The Quintessential Republican

Sure; they know what you want to hear, at least for the most part, though they’re playing the Bible-thumper card a bit too heavy.  They know pretty well how to push your buttons, getting the applause at the rallies and so on.  As they see it, they know how to win over us stupid bumpkin Elmer Fudds in fly-over country (just throw ’em some red meat and watch them bark like dogs).

Here’s an example of what they really think, gleaned from a rare moment of partial honesty.  Newt calls himself a “Realpolitik Wilsonian.”  Yeah; that Wilson.  Be sure to watch both videos on the page.  I don’t care what you think of Glen Beck.  Screw that.  Listen to the words.  The “Four Freedoms”.

That’s the Republican Party today.  You can’t mix the liberty talk with the Four Freedoms.  That’s a lie, and yet it represents everything the Party stands for.

Make no mistake.  We’re being offered what amounts to a plea deal.  Either we take the deal (vote Republican) or we’re sentenced to another four years with a Democrat in office.  Bleed slowly or bleed quickly.  It’s a threat you see– take a Progressive dirt bag (Republican) or else.  That’s how this works, and I’m not playing that game.  I’ll get interested in an election when liberty is on the ballot, but don’t expect that to happen any time soon.

Fast and Furious fallout?

Periodically I trade emails with some people within the ATF. I recently noticed they have a rather strongly worded restriction on the use of the email attached to each message. This restriction is identical regardless of  the person I received it from within the ATF. I admit my sample size is small but it does include people in significantly different geographical area.

The restriction is (bold in the original):

******* NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above in connection with official business. This communication may contain Sensitive But Unclassified information that may be statutorily or otherwise prohibited from being released without appropriate approval. Any review, use, or dissemination of this e-mail message and any attached file(s) in any form outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives or the Department of Justice without express authorization is strictly prohibited.

I didn’t remember it always being that strongly worded so I went looking at previous emails to see if it had changed. It had.

The notice above first appeared on March 29, 2011. A previous email from the same person on March 23, 2010 (the previous year) had this restriction (bold in the original):

******* NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments).

So sometime in that year (and six days) between March 2010 and March 2011 the notice changed. My hypothesis is that the leaking of various emails associated with operation Fast and Furious caused a review of the restriction and a rewording which was much more strict.

The question I have (calling all lawyers!) is; Does the restriction have any legal weight in use against me or is it merely a legal bluff? For example, am I at risk for merely revealing the restriction even though I did not reveal the other contents of the emails? What if I were to reveal to the public the gist of one or more email discussions that clearly was not “sensitive information” but might be somewhat embarrassing to the ATF?

A chapter is closed

A choir boy shot by a racist vigilante white guy in 1984 died on the 27th anniversary of the shooting:

Exactly 27 years to the day after Bernhard Goetz — famous in New York lore as the “Subway Vigilante’’ — shot four young men he thought were threatening him on a train, one of them killed himself by swallowing prescription pills in a low-rent Bronx motel, authorities said.

James Ramseur, 45, was found dead of an apparent overdose at 11:30 a.m. yesterday at the Paradise Hotel at 2990 Boston Road, law-enforcement sources said last night.

Ramseur had gotten out of prison only 17 months ago, after serving 25 years upstate for raping a young woman on a Bronx rooftop.

The shooting took place on Dec. 22, 1984, when Ramseur, 18, and neighborhood pals Darrell Cabey, Barry Allen and Troy Canty, all 19, were riding a downtown No. 2 train.

Cabey, who was paralyzed when Goetz shot him at close range, won a $43 million lawsuit. Goetz declared bankruptcy and hasn’t paid a dime.

Cabey, by far the most seriously injured, still is confined to a wheelchair and functions with the intellect of an 8-year-old.

Allen was convicted of robbery in 1991 and released from prison four years later.

Canty racked up a string of petty offenses and once served 18 months in a residential drug- treatment program.

The NY Times has more:

Mr. Ramseur was already incarcerated at the time of the trial, having been convicted of raping, sodomizing and robbing a young pregnant woman in 1986. He was conditionally released in 2002, but he returned to prison for a parole violation in 2005. He finished his sentence in July 2010.

I can only think that Goetz should have had more training and ammo so this particular chapter of history could have been closed much earlier.

Justice

Billy Beck wanted some discussion on the matter of Eric Holder a while back, but I didn’t see much of it.

