In Response To The Left

In response to this (re: The Left)

“Ideological descendants of Marx and Rousseau now lead the Democratic Party and they have turned it into a disloyal opposition to an increasingly accommodating GOP.

…a pseudo-intellectual sinkhole filled with perverse, tried-and-failed ideas repulsive to the majority of Americans.”

Kim comments today:

“Tried-and-failed”… I must remember to use that one the next time I have to explain to some Lefty puke why socialism is a really bad idea.”

It won’t work.  History will not touch a socialist.  All past failures happened because the wrong people were in charge.  It’s like trying to convince someone that his perpetual motion generator will never, ever work.  He knows, from direct observation, that it came extremely close on his last try.

That no one else ever made it work is proof of nothing.  There is a first time for everything, and our inventor knows, deep down, that he has the right idea.  The right idea will work.  Somehow it will work.  It must.  Then the major problems of the ages will be solved.  Just… need…. to keep… tweaking.

The problem with the socialist and with the perpetual motion inventor is they both fail to understand basic laws of nature.  Their theories violate those laws.  End of story.

The perpetual motion inventor I can tolerate– he stays out of my face.  I can laugh at him from a distance and he’ll leave me alone.

Environmentalists’ wild predictions

Furthering the discussion prompted in Joe’s post here (read the comments) I point you to a must-read (and a real knee-slapper IMO)– a recent piece by Williams, in which he catalogs just a few highlights from the never-ending string of end-of-the-world predictions coming from “authorities” on climate and economics.

(And we gun owners are often called paranoid)

I grew up hearing many of these prophecies of doom, and what’s a kid to do other than believe them in a time when there was no opposition in the media, and a time (then as now) when the public schools were parroting them as gospel?  What’s a kid to do with a mind full of such doom and gloom, other than become cynical about the world, fearful and somewhat hopeless about the future?

Those who perpetrate such idiocy, besides being liars and scoundrels, are practicing child abuse.  Most of the people so abused will never realize that they’re being abused– they’ll just live in fear of the world and in hatred of their fellow (“Earth destroying”) human beings.  I finally figured it out, and it’s part of why I’m now in such vociferous opposition to the lefty-loon-cultists who spread this trash.  I can’t get my childhood back, but I can help fight the continuing abuse.

“Oh, but can we afford to ignore these dire predictions?” you might say.  OK.  Can we afford to ignore the fact that you may be a child rapist?  Do we have to wait for you to actually rape a child in front of witnesses before we incarcerate you?  Wouldn’t that be unfair to your potential victim(s)?  Shouldn’t we save your potential victims in advance?

Stupid, isn’t it?  This country was founded to protect human rights– not save the planet from dwindling resources, or to control the weather, etc..  With our freedom protected– our ability to act in our own interests, unimpeded and un-harassed, we will have the best chance of successfully overcoming life’s challenges.

A Breath of Fresh Air

I can always tell when I get a call from someone in the U.S. military.  They’ve planned the call, so they get right to the point without humming and hawing or getting off onto irrelevant tangents.  They’re always lucid, and communicate easily.  They know and use the standard phonetic alphabet (really important with a bad cellular connection):

Alpha
bravo
Charlie
Delta
Echo
Foxtrot
Golf
Hotel
India
Juliette
Kilo
Lima
Mike
November
Oscar
Papa
Quebec
Romeo
Sierra
Tango
Uniform
Victor
Whiskey
X-ray
Yankee
Zulu

(Memorize these.  There are only 26 of them and they can save you from communication errors over and over)

Plus they’re always patient and respectful.  No exceptions.

Now, shall we talk about your average college student?  No thanks– I’m in a good mood and don’t want to spoil it.

Neglegent Discharge

I wrote this as a comment on thehighroad.org but figured it should have its own post.  Someone started a thread about NDs at gun shows (smells like an anti to me, akin to the standard MSM interview wherein the conservative guest is asked, “What’s the dumbest thing you’ve ever done?”)  Here’s my response:

I used to exhibit at gun shows. I always felt as safe at a gun show as anywhere else.  Much safer than some places I’ve been.  NDs at shows were always something you heard about, but never witnessed, kind of like Sasquatch and space aliens.

If you ever find yourself afraid for your life, running into a gun show would be a good choice if available.

