That didn’t work for G. Gordon Liddy

Perhaps there is something subtle going on here that I don’t understand but this seems to be a settled issue:

Obviously Holder’s been under pressure for more than a year, but I think there will be an argument by the Justice Department that anytime a president authorizes something, that whomever follows the president’s orders cannot be prosecuted.

If I recall correctly G. Gordon Liddy claimed the same thing at his trial and he got a 40 year sentence for supervising a burglary.

People at the Department of Justice and/or the ATF deliberately sent guns to Mexican drug cartels in the hopes they could recover them later at “crime scenes”. Of course in this instance “crime scenes” is an euphemism for locations where innocent people were murdered. In other words people, perhaps acting under the orders of the POTUS, deliberately engaged in activities they believed would be directly related to the deaths of innocent people. They were successful and at least 300 people died as per their plan.

Liddy was sentenced to 40 years for supervising one burglary. What does that sentence extrapolate into for supervising 300 murders?

That’s it then

If the constitution allows Congress to do practically anything it wants, so long as it can be called it a “tax” by some stretch of the imagination (remember the NFA?), then we’ll have to repeal the 16th amendment.


Has anyone else made this point?  I had Rush on for about an hour, he was talking about the SCOTUS decision on nationalization of the medical industry the whole time, and he never mentioned the 16th.  That’s where most of this social engineering crap comes from– “nudge” us this way and that using the tax code.

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

The pro-tyranny side just doesn’t get enough positive coverage.

Ry Jones
June 27, 2012
[This was while walking by Westlake Park in Seattle. The park attracts most of the demonstrators for such things as the Occupy Whatever crowd. As usual there were some people there with signs I didn’t bother to read.

For a while I thought the root premise in the statement, tyranny doesn’t get positive coverage, was correct. But I had a nagging doubt that something was wrong. If anti-tyranny gets all the positive coverage then how does tyranny succeed?

The SCOTUS ruling on Obama Care this morning crystallized the answer. A retweet from Ry put it in video:

The quote above is wrong. The tyrant and their policies receives nearly all the positive coverage and is welcomed with thunderous applause.—Joe]

More Zimmerman evidence

From my viewpoint it appears Zimmerman’s case is getting stronger with every new bit of evidence released:

Prosecutors released more evidence in the George Zimmerman case Tuesday afternoon including an unredacted police report and the results of a voice stress test given the day after he shot Trayvon Martin.

The supplemental discovery was released at 1 p.m. and includes video and audio recordings of police interviews with Zimmerman, a 29-page Sanford Police report without statements redacted and an exemption list that notes redactions to the evidence.

The video released by prosecutors shows the same reenactment with additional footage of detectives asking Zimmerman about his injuries.

In the short clip, Zimmerman points out cuts and bruises on his head but says he wasn’t injured elsewhere.

“He was just focused on my head,” Zimmerman says.

In the stress test, Zimmerman answered “No” when asked “Did you confront the guy you shot?” He answered “yes” when asked “Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?”

The examiner concluded Zimmerman was telling the truth.

The way I read the “tea leaves” is that the prosecution and perhaps even the media is slowly preparing the public for an acquittal or perhaps even dropping the charges.

Check Your Premises

I thought we knew what we were fighting for, and against.  I thought we were in favor of the right to keep and bear arms.  I thought we understood what a right means and how it works in the world.  Instead, it seems we have Chief Runs-with-a-Premise in charge of setting our narrative (and the fact that it seems we even have a narrative, meaning repetitions of the same fool nonsense over and over, is fairly disturbing in itself).


I thought we had dispelled the left’s highly imaginative premise that says a criminal can’t get a gun (and therefore can’t hurt anyone) unless our “lax” gun laws “allow” criminals to get guns, but it turns out that most of us are embracing that very premise with regard to Fast and Furious, and embracing it with relish.


Posit; You see a video of some jihadists sawing the head off of a captured American.  Is your first reaction; “Well Goddamit, I want to know who made that saw!!!  We must also find out who sold that saw and see to it that they are punished.  Enough is enough!  Enough of these lax saw laws!  The National Saw Association is just as guilty of murder as anyone!”  Really?


No, Young Grasshopper; check your premises.  Please.  It’s not about where the saw came from is it?  Yet that’s the very case you’re making against Obama, Holder and the gang.  You are ceding one of the primary, false premises to the Enemy.  Stop it!