While I agree with Beck’s sentiment, I question the idea of firing Holder’s ashes from a cannon into Mexico.  It could be seen as an act of hostility toward Mexico, but then I wonder if that would be such a bad thing.

I’d be OK with the extradition of Eric Holder to Mexico (alive or dead) but only after he received justice here in the U.S.  That is both our right and our grave responsibility.

But justice for the pawn is only the beginning, not an end.  It would be a mistake to focus on the lieutenant to such a degree as to forget his commander.

Christmas gifts for the Brady’s

By all accounts guns and associated gear are a big sellers for Christmas this year. Here is what one article says:

A sale for a basic Russian-made rifle — priced to move at $79.99, bayonet included — was targeted at bargain shoppers buying gifts for a first-time shooter.

“I’ve had little old ladies come in… and buy them by the crate for gifts for all the men in the family,” he said. “Across the board, we used to sell to men, adult men, ages 18 to 45. Now we’re advertising to everybody.”

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, handgun production and imports more than doubled between 2005 and 2009 to 4.6 million, as changes in many laws have relaxed restrictions on carrying such weapons. Gallup’s annual crime poll in October showed record low support for a handgun ban for civilians. It was also the first time the poll found greater opposition to a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles than support for such a restriction.

Say Uncle said Cheaper Than Dirt was running ads on the radio in his home town. I’ve been hearing them on a Seattle radio station too.

This made me wonder; What would be an appropriate gift for someone still aligned with The Brady Campaign? Mailing them a gun is out because that is still illegal. Ammo would be pointless because they probably don’t own any guns. Tequila has it’s appeal but a little birdy once told me someone at the Brady Campaign had a really bad drinking problem already and it wouldn’t be appropriate to tempt them. I can understand the temptation to give whiskey and sleeping pills but the humor would probably be lost on them. A one-way ticket to the “gun-free” utopia of the U.K. would probably be well received but it’s too expensive. I could see a Sad Panda being acceptable but it’s a little “down” and I think they really need something to cheer them up after all they have been through the last few years.

Therefore I believe some suggestions for a name change would be the ideal Christmas gift. With a name change they could have a chance of starting over without so much anti-gun baggage. They already changed their name from oppressive “Handgun Control Inc.” to the neutral sounding “The Brady Campaign”. It’s now time for something positive. They already say they are defending the Second Amendment (H/T to Sebastian) so here are my suggestions:

Second Amendment Supporters: The plan would be to beg for a buyout from The Second Amendment Foundation. But a SAF audit would find their computers are so old they are still running Windows 95, they are behind on the rent for their office space, Dennis Henigan doesn’t have a clue what Alan Gura is talking about, and the only the people on their mailing list that have donated any money in the last two years are a few people on the board of directors who stopped payment on the last check they gave them.

Handgunning and Running for Fun and Profit: They could start out helping the ATF run guns into Mexico then transition into USPSA/IPDA training.

And my favorite suggestion is Gunowners Anonymous: Initially they could offer to help people with their “gun addictions” but when no one shows up they could transition into a service to anonymize gun purchases.

The wolves must die

Idaho is very serious about thinning the wolf packs to give the deer and elk populations a chance to recover:

An Idaho Department of Fish and Game official said Thursday the state will use aerial gunning and professional and government trappers to kill wolves in the Lolo Zone, even as public hunting and trapping seasons continue.

Dave Cadwallader, supervisor of the department’s Clearwater Region, said he wants a multipronged approach to wolf control in the difficult-to-access area where elk herds are hurting.

One of the comments particularly struck me:

Why are these so called environmental groups so anti-elk? Around this world there are more wolves just like the ones we have here than we have elk. Not only the elk but our moose population here is all but gone. These groups need to be held accountable for what they have caused and should have to pay for the costs it’s taking to correct this destruction.

The laws of economics cannot be violated

Recently I’ve been listening to Basic Economics 4th Ed: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell as I drive to and from Idaho and on my commute into Seattle. One of the lessons was that if prices are fixed by the government you will have problems.

If the prices are fixed too low it results shortages, poor quality, and under the table payoffs to suppliers and/or government price control enforcement agents. If prices are fixed too high it results in surpluses, wasted resources, less efficient means of producing the product (no incentive to reduce costs), and a heavier tax burden. Letting the free market adjust prices dynamically results in much closer to optimal allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses.

This lesson has been known for decades, if not a century or more, but politicians have no incentive to adhere to the laws of economics.