If you’re worried about safety, don’t drive to a gun show though– you’re vastly more likely to be injured or killed during the drive to and from the gun show than while you’re there.  I suspect this would be true even if 3/4 of the people at the gun show were drunk and all the people on the roads that day were sober.

On that note; I go to my kid’s school football games (you know where this is going, right?) and at each and every game there is an ambulance, complete with paramedic crew, on location all during the game.

Ever seen an ambulance and crew on standby at a gun show? How about at a shooting match, where people are, you know, actually loading and firing guns?

Me neither.

Do NDs happen? Yes. Very, very rarely. Usually, they result in no injuries or serious property damage. Do people get killed falling down in their own homes?  Yes, and it is a more common occurrence.

Carry on.

When I was taking my NRA instructor courses last fall, a couple of the teachers gave several accounts of antis going to gun shows or gun classes and leaving loaded cartridges in places they don’t belong, trying to create an incident.  I have no doubt that this can happen– it could be seen as a variation on Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy, or whatever you call it when someone starts a building on fire and then hangs around to watch the spectacle.  It also demonstrates that other people’s safety is often the last thing on the mind of the anti gun bigot.

Mascot Politics

Thomas Sowell hits another one out of the park.  I’d heard about his recent article from R. Limbaugh. Here’s a snippet:

For people on the left, however, blacks are trophies or mascots, and must therefore be put on display. Nowhere is that more true than in politics. Nor do conservatives who were in the civil rights marches in the South, back when that was dangerous, make that a big deal.

The problem with being a mascot is that you are a symbol of someone else’s significance or virtue. The actual well-being of a mascot is not the point.

Read the whole piece here.

To; John Bachman of WSBTV #2

In response to Joe’s earlier post (a very good one, Joe, by the way) I piled on a bit more:

Mr. Bachman,

Your stance, tone and alarmist tactics remind me somewhat of the Temperance Movement of the early 20th century.  Invariably, the results of such crusades are in the long run vastly more destructive than the perceived “problems” they attempt to solve.

If you truly want to help improve general safety and quality of life, might I suggest you look into the principles of liberty upon which this country was built, and begin championing them?  You may find it a much more enjoyable (and profitable) pursuit.

Sincerely,

Lyle…

Update 05/23/08:  WSB-TV has pulled the offending video for now.  Maybe they’ll post an edited version at some point.

 

What Gun Laws Would You Accept?

This is a post I made on thehighroad.org in response to the same question:

No victim, no crime.

The tool does not matter. For those who think the tool does matter, please read on:

My sister and her three year old daughter were stabbed and strangled to death back in 1977 in their own home.

The weapons were a kitchen knife and a shoestring.

Are you seriously going to argue that since no gun was used, this was somehow less of a crime than it would have been if a gun had been used?

Upon reading of this crime, how many of you thought, “Oh, thank goodness he didn’t use a gun. That would have been really bad.”?

I’m guessing no one would think that. Ever.

And how many of you thought, “What if she’d been able to defend herself?”

I’ve asked myself that a thousand times.

I submit that the only reason we’re even talking about this is because of the nuttiness we’ve been subjected to all our lives. For some reason it is hard to resist when we’ve grown up with it and so many people around us, people we respect even, have embraced the the false premise that says gun control equals crime control.

It’s time to say, “Enough already. We do not accept the premises of gun laws. We can see for ourselves that, no matter how ‘reasonable’ they may sound when promoted by politicians, their effects have run counter to their stated purposes.”

As for making it illegal for criminals to have guns; How’s it been working? Uh, criminals don’t obey the laws, remember? Gun laws do not apply to them.

“Gun control” is about one thing– controlling the law abiding. The Framers knew it. Why aren’t we teaching it?

And so it comes down to education.

As for the “under aged”: Parenting, anyone? And the same thing applies here as to criminals– the good kids will obey their parents and the laws. The bad ones will have guns, just as easily as they have drugs and alcohol.

A gun law is nothing more than a government enforced monopoly, reserving guns for criminal use only.

When are we actually going to enforce the Constitution, and protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic? That’s my question.

As Oleg put it, regarding politicians: What do they have in mind, that they would prefer us unable to resist aggression?

What, indeed.

The Era of Reagan is Over

So says the Newtster, pretty well verifying what I’ve suspected for a long time– that Gingrich either never really got it, or he’s just tired of the fight and wants the DC culture to be nice to him once in a while.