The Mexican drug gangs get their guns any damn where they want to, and they sure don’t need anyone in the U.S. for that.  They will kill one way or another, and they will get their guns one way or another (and our drug Prohibition law will ensure that this never stops– Oh yes, our drug laws, gun laws and gang are inseparable, though you thought this three way, authoritarian-feeding racket was all about “helping people”, reducing crime, or some such blather).


Grasshopper; are you listening?  Snap out of it, Man!


The point is; Our President along with his carefully hand-picked attorney general, the BATFE and the FBI, collaborating with Mexican gangsters, initiated a fraud against the American people.  They initiated and perpetrated a fraud so as to garner support for more infringements on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.


If you want to point out the deaths from infringements on Americans’ gun rights, point to the multitudes who’ve been victimized in gun free zones, or anywhere or any time someone who would have had a gun for defense was prohibited by law from having a gun for defense, and died or was seriously injured or otherwise victimized as a result.  THAT is your body count.


We need look no farther than here;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm
Read those words very, very carefully.  I now doubt that many of you have been paying a lot of real, serious attention.  I believe that you’ve been caught up in the game, or with your blogs and radio show businesses, or something else I don’t know about.


Read.  The.  Words.


Forget about what you feel, or the business aspect, or the silly political game or whatever it is you’re playing, or what you want to see and hear verses what you actually see and hear.  I’ve been seeing a trend among our ranks– a lot of assuming, inferring and…I don’t know what to call it except failing to understand the basics and failing to see and hear what’s being written and said, and I don’t like it.  I don’t want to be everyone’s friend, or accepted in this or that group or whatever, so I can say it– you’re missing the point and it’s sad.


And you Republicans; Why is it so damned difficult to see a crime, CALL IT a crime, and prosecute it as a crime?  Seriously.  Wasn’t that supposed to be your job?  I mean, isn’t the fact that we have downright criminals in high places in our government pretty much an overriding concern?  Get busy, you slackers!  Or do you have too much to hide, yourselves?  Or are you just cowards?  I think we’ve had just about enough of cowards in government, haven’t we?


ETA: It seems the DOJ took down the link, so here are the words, right in your lap;


DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.


For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.


The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.


TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Quote of the day—Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, United States District Court Judge

[T]his court finds that the strict scrutiny balancing test would be the most appropriate test to apply in the instant case, since “the right to possess guns is a core enumerated constitutional right” and Section (b)(3)(iii) of the Chicago Firearm Ordinance completely restricts that right.

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge
Gowder v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2012), Page 24.
[Strict scrutiny!

The Brady Campaign, VPC, CSGV, and others are on the wrong side of history. They are no different that those advocating for ignoring or repealing the 13th Amendment years after it was passed.—Joe]

Marxist—No ethics and no shame

Don’t believe anything people or “news” organizations on the left tell you. Check it out for yourself:

Introduced by Andrea Mitchell saying: “I get the feeling–take a look at this– that Mitt Romney has not been to too many Wawa’s along the roadside in Pennsylvania,” Romney says: “I was at Wawa’s, I wanted to order a sandwich. You press the little touch tone keypad, alright, you just touch that, and you know, the sandwich comes at you, touch this, touch this, touch this, go pay the cashier, there’s your sandwich. It’s amazing.”

Momentarily speechless, Mitchell repeats, “It’s amazing,” as her guest breaks into sharp laughter.

Too bad the clip was taken wildly out of context.

In reality, Romney was illustrating the difference between private and public sector efficiency. After telling a story where his friend had to fill out a 33-page form twice to complete a change of address with the government, Romney holds up touch-tone sandwich-ordering as an example of private sector efficiency– not as a marvel of how the “common” man lives.

They claim they fired the producer that did a similar edit in the Zimmerman case. But the last time I looked they did not give the name of the person fired. Perhaps he got reassigned instead.

I have to suspect the ethical environment at MSNBC/NBC is the problem rather just one or two people drinking the communist Kool-Aid with no shame. “Communist?”, you ask. Yes. In both cases it was about promoting a “class struggle” view of our culture. These people promote a Marxist view of our culture and belong in dustbin of history with Marx and Marxism.

I don’t really trust non-liberals all that much either but I haven’t ever seen anything close to this level of misrepresentation in supposed news outlets.

Making choices

For decades Libertarians and Republicans have been saying the economic and social policies of the left were destined to be catastrophic. Eventually all looters stop. There are only three options; 1) They stop because they realize theft is wrong, 2) They are stopped by force, or 3) They run out of places to loot.