Via email from Ry we have the further proof that the laws of economics cannot be violated without suffering known punishments:

A federal power agency discriminated against wind operators in the Pacific Northwest when it unplugged their generators to cope with a surplus of renewable energy on its transmission system this year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled on Tuesday. It ordered the agency, the Bonneville Power Administration, to rewrite its rules.

Bonneville had argued that it had no option but to lock out the wind generators to protect salmon in the Columbia River.

While the agency could have reduced the power output of hydroelectric dams by routing excess water through a spillway, doing so would violate the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, it said.

But a group of wind companies filed a complaint with the energy regulatory commission saying that instead off turning off wind turbines, Bonneville should have resorted to “negative pricing,” or paying customers to take the excess power. Bonneville countered that this would conflict with its obligation to repay loans from the federal government and to provide power cheaply.

The problem could crop up more often as companies build wind and solar farms to meet state requirements for renewable energy.

“Negative pricing”?

We need a Constitutional amendment that guarantees freedom of commerce. That would have prevented the health care bill, the war on drugs, subsidies for farmers, and the $200 tax on firearm noise suppressors as well as crazy stuff like people advocating “negative pricing” for electrical power.

Deliberate misinformation from the media

The Guardian (U.K.) is either living in the past, is willfully ignoring the evidence and news, or is engaged in deliberate misinformation. I have to conclude the later because of the extreme anti-gun bias of people in the U.K.) and the following evidence:

“The United States is the easiest and the cheapest place for drug traffickers to get their firearms, and as long as we are the easiest and cheapest place for the cartels to get their firearms there’ll continue to be gun trafficking,” said J Dewey Webb, the special agent in charge of pursuing weapons traffickers in Texas at the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

87% of firearms seized by Mexico over the previous five years were traced to the US. Texas was the single largest source. The US attorney general, Eric Holder, told Congress last month that of 94,000 weapons captured from drug traffickers by the Mexican authorities, over 64,000 originated in the US.

Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center, is quoted extensively. No pro-gun organizations were quoted.

And, of course, the reason all this gun trafficking occurs is because of the evils of capitalism:

“Why does this arms business continue?” Calderon said in June. “I say it openly: it’s because of the profit which the US arms industry makes.”

“Reasoned discourse” has of course been implemented. No comments are allowed.

If this isn’t enough to convince you they are engaged in deliberate misinformation watch the video in the article. From the music to the images of bullet holes, piles of drugs and money, and text they chose they make it very clear they believe the gun laws of the U.S. are evil.

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

The Department of Justice used Operation Fast and Furious to manufacture gun crimes, and then used those crimes to argue for more gun restrictions. If this sounds eerily like the cliche of a mob protection racket to you, you’re right on the money. This is racketeering, and those DOJ officials responsible needs to face a criminal trial under RICO statues.

Bob Owens
December 7, 2011
ATF used Fast and Furious to argue for new gun control measures
[Further mob like in their behavior was that gun dealers had the threat of ATF retribution hanging over their heads if they didn’t go along with the ATF mandated behavior they believed to be wrong and endangered innocent life.

When is the special prosecutor going to be appointed to clean up this mess?—Joe]

Anti-gun politician gets his prison sentence

It’s not for the crimes he committed against gun owners but 14 years in prison will keep him off the streets long enough and probably out political office forever such that Rod Blagojevich will never trouble us again. Read about his sentence and crimes here, here, and here.

I first heard about Blagojevich from a friend who was a gun-rights activist in Chicago. Some of the stories were astounding. The corruption and abuse of power that comes out of that political cesspool makes it very clear why they don’t want citizens to own firearms. People that willing to causally abuse the power of government for personal gain know the subjects of their abuse will entertain thoughts of ending their reigns of terror via lead poisoning.

Here is an open letter to Blagojevich my friend wrote when Blagojevich was in Congress.

Good-bye and good riddance to Rod Blagojevich. He is just one more anti-gun politician in prison where they belong. There are many more on my list.

Larry Johnston died

I wrote about Professor Johnston before and the message he wrote on the Hiroshima atomic bomb was a QOTD. I received his obituary below via email from one of his children:

Nuclear physicist Lawrence H. “Larry” Johnston, one of the last survivors of the Manhattan project, died peacefully Sunday at his home in Moscow, Idaho. Millie, his wife of 69 years, and family were with him. He was 93.

Johnston designed the first atomic bomb detonator and is believed to be the only eyewitness to all three 1945 atomic explosions—at White Sands, NM, and in Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, events that killed some 200,000 people and ended World War II. Johnston was assigned to measure the impact of the bombs.