Others have tried to get this across, so it’s old news, but I’ll give it another go:  As one who upholds the founding principles of the U.S., I could not give a rat’s behind if someone running for office is a black, white, Asian, Hispanic, one-armed female homosexual midget named Butch Hussein Ahmadinejad.  If that person has a track record of strenuously upholding and defending the founding principles of this country, she has my vote.  I do not care about personality (except she has to be a confident fighter or nothing’s going to improve).  I do not care about looks, I don’t care about slick marketing or any of that BS.  She’s got my vote.  This is why Reagan won two landslides- he tried to uphold the founding principles of this country.  He understood and embraced those principles and (and this is key) he was therefore capable of articulating them.  He was far from perfect, but he did it better than any president in my lifetime, even with a solid Democrat majority in both Houses, and that’s why he was popular.  It’s also why he was, and is, so hated and maligned by the Left (clue: You cannot embrace America’s founding principles and expect to get along with the Left.  They will never, ever tolerate you, so if you’re going to do it, expect to be attacked ruthlessly.  Ruthless attacks, however, can go both ways).

If you think it is a matter of hero worship, or cult of personality, etc., you are not capable of understanding Reagan’s success.

Therefore, to say that the era of Reagan is over is to say that the era of upholding America’s founding principles is over– that we are to abandon our principles in favor of “getting along” with those who would further undermine them.  No, Little Grasshopper– let them feel they must strive to “get along” with us in order to stay in the game.  It’s a choice.

Now we have three conservative-hating, anti-Constitution leftists remaining in the presidential race– two calling themselves Democrats and one calling himself a Republican, so this election no longer interests me.

To anyone else who wants my vote; it’s really easy– Just show the track record stated above.   For now, I will vote on state and local issues. (Yeah, I know– I could vote for Paul, but…)

Earthlink Users; It’s not me. It’s You

People who use Earthlink for their e-mail must have a very different impression of human behavior, because no one ever responds to their e-mail inquiries.  Every time I get an on-line order from an Earthlink user, our auto reply e-mail gets bounced, as we get the following message:

“I apologize for this automatic reply to your email. To control spam, I now allow incoming messages only from senders I have approved beforehand.”

Usually followed by a hand-typed e-mail a day later– some variation of;

“I placed an order from you guys the other day, but I never got a confirmation, so I reordered, and still got no confirmation.  What’s wrong with you guys?  Please respond!!!!  Hello!!!????”

The world is a very impolite place for Earthlink users.  No one ever writes back.  I wonder if they ever wonder why.

Update:  We got two of these responses today.  Our only option is to use the old-fashioned telephone, assuming we get a phone number.  I’ve thought about writing a series of essays on communication skills.

Gun School – Eight More Join the Gun Culture

After having taught many people to shoot, I’ve found a universal challenge (in addition to the well-known and documented challenges): It seems that most people have a hard time grasping the idea of charging a semi-auto pistol or rifle.  There is a tendency to want to ease the charging handle (or slide) forward, rather than pulling it all the way back and letting go, so it can fly forward under its own spring tension as should be done.  We demonstrate the technique, and explain why it should be done that way– the gun operates this way every time it’s fired, and it’s necessary to let this happen when charging it by hand, so as to ensure a solid lockup of the mechanism prior to firing, and in some cases, to avoid having your fingers bitten by the mechanism.

Still, while doing a team-teaching session this weekend in NRA Basic Pistol, we had a guy cut his finger while charging a MK II pistol.  “It will bite you” I tell them now, “if you don’t let go of the slide.  Just let it fly forward.”  In my next class it will be an objective to see to it that this doesn’t happen again.

It was a very rewarding day, and all the students came away from it satisfied that they had acquired a good basic understanding of the safety principles, of pistols, and of pistol shooting.  The fact that it was a twelve-hour ordeal came to my mind only afterward.  For those who would like the rewarding experience of teaching people to shoot, using proven, time-tested methods, see Joe’s post here or contact the NRA about instructor training classes being held near you.

Liberalism’s Tragic Soul

I’d never heard of Jim Pontillo.  I found him through a link on Jewish World Review.  Liberalism’s Tragic Soul is a long post, but there are a lot of very quotable statements in it:

…you are victim to the liberal propaganda which suggests CEOs are big all controlling evil despots who can set policy and control the population at their whim. CEOs in a truly capitalist society are the biggest slaves of the planet. They are enslaved to the whims of the market—to you and me.

