provocation."

The researchers wrote, "Parents can also set limits on screen use, and should discuss media content with their children to promote critical thinking when viewing. Schools may help parents by teaching students from an early age to be critical consumers of the media and that, just like food, the ‘you are what you eat' principle applies to healthy media consumption."

Research shows that the "you are what you eat" principle applies to violent film consumption. If people are exposed to violence, then some may be prone to act out what they see.

My wife and I sat through the previews of the upcoming films, I couldn't help but shake my head at how many new films had so much violence -- even the animation fims have a lot of violence.

Hollywood's desire to supposedly make everything more "authentic and real" should not be mistaken for "authentically real life violence." Fact is, Hollywood violence is sensationalized and exaggerated.

Fact is, while Directors like Tarantino who have a blood lust try to make violence somehow pleasing, Hollywood's depictions of violent acts are not supposed to be instructional -- yet they are as they are in fact reenacted.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, many in the media and on Capitol Hill blamed one powerful lobby, the gun industry, and suggested banning assault weapons would lead to safer streets.

"On the first day of the new Congress, I intend to introduce a bill stopping the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons," Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-Calif., said.

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said "people on the far-right, on the NRA front ... they go to bed at night ... afraid somebody's going to take that gun away from them. Normal people have other interests."

On CNN, host Piers Morgan called Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt "an unbelievably stupid man."

Yet, there's another powerful lobby in Washington that few scrutinize, let alone criticize, and that's Hollywood. As we've discussed here, Hollywood bears responsibility for incidents of adolescent violence because they incite violence.

"Hollywood is very touchy about the idea of taking responsibility for the stuff it actually does," Parents Television Council's Dan Isett said.

"What happened in Newtown is absolutely heartbreaking. It shouldn't take an instance like that to have 20 dead children that just went to school that morning, to have a real discussion about why this happened. To have a real discussion about what media does to our kids."

Though numerous studies link violence on the screen to violent behavior, an interview with director Quentin Tarantino typifies Hollywood's position on the issue -- minimizing the role films play in the violent incidents carried out by young male gunmen in Newton, Conn.; Aurora and Littleton, Colo.; and other cities.

James Holmes who is in jail is accused of going on a shooting spree during a midnight screening of the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises on July 20, 2012, at a movie complex in Aurora Colorado. He faces 152 charges.

He was inspired to to his horrible act by a horribly violent film. He learned how to do the deed from Hollywood and he emulated the scene from the film to do what he did. Thank you Hollywood!

But, what does Tarantino say about that and the violence in his latest film Django Unlimited?

"I just think, you know, there's violence in the world, tragedies happen, (so society) blame(s) the playmakers," Tarantino said.

"Is that a question you're tired of?" asked a reporter.

"Yeah, I'm really tired. It's a western. Give me a break." that was what Tarantino said when asked about Hollywood's impact on behavior during a screening of his latest violent movie, Django Unchained.

Others disagree, arguing that content matters. The depiction of extreme violence as a means of resolving conflict on the screen can cause viewers to act out in a similar way, they say.
Yet, the movie and video game industry spends millions so Democrats in Congress do not change the current system of "self regulation" that labels content violent or not.

Not unlike any big political action organization, Democrat in Congress fear the Motion Picture Association of America and their political allies.

After all, Hollywood supports Democrats even if the candidate were known for fact to be a convicted Pedophile and devout Communist. From Hollywood, millions of dollars of campaign contribution roll in.

Consider the clout and fundraising acumen of producer Harvey Weinstein, a major heavyweight in Democrati politics, along with actors George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio, all of whom have acted in or produced extremely violent films.

In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, MPAA CEO former Democrat Senator Chris Dodd released this statement: "Those of us in the motion picture and television industry want to do our part to help America heal. We stand ready to be part of the national conversation."

"Obviously gun control is part of the debate. Mental health is part of the debate. The fact that movie violence is not part of the debate is a big problem," said Noah Gittell, a former Democratic campaign staffer who now writes about Hollywood for Reelchange.net.