Johnston had just completed his bachelor degree and begun graduate work at University of California, Berkeley in 1940, when he agreed to follow his mentor, Nobel-prize-winning Luis Alvarez, to Boston to help develop microwave radar at MIT’s Radiation Laboratory. By 1943, Johnston had helped develop a ground-controlled- approach radar blind landing system for airplanes, an invention critical to the success of World War II Battle of Britain and the post-war Berlin Airlift. Both Alvarez and Johnston then moved to Los Alamos, NM, to help develop the atomic bomb.

Back at Berkeley after the war, Johnston helped Alvarez build a new type of proton linear accelerator. Johnston then headed construction of a larger version of it at the University of Minnesota , and worked on another at Stanford University . In 1967 the Johnstons moved to Moscow where he served as physics professor at the University of Idaho until 1988. He focused on nuclear physics, lasers, and molecular spectroscopy. After retiring, Johnston continued to give talks about his experiences to all ages, from elementary school children to scientists. A natural teacher, Johnston used many occasions as teachable moments. When fishing, gutting fish meant also examining contents of the fish’s stomach and asking his kids to decipher it’s last meal. “Hmm, caddis fly larvae.”

Friends and family teased Johnston that his interest in explosives went back to his birth on Chinese New Year—known for its fireworks—Feb 11, 1918 in Shantung Province, China, to Christian missionaries. A picture at age 3 shows him grinning and holding a large Chinese firecracker. The family spent Larry’s fifth summer traveling across the USA in a Model T Ford, paying farmers 25-cents to camp on their property, and visiting national parks. Ever after, Larry loved camping and the outdoors.

Larry was beginning graduate studies at the University of California Berkeley when he fell in love with the beautiful Mildred “Millie” Hillis, finding in her a match for his wit and intelligence and a partner in his Christian faith. After Luis Alvarez recruited Larry to come to Boston to help invent radar, leaving Millie behind, Alvarez thought Larry seemed depressed. When Larry admitted he was missing Millie, Alvarez pulled strings to fly Larry to Berkeley, where they were married and returned together to Boston. Millie sometimes accompanied the radar team on trips to test their new blind landing system. She had a ringside seat for history in the making.

As children arrived, Millie ensured that they had quality time to spend with their busy father, who often worked around the clock on war projects. Thus began a tradition of his telling bedtime stories that continued throughout their 5 children’s childhoods. Intermingled with stories of Reddy Fox were tales of Larry’s youthful experiments with electricity, involving chewing gum, his sister Eunice, and her bedsprings. Stories about his summer adventures tide pooling at La Jolla also figured prominently. “Though we have mostly lived inland, we all think our love for the sea is thanks to Daddy’s bedtime stories,” said daughter Margy. His kids could stall the going-to-bed process by asking scientific questions, “Tell us about the giant squids, Daddy!”

Johnston was asked in post-war years whether he regretted working on the A bomb. “My answer,” Johnston told an MIT interviewer in 1991, “is that I felt very privileged to be part of an effort that promised to end the war abruptly, and which had the prospect of saving many lives, both Japanese and American.” Johnston, known for his wit and kindness to all, held this view even during heated debate over the ethics of the bomb in more recent decades.

Johnston devoted much of his retirement to improving the relationship between modern science and the Bible. A proponent of intelligent design, Johnston sought understanding of evolutionary biology from the University of Idaho’s Holly Wichman and James Foster through weekly lunchtime sessions that continued until his death. Millie and Larry treasured two trips to Israel where they worked on Biblical archeology projects and Larry helped Israeli scientists use sonar to locate potential dig sites. The Johnstons supported Christian ministries in Moscow and attended Bridge Bible Fellowship.

Johnston died of lung cancer. He is survived by his wife Mildred, and 5 children, Mary Virginia “Ginger” Johnston, Milton-Freewater, OR; Margy McClenahan (Tom) , Salt Lake City, UT; Dan Johnston (Olivia), Benicia, CA.; Lois Johnston, Spokane, WA; Karen Johnston (Barlow Buescher), Lakewood, WA; also 4 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren, nieces and nephews.

A Memorial Service will be held Friday December 9 at 3 p.m. at the First Presbyterian Church, 405 Van Buren Street, Moscow, with a reception to follow. Memorial gifts may be sent to Bridge Bible Fellowship, Moscow, or The American Physical Society.

CBS is confirming gun owner fears of the ATF

Via Say Uncle we have CBS reports that what we feared of the ATF was actually true:

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.”