Greece is the harbinger of our future and has the opportunity to select their option. Yet even now many do not see impending doom crashing in on them:

Riding a wave of anger to rise from obscurity to contender for power, leftist SYRIZA leader Alexis Tsipras, 37, promises to reject the punishing terms of the 130 billion euro ($163.75 billion) bailout if he wins the nail-biter vote on Sunday.

On the right, establishment heir and New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras, 61, says that would send Greece crashing out of the single currency and condemn it to even greater economic calamity.

With the election set to go down to the wire, European leaders weighed in on Saturday, urging Greeks to vote with their heads.

The bailout will not be renegotiated, warned German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country’s wealth is vital to shoring up its weaker partners in the bloc.

Some global businesses and banks are already in retreat: Europe’s biggest retailer, Carrefour, said on Friday it was selling up in Greece, a day after French bank Credit Agricole moved to take direct control of its Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian units from its Greek bank Emporiki.

On Saturday, Germany’s Biotest appeared to become the first drugmaker to say it was exiting the Greek market in July after its customers there failed to pay outstanding bills of 7 million euros. Others have threatened to do likewise, as the Greek health sector struggles with huge spending cuts.

Spain and Italy will probably be next in line to make a choice.

When it comes time for the American left to select an option which do you think it will be? And will those that oppose them be ready if the left choses options 2) or 3)?

Seriously scary stuff

While Bloomberg’s retarded proposal to limit the size of soft drink containers is getting a lot of attention I don’t think most people really understand how serious the problem is. I’ve had conversations with a few people who were admitted Marxist and many others who merely claimed they were Liberals or Progressives. One of the things they all had in common was their extremely simple view of the world while simultaneously proclaimed they were smarter than others and that gave them the authority to force others to live as they demanded. Any mention of individual freedom was immediately shot down because “People don’t do what is best for themselves or society.”


One of the admitted Marxists proclaimed, “I’m a firm believer in the good of society over the good of the individual.” In his world view the individual just doesn’t matter. Government must do what is best for the good of society and if the individual sometimes doesn’t get what they want or gets hurt that is just too bad. Pointing out I could find nothing different in that justification versus that used by those who murdered innocent civilians in 10s of millions in the last century yielded comments to the effect of “They made some horrible mistakes. We just need the right people in charge.” Of course he believed he was one of the right people.


Just as Bloomberg apparently cannot think one step ahead to how easily his proposed restriction on “high capacity” soft drink containers would be defeated these people cannot envision what follows next from their every proposed attempt at restricting individual liberty and the free market. In one of the recent books of Thomas Sowell that I listened to he related the story of when he was a economics student and was enamored with some idea that would “force people to do the right thing”. He proudly presented it to his instructor who asked, “And then what happens?” Sowell initially was perplexed. Why of course, the desired outcome would happen. There was a law or regulation that required people to do the right thing. The instructor pushed him to think it through from an economics point of view. And Sewell thought it through and gave the answer that only slightly diminished his enthusiasm for the idea. The instructor again pushed, “And then what happens?” Again Sowell answered and his enthusiasm damped just a bit more. As the instructor pushed him again and again Sowell walked through the rippling effects of the simple one law and it was not long before he realized that not only was the effect of the law far less simple than what he thought but it would not result in his desired outcome. Everyone touched by the “one simple law” would pay a price with no one, except perhaps the bureaucrats and the politicians, receiving a net benefit.


The typical gun controller cannot conceive of why registration of firearms would not make society safer. Unintended consequences escape their grasp all the while they proclaim themselves to be morally and intellectually superior to us. It’s all just “common sense” to them. They vehemently insist there are, literally, easy answers to some difficult problems that involve the constitution, criminology, psychology, and practicality of implementation. I sometimes believe those that insist that if someone had not had a concealed carry permit they wouldn’t have committed multiple murders must be suffering from some kind of insanity. If one is willing to break the law against murder why would they obey the law against carrying a concealed firearm or even ownership of a firearm? Why is it so incredibly difficult for them to think even one step ahead?


I struggle with how to get what I think are extremely simple concepts across to these people. Even everyday things Liberals/Progressives claim to be experts on they are profoundly ignorant and/or stupid on. One Liberal I know went on about how because something was “natural” it was “so much better for you”. I asked what the definition of “natural” was. Was this opposed to “super-natural”? This is about the only thing that even comes close in my mind. She said, “No. Natural is something that is not man-made.” “So”, I queried, “Does that mean the lemonade you are drinking is not natural? At the bare minimum a man or woman had to squeeze the juice from the lemon and mix it with water.” The response was, “If you ask that then you are just stupid.”