That one reminds me of a good friend, who opened a retail store in a small village that had a two-store monopoly.  The two stores had been price-fixing for years.  My friend saw this monopoly, correctly, as an opportunity.  He did his homework and found out he could provide goods at vastly lower prices and still make a good profit.  So long as his property rights were protected against coercion and other forms of force, he could do a nice business and in the process he’d be giving every resident of this little village a raise, in effect, by lowering the prices on all the goods they needed.  He did just that, and has done very well for many years.  That’s the value of a free market right there, in microcosm.  There can be no lasting, anti-consumer monopoly in a free market, since anyone taking undue advantage of the consumer is merely creating an opportunity for their competitors.  That is, unless government steps in and screws it all up.

The next time you get into an argument about freedom with a liberal, the freedom they profess to defend, the freedom that conservatives venture to usurp with their fascist beliefs, ask them what freedom they are talking about.  Is it the freedom to possess firearms to protect ourselves if government fails to, or the freedom to keep most of the money we earn, or the freedom to speak candidly about religion, or the freedom to provide the best for our families; or is it the freedom to hand our lives over to some elected official where he will decide what is best for us…

Who is Fascist?

I’ve written about this several times over the years, but it takes a true scholar to do a superior job of it.  A while back, Jonah Goldberg did just that, and Thomas Sowell did a review on Goldgerg’s book:

Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on “the right” — indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.

The next time you hear Leftists throwing the word “Fascist” about like a general epithet, and then hanging it around the necks of capitalists or Jeffersonian liberals, you can correct their rather silly (and I have to think willfully ignorant) error.

Aren’t They Going to Hate it

What if DC citizens get to exercise their right to keep a functional, loaded firearm in the home for self defense, and the crime rate drops?  What if at some point DC gets legal concealed carry, and crime rates drop even more?

Won’t the antis just hate that?

Yes, I think it is reasonable to assume they would see that as a defeat and absolutely hate it (it’s exactly how they viewed all other defeats, where crime has dropped after a new concealed carry shall-issue law) which points to the utter depravity of these people, and the lie they’ve been telling us when they claim that what they’re doing is about “safety“.

Spectacle

I took notes during Bush’s Big Speech the other day, but I’m only now reporting on it. The wheelbarrows full of cash that I regularly get from the NRA for parroting their extremist (pro-Liberty) politics aren’t nearly enough to keep me interested in blogging on other subjects in a timely manner.

I did not count the number of applause lines (most of those clapping probably weren’t listening anyway. They only notice that the nodding drunk sitting next to them is clapping for something, so they follow along). I did count the number of times Dubya used certain terms. Thankfully, he went light on his usual equating of democracy with Liberty– that’s always bugged the hell out of me. Not that I think he’s figured anything out– he just had other things to say, namely that he buys fully into the man-made “Global Climate Change” racket. Smartly, he avoided using the term “Global Warming” favoring the more universal “Climate Change” instead.

He used the term “Liberty” eight times, which is eight times more than your average Democrat would use it in a whole career of public speaking. “Freedom” was used fully ten times, but then, a Marxist will speak of “freeing” us from corporate tyranny, and such. Bush used the term in the correct sense pretty much every time, which is odd considering that he was at the same time adamant in his assertion that the path to technological progress starts with government subsidy and proceeds from there to more government subsidy, where it finally arrives at a level that qualifies for a whole big bunch of more government subsidy.

“Bipartisan” was used twice, and in the Left-Speak sense only. He was referring to the “no child’s behind left alone” act and something thoroughly vague about “entitlement solutions”, which brought the most brilliantly unenthusiastic, apathetic, if not contemptuous, applause imaginable. Quite impressive. Throughout the speech, this wasn’t the sort of disingenuously enthusiastic applause you gave at the Kremlin, or during one of Saddam’s speeches in the hope that you wouldn’t be taken out and shot a moment later. No, this was true, unguided, unmotivated, wandering, bored, limp, listless, hollow, comfortable apathy, the depths of which are seldom seen in the faces of ordinary men– some of the scarce honesty seen that night.

The word “victory” was not used– too “divisive” to speak of American victory I suppose. He did mention “defeating” the enemy in the War On An Emotion 4 times, so there’s that.

One of his genuine moments was when he was honoring the servicemen and servicewomen, and their families. This is in sharp contrast to our last president, who saw these people as a means to his self aggrandizement. There was some genuine applause there too, and they deserved more.