"Big media companies spend literally tens of millions of dollars virtually every month, lobbying in Washington and around the country to make sure that they maintain the status quo," Isett said.

Since 1998, America's five largest film studios contributed $41 million dollars to political candidates, compared with $16 million from the NRA in the same time period according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

On lobbying, the watchdog group said the MPAA spent $25 million since 1990 compared with $29 million by the NRA.

The difference is that the NRA is fighting to keep a Constitutional Right shared by all Americans -- while the MPAA lobbys to keep violent prominent in films and videos.

The Entertainment Software Association, representing the video game industry, spent $4.4 million last year alone. That money has largely kept Democrats who controlled Congress for the most part since 1925 off their backs, despite pressure from parental groups to fight the increasing violence their children are exposed to.

Some advocacy groups have proposed a mandated ratings system that requires any movie with a murder scene get an R rating. Consider the violent Batman movie "Dark Knight,." where dozens died in the movie, often graphically, yet it got a PG-13 rating.

Others tried to end the voluntary rating system for video games - a $11 billion a year business. But, that too was shot down.

"It's pretty clear the MPAA does have an influence," Gittell said.

"If Congress wants the MPAA to do something, they can give them a nudge in the right direction. But I do think the massive contributions members of Congress get from Hollywood would pre-empt them from ever taking full regulatory authority."

As stated previously, at a press conference held at a Washington, DC, hotel last month, the National Rifle Association's leadership responded to the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School by decrying the impact of violent movies on our culture.

During his speech at Washington DC's Willard Hotel, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre sought to put the blame where it should be and called the film industry "a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people," specifically highlighting "the blood-soaked slasher films like American Psycho and Natural Born Killers that are aired like propaganda loops."

The  pro-gun control media immediately dismissed his comments and openly worked to discredit the notion that violent movies encourage violent behavior. In fact, pro-gun control groups even stooped to pointing to an NRA museum that displays movie prop guns of all sorts.

Believe it or not, those wanting to ban guns are reaching new lows as they try to link the display of "non-firing" and "blank-firing" guns to the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Since 2010, the NRA National Firearms Museum has hosted "Hollywood Guns," an exhibit featuring firearms made famous in all sorts of movies and television shows from movies such as old 1930s westerns and gangster movies to modern movies like Dirty Harry and Die Hard and Quigley Down Under. And yes, from 1950s television Westerns to present day cop shows.

According to NRA magazine American Rifleman, "If you love guns or you love movies, or still luckier you love guns and movies, this is a trip you cannot miss."

In a promotional video for the museum, senior curator Phil Schreier says, "We encourage you to come by and visit this sequel and come see a true blockbuster here in Fairfax, where all the stars of the silver screen have descended into these galleries and are represented by some of the firearms that we've fallen in love with in our youth and our adulthood, wishing that we too could be like our matinee idols."
Somehow anti-gun groups see that as a bad thing. For me, I'd love to see the pistols that stars like Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and others carried. Blank-firing or Non-gun, they would be interesting see.

I'd love to see the guns used when making The Sands Of Iwo Jima with John Wayne, or the gun that Humphrey Bogart used to gun down Edward G. Robinson in Key Largo.

I was brought up on John Wayne, Randolph Scott, Tim Holt, Hopalong Cassidy westerns were there was a always some gunplay, but back in those days the gun play was secondary to the story of good versus evil.

The small use of violence in movies was never the focus of the movie as it is today. And yes, in many cases depending which old movies you talk about from back then, some didn't even show any blood at all when someone was shot.

It was always a case of the act lending to the story, and not the other way around like movies these days. The shot that killed the bad guy was not in vivid color spurting out and splattering everywhere, it was usually done without focus on the killing - but instead more on what took us to that point in the movie.
Yes, those old movies were extremely mild in comparison to today's blood lust classics.

My favorite Western movie has only one person being shot dead in the entire movie. In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, an outlaw named Liberty Valance (played by Lee Marvin) is out of control.