This liberal can’t even present a defendable definition of a word that she uses in probably 25% of her conversations with me and she calls me stupid? How do you get through to someone like that?


Sowell’s instructor had an advantage we don’t. He or she had a very bright student with a grasp of economic theory and the student was in a subordinate position. Liberals/Progressives will not tolerate being in a subordinate position. They believe they are superior to non-liberals and any challenge to that world view is met with an attack. And if the verbal attack isn’t sufficient to “win” their argument they are more than willing, as Bloomberg is demonstrating, to use force to get our compliance.


People with the intellectually power and problem domain knowledge of a 2nd grader are demanding they be put in charge of essentially everything with guns to back up their decisions. This is some seriously scary stuff.

Quote of the day—Bruce Ramsey

We live with guns and occasionally worry about them. If this leaves you feeling at a disadvantage, Lynne, maybe you need to get one.

Bruce Ramsey
May 31, 2012
Seattle shootings: Is it time for gun control?
[Considering the political atmosphere of Seattle in general and the Seattle Times in general this was actually a pretty positive editorial about guns. It certainly wasn’t “SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.” or molṑn labé! But compared to what Seattle Times editorials would have been 15 years ago it is absolutely awesome.

And I would like to go on record as making a public offer to Lynne Varner, or anyone else in the Seattle area, to take them shooting for their first time.—Joe]

It’s a Matter of Context

I point out, to those who are befuddled by the Chinese criticizing America’s human rights record, that we are talking about one communist government criticizing another.


See?  It makes perfect sense.


“Human rights” you see, means the right to be controlled by an all-knowing and all-powerful government.


Better now?

Your bias is showing

Google news shows Fidel Castro’s niece endorsed President Obama (last Google entry shown on this page):

 CastroEndorsesObama

Yet when you go to that page the name “Obama” and that quote is not to be found.

Other sources include the quote, “I would vote for President Obama. I think he’s sincere and speaks from the heart.”

Apparently the AP removed that portion of the story. Perhaps because it is because it really shouldn’t be considered news. Communists endorsing communists is even less newsworthy than “dog bits man”.

Gun cartoon of the day

040309

To be accurate the ATF logo should be added to the U.S. flag on the side of the truck.

Read Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up. It’s a quick read and very good. One of the more interesting things I discovered from reading the book was that the Mexican government stopped making such a stink about the ATF running guns into Mexico because the U.S. threatened to cut off $500 million in aid if they didn’t shut up about it.

Ry recommends the book too.

Quote of the day—Alan Dershowitz

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

Alan Dershowitz
May 18, 2012
Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge–New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin’s killer acted in self-defense
[If the name Alan Dershowitz doesn’t ring a bell then go read up on him. For Dershowitz to say this is a big deal.—Joe]

I like it, but…

she should be suckling an adult if it’s supposed to depict The Obama Way.  Well, children, adults– everyone.  Maybe there should be a long line behind the kid, all carrying signs and complaining/competing over who gets to suckle next.

Winning

Via a SAF Tweet.

Liberal Whoopi Goldberg Admits She’s a Member of the NRA:

GOLDBERG: But it is also, is it also, John, because those folks are saying, okay, here’s what I have in my house. I’m letting–the government says — I want you–I’m an NRA member, as you probably know or don’t know.

STOSSEL: You packing now?
HASSELBECK: Maybe?
GOLDBERG: You don’t want to find out.

I despise emulation of celebrities but I recognize it probably is hard-wired into the human brain. Therefore this is great news. Not only has she “come out of the closet” as a gun owner and NRA member but she is a black female who comes across as reasonably smart, rational, and likable. This makes it more difficult for the anti-gun people to make their usual claims about gun owners being stupid/ignorant/insurrectionist racist white males.

My next book

I just discovered the next book I’m going to read: Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up.

I’m downloading it from Audible.com as I type…

Some people are speculating that Fast and Furious could be the next “Watergate”. But I’m not really convinced it will become that. Sure, it’s almost certain what happened was worse than Watergate because of the people who died and that an attack on a fundamental right was involved. But Watergate only became such a big issue because the media cared about it. The media cared about it because it was a Republican president involved in the scandal. In this case it’s a Democrat and it was about infringing upon the 2nd Amendment which the media thinks is a good idea.