“Purpose” was used twice, but without defining the particular “purpose” he had in mind, if any. It’s a potentially nice word. Marx and Lenin had a “purpose” though, too.

Bizarrely, he used the “O” bomb (Oath) once. That could come back to bite him– he indicated that he may have been aware of the meaning and purpose of the Oath of Office, so any violations must hereafter be considered willful, and any tolerance of the violations of others must be considered complicit.

“Unity” was never used. Good choice that. Who wants to be “unified” with one’s enemies? Likewise, he only said “change” once and in reference to his course in Iraq– not in the Change to More Socialism sense use by the Left. That was for us to infer from his many calls for subsidy and restriction.

Our president promised one executive order– a requirement that all earmarks be debated in the open, and voted on, outside of committees. That’s a teeny weeny start– sort of like a starter’s pistol that was never loaded and just goes “click”. Congress is now spending three trillion of our dollars per year, as opposed to the 2.2 trillion they spent when Bush took office (That’s now a hair under 10 thousand dollars from every man, woman and child in this country, per year, or 40 thousand for a family of four, and rising fast. That’s more than the total incomes of most working people around the world). I’ll clap a few times when I see that total number drop for eight years in a row. Until then, republicans are to be seen as a slower path to pure socialism, compared to the faster path offered by Dems.

Watching Pelosi chewing something in the background was a little funny, and a little sickening (I felt I was back in jr. high school all over again, and I didn’t like it the first time). Watching the Congresscritters on the floor was amusing and instructive. When Bush said something about terrorist surveillance, the floor was split perfectly down the middle– Dems sitting and Repubs standing. Same when he mentioned tax relief– no Democrat would ever even USE the term, much less recognize it when a Republican uses it. If anything, “tax relief” to a democrat would be relieving people of their money by taxing them. Republicans recognize that when tax rates drop, we get more productive and they get more of our money to spend. Democrats hate productivity altogether.

I liked the part where he told anyone who thinks their taxes should be higher that the IRS accepts checks and money orders (maybe he never heard of cashier’s checks, which are good for much higher amounts). So send it in, bitches, and shut yer yaps!

When Bush called for up or down votes on court appointments, the Dems sat down. Yeah– screw the Constitution if it means we can’t have what we want. Who’s gonna do anything about it?

Probably the stupidest thing he said all night (and this is amazingly, stunningly, monumentally stupid, such that historians and psychoanalysts will marvel at this phenomenon for generations to come. It will be in textbooks as a demonstration of the lemming-like nature of human group-think) was that “We” need a “Lawful Way” for foreign workers to “come and support our economy”. Either Bush is a blithering idiot, he hopes we’re all blithering idiots, or I am wrong in believing that the U.S. has always had multiple “Lawful Ways” for foreign workers to come here and support themselves, which, in turn, helps to support the economy. Which is it? WTF? Hello? No one picked up on that, so I’ll have to allow that I may be wrong– maybe this country never has had any means by which people could come here legally to work. And maybe I’m a lemming. Apparently no one knows for sure. Apparently, no one in Congress has ever read one of their own bills– you know, the immigration bills they’ve been passing for the last, oh, 219 F>@*ing years and then forgetting– the ones they pass with zero expectation of enforcement. This is a stupid party wherein people have been overdosing on stupid for so long that they’re addicted to stupid and will apparently get the cold sweats and die if deprived of regular, heavy doses of stupid.

In the end, Bush had used many very nice terms and cute words and phrases (still can’t pronounce nuclear– hasn’t anyone told him? Dude, it’s NUKE, LEE, ERR, OK? Say it!) all carefully contrived to throw a little bone to this and to that disparate interest, as if to satisfy everyone. It didn’t work. It never works. It only shows that he is without solid principle– that every mutually exclusive interest to which he panders (thinking himself clever in the process) will see him correctly as a political push-over, lost, a fake, and a hypocrite, searching nervously for the next buzz-phrase to quell our suspicions– to find the dimmer switch for that light-bulb over our heads and turn it down. In other words, a typical, run-of-the-mill Republican.

But to be a part of the spectacle. That much they have.

Why do You Hate Your Customers?

We have two cell phones on the same account.  My wife lost her phone while traveling.  I told her to go to a “Big Giant Phone Company” booth in any town and get another phone.  Big Giant Phone Company calls me, with her standing there, and wants a copy of my driver’s license.  Great – they’re protecting me against fraud.  I fax them my license while on the phone with them.  All is OK.  They hand my wife her new phone and she can now make and receive calls on her old number.