A dude by the name of Ransom "Ranse" Stoddard (played by James Stewart), someone from the East who knows nothing about the ways of the West or guns, finally accepts a challenge to a duel despite his complete lack of skills.

In the movie, Stoddard tries and supposedly miraculously kills Valance with one shot to the surprise of everyone, including himself. In reality, a local Cowboy Tom Doniphon, ( played by John Wayne, was asked to protect him and shot Valance from a dark ally.

The Cowboy congratulates the Dude on his success, and notices how his girl Hallie, played by Vera Miles, is lovingly caring for the Dude's wounds. Later, when the Dude Stoddard is feeling remorse over killing the outlaw -- the Cowboy tells him what he did.

Doniphon tells Stoddard that he (Doniphon) hid across the street and shot and killed Valance in cold blood, and that it was not Stoddard who killed Valance in self-defense. Stoddard asks him why he shot Valance. Doniphon tells him that he did it for Hallie.

In my favorite movie of all time, Casablanca, the only person shot dead was the evil Nazi officer.

And yes, American Humphrey Bogart warned Major Strasser twice before he left him no choice but to shoot. If he hadn't shot him, French patriot Victor Laszlo and his wife Ingrid Bergman couldn't have escaped Casablanca on a plane.

That was only the one shot in the movie that showed anyone getting hit. No big bucket of blood splatter in a 2 minute slow motion sequence. Bogart fires the shot and the n azi falls down dead.

Again, like in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance where Valance  falls down dead, in Casablanca the bad guy Major Strasser just falls down dead.

In both examples, those shot were not the focus of the story. The focus was on the storyline. They certainly, above all else, did not use huge blood splattering scenes in some sick twisted sense of logic to be aesthetically pleasing violence.

As I sat through the credits of the movie, I thought how well made the movie Parental Guidance really was. And yes, I thought to myself, I don't see today's ultra-violent films surviving the test of time.

I see them as being what they are, just trashy movies filled with gratuitous violence. Just violence for the sake of being violent. Just violence depicted without need or reason. And for the part, totally unrealistic with the sole purpose of glorifying violent acts and inciting others to violence.

Yes, I can't help but wonder how many go to see those extremely violent movies because they love it? And really, I can't help but wonder how many are like James Holmes when it comes to wanting to reenact such horribly violent films? How many are truly caught up in some movie director's sick sense of reality?
I'm sorry to say that I really believe that there are more out there like the nutcase who dressed himself like the Joker and tried to kill everyone in a theater in Aurora Colorado.

If there is one, than we can be fairly certian that there is at least one more like him. And yes, he is probably out there.

I  believe that he will show up one day to play out his fantasy to be just like some murderous character in a movie. He will try to emulate a scene he saw in a movie -- and probably want to be famous. He too will find his moment when to terrorize and be like someone depicted in a horrible film that few will remember.

That's why I believe that there are people who are now going to the movies armed. And yes. because of that concern I know a few for certain just because of the reasons I've stated.

Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Gun Control, Al Gore Sells Out To Radical Muslims, Unions Want It All, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Releasing Names Of Gun Permit Holders Endangers Public, says New York County Clerk

Americans have a new hero today. His name is Dennis Sant. He is a man who stood up and said, no, this is not right.

A New York county clerk justified his refusal to release the names and addresses of handgun permit holders to the same newspaper who published the names of other gun owners in another country.

He said, "it would give stalkers and thieves a convenient roadmap to target potential victims -- and determine whether they have a gun."

"This certainly puts my public in danger," Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant said Thursday following a news conference in which he was backed by the county executive and other elected officials.

The Journal News, which serves New York City's northern suburbs, created citizen outrage last month when it published clickable online maps with the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties.

The Journal News does not care if a citizen's safety becomes jeopardized, And it works either way, the Journal News handed robbers and burglars a detailed map on which houses they could hit and find guns, or the houses of those now known to be defenseless.

