Hey, anyone new to this blog, be sure to check out my blogfather! He is a credit to the Second Amendment, and right now his famed weekly check on the gun bias is up. Take a look at the picture he has posted of the drooling anti-gun vultures, shown after their latest gun-grab vote. Kerry, of course, is flanked by his friends Schumer, Feinstein and Kennedy, and they couldn't look happier! Jeff reflects on the festivities:

Isn't that a cozy quartet! Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy leaving the Senate after the vote. Go ahead and retch because these are the Democratic power brokers who killed this bill to protect an industry from the ravishes of greedy city mayors and their sponsors, the American Trial Lawyers Association (the largest contributor to the Democratic Party.)

Kerry, the senator with the most "liberal" voting record in the senate, certainly surrounds himself with his "kin" and that should be a warning to all of you who might be pissed-off at G.W. Bush for various issues and are considering a protest vote. As the saying goes, you're known by the company you keep and you can see who Kerry hangs out with.

Stare at that photo for a moment and think about this: Is this the crowd you want making decisions for our country for the next four years?

And here's Jeff on the detestable New York Times:

I have been writing this weekly report on bias against guns by major media for a year-and-a-half now and I certainly knock papers such as SF Gate and the LA Times. But I also have to admit that some of their writers occasionally pen a straight-forward news story with equal quotes from both sides.

That is in sharp contrast with the supposed leaders of the press world -- the New York Times and the Washington Post -- whose reporters (and editorialists) have NEVER published an objective story on firearms and the Second Amendment.

The New York Times is the most grievous, and it is just one reason that while other bloggers suck-up to them and put them on a pedestal, I have NEVER done so and in fact, I consider them an irrelevant paper other than for their influence over swooning liberals.

Your actions are deliberately designed to confuse people and are clearly illegal. By using The Times's name, logos, advertisments, live links, design and layout, you are blatantly infringing upon our exclusive rights under trademark and copyright laws, as well as the rights of our advertisers. And you are compounding the offense by encouraging others to follow your lead.(Link via Glenn Reynolds.)

Go ahead! Create your own New York Times corrections page! It's a public service to correct a rag that is anything but!

Let the "swooning liberals" swoon!

Jeff also praised my film review very highly (making me blush by calling me "a rapidly rising star in the blogosphere") and I'll take this opportunity once again to say that without him I would not be blogging. I can't tell you how many times I have been exasperated, drained, emotionally distraught, and on the verge of burnout, and Jeff has always lifted my spirits with heart-felt encouragement. I don't have a tip jar, but if there's anyone out there inclined to send money to a deserving blogger, there isn't a more deserving one than Jeff.

Thanks Jeff! You are to me as the Times is to liberals; you make me swoon!

UPDATE: Regarding the Times, Glenn Reynolds adds:

[T]he Times is being a bully. If, say, Rush Limbaugh were doing this to a critic under the same kind of circumstances, I suspect the Times would be all over him for it.

And now they're using Savage tactics to savage bloggers....

Tut tut!

MORE: As Eugene Volokh pointed out during the Fox v. Franken flap, such claims that parody will be "confused" with reality are a "heavy-handed and legally ill-founded attempt to suppress criticism."

UPDATE: Read this article in the New York Daily News; "Tough times for parody":

A cyber-gadfly, hit with a copyright-infringement charge by The New York Times, yesterday stripped his Web site of a Times parody and watched it pop up elsewhere online.
At issue is the devilishly realistic Times "Columnist Corrections" page that Robert Cox created for his site, TheNationalDebate.com ("Where Policy, Politics and the Media Meet").

Though dated "February 30," Cox's "Corrections" looks like a page from NYTimes.com and indeed "corrects," in a Timesian manner, perceived factual lapses in Times op-ed columns.

One Cox correction challenges columnist David Brooks' assertion that the Democratic Party "won't nominate a guy unless his family had an upper-deck berth on the Mayflower." Cox also questions columnist Paul Krugman's use of economic data and a government report on Medicare.

"Your actions are deliberately designed to confuse people and are clearly illegal," Times copyright counsel Nancy Richman scolded Cox in a letter that, of course, he posted on his site.

Richman insisted that Cox "remove the page from public display immediately."

Worse for Cox, his Internet service provider Verio, which also heard from The Times, told him it would suspend his account today if the offending material was not removed.

Before that could happen, Cox pulled the "Corrections" from his site - at 4:05 yesterday afternoon - but listed where in the sympathetic, so-called "blogosphere" it could now be found.

Cox, 40, a self-described Internet entrepreneur and lifelong Times reader in Westchester, said he doesn't have the bucks or legal resources to argue that "Corrections" is a parody.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

For what it's worth, I am only too glad to help out, and my parody mirror is up, right here!

Go ahead! Make me swoon, ye swine!