But there’s a problem.  This new phone is booby-trapped.  They had all her account information, they set up her new phone and personally handed it to her after having verified my account identity.  But she can’t get any of the many voice-mail messages that are pouring in, and she’s at a Big Expensive Out-Of-Town Convention and all.

They HANDED HER a new phone IN PERSON that doesn’t work.  She the user, is forced to set up the voice mail.  But that can be done ONLY AT CERTAIN TIMES of the day and ONLY if she has my Social Security Number (already faxed them my GD driver’s license).

Dear, Big Giant Phone Company,  Why do you harass and attempt to thwart your customers with this idiocy?  What do you think WE the paying customers have to gain from being harassed and thwarted by you?  Why should I ever spend another nickel with you if I can avoid it?

And while I’m venting:  Why does Verizon need a 37 digit account number, when anyone is this country of over 300 million can reach me with my 10 digit phone number?  Can you say, DUUHH!?

 

Spy Satellite

We’ve all head the news about the satellite that’s going to make reentry some day soon.  They say it’s a spy satellite and that it contains hazardous materials.  I don’t know what that tells most people, but to me, even the term “spy satellite” says, “nuclear power on board”.  So, is that uranium or plutonium?  I guess it would have been too much trouble to go and either refuel the bird’s rockets, or at least remove the fissionable material?

 

Self Immolation and the Pits of Hell

We just received an RFQ (Request For Quotation) from a jobber here in the U.S. who supplies products to the military, along with the original U.S. Army RFQ that was sent to them.  It is for one item.  One, very well-known, standard item that has been in manufacture by one company and sold by the thousands to the general public for many years.  We all know what it is, we all know how it works, we all know that it has a model number, and it is not terribly expensive

The Army RFQ is 38 pages long– that’s 38 full, 8.5″ x 11″ pages.

There’s more.  The 38 page RFQ comes with side notes added on (and just so we’re clear; if you were to print it out it would take more than 38 pages).  The RFQ does not give the manufacturer or the model number of the desired product– just a small photo, a vague description and the overall length (which, by the way, does NOT match the length of the model in the supplied product photo).  They just couldn’t pull that off with only 38 pages plus notes, but I (as anyone in the business would) know exactly what they want.

In the side notes, we learn that “Quotes shall be limited to 40 pages”.  I’ll keep that in mind and try to really restrain myself.

Just in case you’re wondering; I am not kidding.

Left-Speak– A Glossary of Terms

If you parse their sentences, the speech of the Left can be at times befuddling.  That is, unless you understand their unique usage of terms.  So that you may better understand Left-speak in the future, I offer the following glossary.  This is by no means an exhaustive list.  Here are some of the more common and/or more recent examples.  You might want to print this and keep it on-hand for those times when you are unable to avoid Left-speak:

Border Security:  Racism

Change:  Socialism.  Example:  “I am the candidate of ‘Change’.”

Children:  Government.  (Variations are, “The Children” and “Our Children”)  Example:  “In our ‘Compassion’ ‘We’ are creating this new entitlement program for ‘Our Children’.” (see “Compassion” and “We” below)

Climate Change:  See “Global Warming” below.  Climate change is slightly more flexible in that no matter what happens, it is bad, Liberty is to blame, and socialism, as for all things, is the solution.

Common Good:  Socialism

Compassion:  Desire for government intervention.  Example:  “‘We’ must approach all issues with great ‘Compassion’.” (see “We” below)

Compromise:  Letting go of your silly, ignorant and outdated American ideals of Liberty, and moving always in the direction of pure socialism as a way of showing those who want to destroy you that you are not closed-minded, stubborn, silly, ignorant or outdated.  You are then closed-minded, stubborn, silly, ignorant and outdated again when the Left wants you to cave-in the next time they want something, which starts approximately three seconds after you last caved.

Criminal:  Victim– especially a victim of the exploitative middle and upper classes.  (No one would ever do anything to hurt anyone else, except when goaded into it by the horrible conditions created by the adherents of capitalism)

Dissent:  Dissent is a good thing– it is one of the things that makes America great (so long as we are talking about a leftist dissenting with anyone who favors Liberty.  In all other cases, see “Divisiveness” below).