When the newspaper requested the same information from Putnam, Dennis Sant initially said the county needed more time to fulfill the request.

Dennis Sant balked entirely this week, saying the law gives him the prerogative to refuse to release public information if it endangers the public.

Judges and police officers could be targeted by the people they put behind bars, he said. People with orders of protection have expressed concern to him about would-be attackers finding them through the database.

And yes, there are women who are thought to be armed so to protect themselves and their children. If this data is released, it may expose the truth that they may be unarmed to violent former husbands and boyfriends who would love to find out such information so that they could go and do harm upon those women and children.

Yes, Dennis Sant has become one of my heroes!

While anyone can come into his office and file the necessary paperwork to request information on individual permits, Sant said the difference is that the Journal News plans to publish the information in a way that makes it accessible to everyone, instantaneously.

"First of all, it tells criminals who doesn't have a gun," he said. "It gives a burglar or it gives a thief a map."

The Journal News' database and accompanying story, "The Gun Owner Next Door," was supposedly published as part of the newspaper's coverage following the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

But that doesn't pass the sniff test, it smells too fishy. After all, they are a paper known to have an anti-gun agenda. And honestly, if they are so concerned about public safety - why have they never listed known Child Molesters and Convicted Rapists? Because that doesn't fit their agenda!

Some readers say the paper unfairly stigmatized gun owners, branding them in the same way as if they were outlaws and law violators or some sort of sex offenders that the community needed to be warned about.

The newspaper says it received threats and has posted armed guards at its offices.

I'm hoping they post armed guards at their homes as well.

Maybe those who work for the Journal News now have to hire guards to escort their children to school or their families to work or the market? Maybe the Journal News employees who thought it was OK to target law abiding citizens has to now protect their homes from vandals or arsonists? Maybe they now understand how it is to live in harms way?

Journal News Publisher Janet Hasson did not respond to several requests for comment Thursday but has issued statements previously standing behind the newspaper's project and maintaining residents have a right to see such public information.

Diane Kennedy, president of the New York News Publishers Association, said she reached out to Hasson offering support. Imagine that!

Janet Hasson puts folks in the community in danger, and Diane Kennedy who is the president of the New York News Publishers Association says she is reaching out to Hasson to offer her support.


She said editors may debate whether the Journal News should have published the database, but they fully backed the newspaper's right to access public records under New York's Freedom of Information Law. If the issue went to court, she said, member newspapers would file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Journal News.

"It's really clear cut," Kennedy said. "The existing law doesn't have exemptions in it. It says this information is subject to FOIL."

No surprise to anyone, another newspaper sides with Hasson and Kennedy, Rex Smith, editor of the Times Union in Albany, N.Y., said : "There is a broad consensus that the kind of resistance to the FOIL application that we're seeing in Putnam County is intolerable."

My friends, conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms, principles and rules, understanding what is legal may not be what is right.


I guess this is just more proof that those without conscience will support others of the same ilk.

And yes, newspapers wonder why they are dieing across the nation in huge numbers. With their circulation is at an all time low, most Americans see newspapers as out of touch or arrogant.

The Journal News proves they are definitely out of touch with the desires of their community. And yes, all their community wants from a newspaper is to be informed  - not be an informer for criminals and other crazies who would do harm simply because they now have an address they didn't have before.

People are fed up with newspapers forcing their leftist ideology on their customers. People do not see newspapers as a guardian of freedom fighting for the people, but instead as an abuser who is in fact fighting against the best interest of the people.

The denial of similar information to The Wall Street Journal by New York City's police commissioner led to a case that in 1981 was decided in favor of the newspaper.

But Dennis Sant  says that times have changed.

"The technology today is so different," he said. "I'm looking forward to the opportunity of bringing to the magistrates that this is not 30 years ago."

Yes, Dennis Sant is a real American hero for taking a stand against what is not right. He is a hero for standing up to a big money politically connected newspaper. He is a hero for doing what is right for his county!

SECOND SHOT!