Quote of the day—Ann Coulter

We don’t know the facts yet, but let’s assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Ann Coulter
April 23, 2012
Coulter: Gun control and self-defense
[Great article. As is usual for Coulter there is lots of snark.-Joe]

Right Too Late

Hat tip; Billy Beck  This can’t get enough exposure;

Some of the people close to me are in effect communists.  No; they don’t attend Party rallies and most of them don’t send money to The Party (though some do through their union dues and they may not even know it) but their underlying assumptions are the same.  That’s all it takes.  You don’t need to be a Firm Believer in the teachings of Brother Marx, carrying around the little red book, or even understand where your beliefs came from.  You only need those underlying assumptions you acquired by default sometime in childhood, and just a little bit of envy, or resentment, or frustration, or anger, and plenty of reinforcement from those with whom you’ve chosen to surround yourself.  The Party and it’s allies will then be free to do the rest, because you won’t notice until it’s too late.  It all sounds fairly reasonable, even good, along the way, because “we all know that something has to be done”.  Right?  And that something is, as always, more government (less freedom).

Suckers.  I can forgive the kids (most haven’t received a proper education) but what about you adults?  Seriously.

It’s interesting.  I was listening this weekend to a man who barely escaped with his life from Cuba.  He said his parents supported Castro.  All Castro wanted was justice after all (there was clearly a lack of justice in Cuba, pre revolution) and to serve the collective good of The People.  His parents supported Castro wholeheartedly.  That is, until the newly empowered communists came and took everything they had– everything his parents had worked for all their lives.  I heard the same basic story directly from a famous musician who had escaped from Cuba by skipping out on his handlers while on tour in the U.S.  You risk your life doing that.  If the catch you, they kill you, or take you back to make an example out of you.  The man I was listening to this weekend was in tears, trying to warn us that the same thing is happening here in the U.S., in this land of his Last Great Hope.  They’re using same promises and the same rationale, using the same underlying assumptions, with the same goals right here and right now.  If it succeeds it will have the same outcome.  It always does.  Only this time it’s global.

It has been said that being right is ok (sometimes) but being right too soon makes you a radical extremist.

What about being right too late?  What does that make you?  I ask you Progressives.  You’ve grown up with the warning signs all around you, and now the warning signs have reached ear-splitting decibel levels.  What does it make you if you’re right too late?  Or does your anger or fear, or hatred, or disgust with the human race, prevent you from caring about the consequences?  I know there are those who believe there are too many people on the planet already.  Some people know what we’re headed for and they secretly long for it.  For other Progressives– those who just want to live a good life and want what’s “best” for everyone; What does it make you when you’re right too late?

When Government Is Out Of Control…

…the truth is shockingly radical to some people.  How DARE he say that!  Well it isn’t truth’s fault that truth is sometimes shocking, is it?  Well is it?

Allen West does a pretty good job of standing his ground and staying focused;

Did you catch the fact that the Vice Chairman of the National Communist Party thinks that being called a communist is insulting?  I found myself hoping that West would bring it up.  Could you imagine a high ranking NRA executive thinking it an insult to be called an NRA member?

Communists (Progressives) have to slink around in the dark as a way of life and they know it.  Turn on the lights!

“Well I don’t care what he says.”  I love it.  CNN goes to the actual, openly named Communist Party (they’re probably on a first name basis) for their reaction to someone calling someone else a communist.  Oh, the layers of irony and stupidity.  See; this how these things make the major headlines.

It’s all because Allen West had the gall, the nerve, the cheek, the chutzpah, to describe what was right in front of his face and for all to see.  The loonies go apoplectic, try to beat West over the head with his own comments, and now a lot more people have heard that the communists had to re-brand themselves, that they have a caucus in Washington, the self described Communist Party comes out saying it’s insulting to call people communists, and West gets a boost. This is how it works, people. We win every time we stick to basic truth.

Now if West had gone all Republican (getting scared, going marshmallow, saying he didn’t really mean it, and sorry to be so reckless with my words, please forgive me, mea maxima culpa) he’d have lost.  And we’d lose with him. As it is, the loonies actually look like loonies, making loonies of themselves, calling out more loonies to join the loony-fest, and the truth gets a boost.

Hat tip; Glen Beck, and I credit him also for bringing some of our history (the parts that don’t get taught in the coercive, i.e. government, schools) into the public spotlight over the years.