Divisiveness:  Speaking ill of or disagreeing with socialists and socialism.  Divisiveness is one of the worst things in our society today and is largely perpetrated in talk radio, blogs, private conversations, etc., by members of the pig Bourgeoisie.  This can be cause for legal action, since it could in theory cause other people to question socialists and socialism, thereby “harming” them.  (You have no right to harm another person unless that person is being ‘Divisive’, in which case it is encouraged).

Economic Justice:  Socialism (see “Social Justice” below)

Education:  Socialist education.  Example:  “‘We’ must support ‘Education’ for the sake of ‘Our Children’s’ future.

Fairness:  Socialism

Global Community:  Most of the population of the world lives under some form of socialist tyranny, often very brutal socialist tyranny.  Americans have historically lived much better lives due to our relatively higher levels of freedom and Liberty.  For this we are to hate America (if anyone is poor or unhappy, it can only be the willful doing of the more prosperous) and we are to strive to make America more like the rest of the world (poor and oppressed) as a show of solidarity, thus achieving the “Global Community”. (See “Peace” below)

Global Warming:  (See “Global Community” above)

Illegal Immigration:  A thoroughly meaningless term invented by racists, purely as an epithet.  Attempting to use “Reason” to explain it will reinforce your status as a racist.

Judgmentalism:  Thinking for one’s self in one’s self-interest, i.e. making decisions or value judgments based on principles, evidence, and rational thought.  In the eyes of the Left, this is one of worst crimes that could be committed, especially if it results in your becoming a successful American pig.  (see “Reason” below)

Liberal: Socialist.  This is an impossible term to use correctly without adding qualifiers.  Most liberals hate being called liberals.  “Liberal” has become an epithet in the eyes of the socialist, either because it implies that one is an advocate of Liberty, which socialists aren’t, or because it correctly describes them as socialists. No one knows for sure which.  (Archaic: One who advocates Liberty.  Thomas Jefferson would have considered himself a liberal.  Today’s liberals would consider Thomas Jefferson a “Judgmental” and “Divisive” pig.  If he were president, they would engage in “Dissent” with a vengeance.

Need:  This wonderfully flexible term can mean anything the socialist wants it to mean and can change from one instant to another.  Example:  “You have far more than you ‘Need’ so ‘We’ are going to take it from you and use it for the ‘Education’ and ‘Safety’ of ‘Our Children’.”  (see “We” and “Safety” below)

Open Mind:  One that unquestioningly embraces socialism as the answer to all things.

Peace:  The lack of meaningful opposition to socialist, Marxist, Fascist, communist or jihadist military expansionism, as in, “It’s time to stand up and fight for ‘Peace'”.

Progressive:  Socialist.  We once spoke of “progress” as that which improved our productivity, opportunity and standard of living.  Like many of the terms they use, the Left has turned this one around exactly 180 degrees.

Reason:  This word is not used by the Left except when describing it as a “weapon” used against the oppressed classes.  Instead they use the word “reasonable” as in “reasonable restrictions” (any restrictions) on your Liberties (see “Compromise” above and learn to be “Reasonable”).

Safety:  Existence under strict government oversight.  Some examples are “Airline Safety”, “School Safety”, “Home Safety”, “Gun Safety”, “Workplace Safety”, etc..  Example: “It is the job of our elected officials to ensure our continued ‘Safety'”.

Scientist:  Increasingly, this term is used to silence all discussion or debate.  In this sense, a “Scientist” is one who is enlisted by government interests to place a stamp of approval, under the guise of irrefutability, on socialist programs or laws.  Example:  “Any decent ‘Scientist’ will tell you that man-made ‘Global Warming’ is a real and present danger, and that our ‘Safety’ must be ensured through swift action.”   Previously, the term “Clergyman” or “God” served a similar purpose, and does so to this day in certain Muslim circles.  (Archaic:  A person engaged in the scientific process, with full disclosure and peer review, as a means of testing theories and discovering knowledge)

Social Justice:  Socialism (see “Economic Justice” above)

Sustainabe:  Under never-ending, complete government control.  Example: “A market-based economy is not ‘Sustainable’.”

Tolerance:  Tolerance [of socialists and socialism].  Failure to tolerate socialists and socialism is something that should not, and will not, be tolerated.

Unity:  Similar to “Peace”, unity describes a situation in which all opposition to socialists and socialism has been effectively silenced.