FBI: More Killed With Hammers, Clubs Than With Rifles


January 3rd, 2013
Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14th, Democrats are making reinstatement of the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" a major priority for the 113th Congress.

This is ddespite factsthat show relatively few murders are committed with rifles such as the ones that would be banned.

From 2005 through 2011, more people in the U.S. were killed with hammers and clubs, or with hands and fists, than with rifles of any sort, reports Breitbart.

There were 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs in 2011, as compared with 323 deaths connected to a rifle, according to FBI records.

In 2006, there were 618 killings committed with a hammer or club, and 438 murders with a rifle. Many years, twice as many people were killed with hands and fists than with rifles.

“While the FBI makes is clear that some of the ‘murder by rifle’ numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns,” wrote Awr Hawkins, continuing that “it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein's dreaded rifle.”

Yet, Democrats want to go after rifles - especially black rifles they term assault rifles.

Technically, an assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or 3 round burst-capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Assault rifle should not to be confused with assault weapons. Assault rifles are the standard military service rifles in most modern militaries around the world. The term, assault weapons, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle.

They are not the same because the military style assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, while the assault weapon only cosmetically looks like an assault rifle.

Think of it like this President Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States and a great leader.

There are many reasons he was a great leader, but mostly because he lifted the nation's spirit and instilled pride in Americans. Comparing President Reagan to President Obama is like comparing a real leader to a wannabe who only looks the part.

One writer wrote about the 1994 gun ban this way, "Supporters of the assault weapons ban use emotion to convince the public that there are many rapid-fire weapons easily accessible to dangerous persons who use them frequently to kill and wound large numbers of people. Factual evidence does not support this claim."

"Those who oppose this ban should promote greater exposure for people who use firearms of all kinds for self-defense. Everyone understands and can empathize with the person who used a firearm, especially a semi- automatic military gun, to defend against looters during riots, hurricanes, and other disasters, or to defend one's home against invasion by criminals."

This all holds true today. Like back in 1195, studies today reveal similar findings in that only a small number of crimes involve the use of weapons classified as "assault weapons."

But again, the problem is being sidestepped as no one is focusing on the root cause - and instead are focused only the effect.

The cause is violent movies like the Dark Knight Rises which implanted the idea of a mass murder in a theater in the mind of the Aurora Colorado killer. He saw it done in that movie and decided to recreate it.

The murderer in Newtown Connecticut, was known to have spend an enormous amount of time playing ultra-violent video games. And yes, I can't help but wonder about the connection there?

If Democrats want something to ban, go after the root cause of the problem - and ban extremely violent movies and video games that are the inspiration for such acts of horror.
  THIRD SHOT!   Unions look for benefits from Obama re-election
Going into his second term, President Obama may find himself more beholden than ever to America's labor unions, even as their membership continues to decline -- lately, to just 11.8 percent of the workforce.

The unions, as in 2008, contributed heavily in manpower and money to Obama's election this year. The president, in return, has made a point of supporting them -- like with his post-election visit to the Daimler Diesel Plant in Dearborn, Mich., on Dec. 10.

"You only have to look to Michigan where workers were instrumental in reviving the auto industry to see how unions have helped build not just a stronger middle class but a stronger America," Obama said.

But Obama could be going against the legislative tide. The president's dilemma was demonstrated in the fact that a day after that visit, the union stronghold of Michigan became the 24th state to pass a right-to-work law preventing unions from demanding dues from workers.

Hampered in the states by right-to-work momentum -- and in Washington by a divided Congress, and abroad by low-cost competition -- the unions may see limited options on the part of the president to reward them. But they still expect some payback.

"There are things a president can do alone, and we will be expecting that leadership from President Obama," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in the immediate aftermath of Obama's re-election victory.

Trumka may have been referencing the Obama administration's enthusiasm for new federal regulations and executive orders, some of which have benefited unions and penalized non-union employers.

More than 5,700 new regulations have been posted in the last 90 days alone.

FOURTH SHOT!

Whoever says Unions are for American Workers is dead wrong!

Union leaders like AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka have also been exploring other options that address the fundamental realities of globalization that have decimated U.S. manufacturing.

"The way to do it, from a union's perspective, is to raise those workers' pay around the world," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi.

U.S. unions are trying to do just that, laying the groundwork, as Trumka said last year, "to protect workers from Detroit to Juarez and Shanghai to Bogota."

Getting foreign governments and multi-national corporations to agree is, admittedly, a long-term strategy for labor organizers. But as standards of living increase in those third world countries, union organizers hope so too will workers' thirst for greater protections.

The most recent high-profile union fight has involved dockworkers all along the East and Gulf coasts.

They had threatened a strike at 14 ports stretching from Massachusetts to Texas - but a 30-day contract extension agreed to by dockworkers, shippers and port operators last Friday temporarily averted the shut-down.

Mediators have said the major sticking point -- over fees paid to longshoremen based upon the weight of each individual container -- has largely been resolved. But they would not describe how it was resolved, as negotiations continue.

FIFTH SHOT!

Federal judge rules EPA overstepped authority trying to regulate water as pollutant in Virginia

Virginia officials scored a key victory Thursday in their battle with the Environmental Protection Agency over what EPA critics describe as a land takeover.

U.S. District Judge Liam O'Grady in Alexandria ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority by attempting to regulate stormwater runoff into a Fairfax County creek as a pollutant.

O'Grady sided with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which challenged EPA's stormwater restrictions

"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says the ruling could ultimately save Virginia taxpayers more than $300 million.

The EPA, citing an abundance of stormwater runoff, had proposed a plan that Virginia officials said could cost homeowners and businesses their private property.

The EPA contended that water itself can be regulated as a pollutant if there's too much of it. Imagine that would you. The EPA contends that rain water can be regulated as a pollutant if they feel there is too much of it.

Some would call this one stupid statement, and they'd be right. But also, others would call this a lame ass way of grabbing power - and yes, they'd be right as well.

The EPA says heavy runoff is having a negative impact on Accotink Creek and that it has the regulatory authority to remedy the situation - even though it is not their jurisdiction.
Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, argued what the EPA has proposed is "illegal," and he's not alone in the fight.

As surprising as it may be, Ken Cuccinelli was joined in the lawsuit against the federal agency by the Democrat-controlled Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

In legal filings, the EPA says that its plan is "in harmony with the broader purposes" of the Clean Water Act, including "reducing the water quality impacts of stormwater."

Federal Judge O'Grady did not agree, saying,  "EPA may not regulate something over which it has no statutorily granted power... as a proxy for something over which it is granted power."

He continued, "If the sediment levels in Accotink Creek have become dangerously high, what better way to address the problem than by limiting the amount of sediment permitted in the creek?"

"Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it," O'Grady said.

"EPA was literally treating water itself -- the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect -- as a pollutant," noted Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

"This EPA mandate would have been expensive, cumbersome, and incredibly difficult to implement. And it was likely to do more harm than good, as its effectiveness was unproven and it would have diverted hundreds of millions of dollars Fairfax County was already targeting for more effective methods of sediment control."

I'm not going to lie, it is very nice to see the EPA get put in their place. They are a rogue federal agency with way too much authority. The EPA is directly responsible for farmers losing farms, ranchers losing herds, agriculture progress being stifled, and American manufacturing disappearing. 

LAST SHOT!

Al Gore Sells His TV Channel To Radical Muslim Anti-American Al-Jazeera

Well, Glenn Beck tried to buy it but Al Gore supposedly said no because Beck is a Conservative.

And you know Al Gore? He was once the Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away as they say.

He's also the guy who pulled one of the biggest scams on the American people - and in fact, some say the entire world with his Global Warming hoax.

If you don't remember that, how about the fact that he contested the 2000 Presidential Election when he loss to George W.Bush? Yeah that's him!