Universal Health Care:  Socialized medicine, i.e. socialism—specifically, a means by which you would be obliged to support or tolerate a certain political party or doctrine in order to save your very life.

We:  We socialists.  We the collective.  This is a subtle term, but it has a powerful meaning.  Saying “We” this and “We” that reinforces the collective thinking of the “Progressive” a bit like a mantra.  Example:  “‘We’ must ensure the ‘Safety’ of all through ‘Education’ for ‘Our Children’ and with ‘Progressive’ programs such as ‘Universal Health Care’, ‘Social Justice’, ‘Tolerance’, ‘Peace’, and by fostering the ‘Unity’ of the ‘Global Community’, through the advocacy of ‘Change’ while working with the ‘Scientists’.”

I’ll be compiling more as I come up with them.  Reader submissions are welcome.

Land of the Free or Home of the Brave New World?

I was reminded of this by today’s QOTD.

Banning light bulbs isn’t enough, of course.  I heard mention of this today by Jason Lewis on the radio, and via crypton.  There is now talk of requiring remotely (web) controlled thermostats in private homes.  The idea is that a utility company be able to remotely alter your thermostat setting, overriding your selected setting, to save energy, you know, for your comrades.

It will happen.  Also get ready for total use restrictions– a family of four, for example, will not be allowed to exceed a certain KW/h, or therms, etc., monthly usage without paying large fines.  When that fails to make us all happy, safe and comfortable, as it surely will, we can expect something more severe.

We asked for this the second we decided it was OK for government to involve itself in the energy (or any other) industry.  Anyone warning of this very thing would of course have been put down as an alarmist, and so here we are.

Once the principle (of private property in this case) has been violated, the only debate possible is over the degree of the violation.  There is no principled stand to be taken in favor of any particular degree of violation of a human right.  But this has all been said before.

Thank You and Grow Up

I sent the following letter to our local (Moscow, Idaho and Pullman, Washington) newspaper, The Daily News and to the University of Idaho newspaper, The Idaho Argonaut.  Some background:  Our Moscow, ID mayor, Nancy Chaney, decided that people should not be allowed to carry pistols in public spaces, worried, as she put it, that people might “swoop in and create confusion” in the event of serious trouble.  She later found our about Idaho‘s preemption law, making it illegal for local governments to limit people’s rights any further than state law.  She couldn’t accept that, and tried to get state legislators to rewrite state law.  Running into a brick wall, Mayor Chaney and her conspirators have decided to table the issue “indefinitely”.  So far so good.  They were held back, but they now need to pay a price for their indiscretions, even if it’s only in the form of a letter from a concerned citizen:

Dear Editors,

“Thank You” to all the brave individuals in Moscow and around the state who fought to protect a human right (the right to self defense in public spaces).  As for Mayor Chaney and the others; you have some growing to do.  You could not be more wrong about self defense, concealed carry, or about the good and responsible citizens of the State of Idaho.

I submit that any holder of public office should be glad for our rights, comfortable with them, unafraid, and should always strive to protect those rights, confident in the knowledge that it is the proper thing to do.  Further, that anyone who is at all suspicious or fearful of the rights of the individual should stay out of public office.

As for the argument that since the feds place restrictions on carrying in certain places, it should be OK for local governments:  It’s not OK for the feds either.  Creating a patchwork of varying 2nd Amendment infringements can do nothing other than ensnare innocent Americans and make the criminals laugh at us.  Who’s going to consult their “rights infringements map” before moving from point A to point B (step in this square and you’re perfectly OK, but step in this other square and presto, you’re a felon)?  You call that law enforcement or public safety?  I call it insane.  It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathological.

Try as you might to conceal it, Mayor Chaney, your distrust for the people of Idaho is obvious and on display.  If you can work past that distrust and begin advocating more, rather than less individual freedom, you may find that you have more friends and more goodwill from Idaho citizens than you can imagine.

I just read another Daily News article, commending 44 people for their brave deeds during a shooting in Moscow last May, for things like “exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury.”  That’s a good thing– people who try to save others at their own personal risk are an inspiration to all of us.  One tiny little gripe here:  The one regular citizen (non cop, non firefighter, non EMT, etc.) who also exhibited “exceptional bravery at immediate risk of serious bodily injury” received no mention whatsoever, in spite of his having been shot and seriously injured in the process.  Blundering oversight or personal disdain on the part of the reporter or editor?  Could be either.  It certainly shows no respect.