Mister Leftist, our little Al Gore, the man who would be King if he could - but couldn't get 'er done.

Well, now Al Gore has sold his enemic television channel to a group of radical Muslims who own Al-Jazeera. The same Al-Jazeer who supported our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same guys you proclaimed the 9-11 terrorists as heroes to Muslims everywhere.

Their Pan-Arab news channel has struggled to win space on American cable television. But now, thanks to Al Gore, they have now acquired Current TV - boosting Al-Jazeer's reach nearly ninefold to about 40 million American homes.

With a focus on U.S. news, it plans to rebrand the left-leaning news network that co-founder Al Gore couldn't make relevant.

The former vice president confirmed the sale on Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV's mission "to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling."

In other words, Muslim Propaganda!

The Wall Street Journal said that Al-Jazeera  "became famous in the U.S. about a decade ago when its Arabic-language outlet aired videos of Usama bin Laden in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks."

The network is based in Qatar, an oil producing country, and is state-funded.

Back in 2006, Al Jazeera talk show host (and former CNN International journalist) Riz Kahn wouldn’t call either Hamas or Hezbollah "terrorist organizations" during an interview. “I’m not one to judge,” Kahn said.

In 2008, the network celebrated the birthday of a released terrorist who had shot and killed one Israeli and then beat to death a 4-year-old Israeli girl.

The network doesn’t call out Arabs for crimes either. In 2011, even liberal Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart criticized the network for ignoring the attack in Egypt on CBS News reporter Lara Logan.

But lefties love Al Jazeera. The network gained a bigger name for itself covering Arab Spring and is also the outlet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called “real news” back in 2011.

The acquisition lifts Al-Jazeera's reach beyond a few large U.S. metropolitan areas including New York and Washington, where about 4.7 million homes can now watch Al-Jazeera English.

Al-Jazeera, owned by the government of Qatar, plans to gradually transform Current into a new channel called Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now and hiring more journalists.

Al-Jazeera spokesman Stan Collender said there are no rules against foreign ownership of a cable channel — unlike the strict rules limiting foreign ownership of free-to-air TV stations. He said the move is based on demand, adding that 40 percent of viewing traffic on Al-Jazeera English's website is from the U.S.

Al-Jazeera has long struggled to get carriage in the U.S., and the deal suffered an immediate casualty as Time Warner Cable Inc., the nation's second-largest cable TV operator, announced it is dropping Current TV due to the deal.

"Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service. We are removing the service as quickly as possible," the company said in a statement.

Previous to Al-Jazeera's purchase, Current TV was in 60 million American homes.

In 2010, the network's managing director, Tony Burman, blamed a "very aggressive hostility" from the Bush administration for reluctance among cable and satellite companies to show the network.

Now before you write and ask if I made that up, please don't. I can't help it if jerkweed liberals are still blaming Bush years after he left office. That is a quote from the news article reporting this.

Al-Jazeera is anti-American. Anyone who has doubts should contact Dave Marash, a former "Nightline" reporter who worked for Al-Jazeera in Washington. He said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias there.

Current TV was political talk television with a liberal bent. Among the ultra-leftist who worked there was Al Gore who worked on-air as an analyst during its recent election night coverage.

Former New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer, former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Cenk Uygur are currently its lead personalities. Current signed Keith Olbermann to be its top host in 2011 but his tenure lasted less than a year before it ended in bad blood on both sides.

Current has largely been outflanked by ultra-left MSNBC in its effort be a super liberal alternative to the leading cable news network, Fox News Channel.

The sale of Current TV and the taxes paid on that say are another issue that's being talked about. It appears that founder Al Gore and Joel Hyatt, is expected to post $114 million in revenue in 2013, according to research firm SNL Kagan.

Some reports have it that Al Gore was or is right now trying to get out of paying the steep taxes incurred by delaying the sale date. Imagine that.

A liberal not wanting to pay taxes? I thought they love paying taxes.

I guess they only want you to pay taxes, while they try to weasel out of it.


Story by Tom Correa