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

“It’s like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back,” says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. “It’s a circular way of thinking.”

The ATF secretly told gun dealers to approve sales the dealers would have refused because of suspicions the gun would end up in the hands of bad guys. The dealers repeatedly asked for reassurance from the ATF and received it. The ATF then used these sales from gun dealers as justification for illegal regulations against those same gun dealers.

It’s as if the ATF really believed it was in their job description to, as one bigot expressed it, “to make it harder for people to get guns.”

The ATF should no more make it difficult for people to get guns than there should be a government agency that makes it more difficult for people to purchase religious materials, publish newspapers, or get a fair trial.

That the ATF apparently sees it’s mission as such is justification to, if not abolish it, at least severely cut their budget and prosecute the people responsible for this atrocious abuse of power.

Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous

Of course I knew it was possible. But I didn’t dare say it for fear of being wrong and embarrassed when some other explanation came to light. So I just stated the facts when a pro-gun story disappeared from the UK’s Daily Mail.

I did manage to contact the author who responded with a single URL. It is a link to the same story on a different website with the subtitle, “Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous”.

Not only was it possible; it was what happened. Some people in the UK are such wimps they can’t tolerate people even speaking about the exercise of their natural right to keep and bear arms.

Should they end up needing that which they don’t have it will be hard to give them much sympathy beyond nominating them for a collective (as they surely would have wanted it) Darwin Award.

Pro-gun story disappeared

There appears to have been an article saying “It is time for Europeans to support the natural right of human beings to protect oneself with a firearm” on a UK newspaper website earlier today. It is no longer available. Here is the screen capture evidence:

DailyMail

Clicking on the link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2067300/Europeans-guns–It-time-Europeans-support-natural-right-human-beings-protect-oneself-firearm.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) yields, “Sorry. The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.” There does not appear to be a cache available for it either.

I can find all other articles by this same author but the one I am interested in doesn’t show up.

I was unable to find his email address or I would have attempted to contact him and find out what happened.

Update: Via some suggestions in the comments I was able to contact Brian Darling. He send me a one URL response, “http://bit.ly/tUExhc”.

I love the line after the title, “Read the column the UK’s Daily Mail pulled for being too dangerous”. I do wish he had elaborated on that a bit more but there are times when you don’t tweak the nose of the one who feeds you.

Freedom Group

There is an interesting article on the history of Freedom Group here.

To me some of the more interesting stuff was the hints about gun bloggers:

rumors about the Freedom Group — what it is, and who is behind it — have been circulating in the blogosphere. Some gun enthusiasts have claimed that the power behind the company is actually George Soros, the hedge-fund billionaire and liberal activist. Mr. Soros, these people have warned, is buying American gun companies so he can dismantle the industry, Second Amendment be damned.

I vaguely remember something being said about that a while back but don’t remember it being anything we really took seriously.

And how about this?

the Freedom Group has ingested so many well-known brands so quickly that some gun owners are uneasy about what it might do next. Two years ago, a Cerberus managing director, George Kollitides, ran for the board of the N.R.A. Despite an endorsement from Remington, and the fact that he was a director of the Freedom Group and Remington, he lost. His campaign didn’t sit well with some gun bloggers, who viewed him as an industry interloper.

I don’t involve myself with the internal politics of the NRA that much. Was this really an issue? Or is the reporter exaggerating things a bit in an attempt to create a more interesting story?

Update: This is an article in the NYT (thanks Thirdpower) as well as the Herald Tribune which I originally linked to. The NYT version has the link to Sebastian and Bitter’s post about George Kollitides run for the NRA board of directors. I have updated the quoted paragraph above with the NYT link to their post.

Congress Debates Status of Tomato Sauce

Seen here.  I heard about it on one of the morning talk shows.  Sorry I don’t remember which.  Beck, Limbaugh or Medved – take your pick.

I said it when I heard Congress was legislating the rules of baseball years ago– this is final proof that we’ve gone far off the deep end of pathological insanity.  If the founders of this nation had heard Congress was involved in determining whether the tomato was a vegetable and no one had stepped in to haul them off and lock them in an asylum, they’d have shot somebody.  Maybe themselves, for they’d have realized that all their learning, inspiration, vision, struggle, suffering, perseverance, profound loss and eventual victory had been in vain.

Every last bit of it pissed out a window by vacuous, nasty little fools who to this day still think we look up to them and celebrate them.  It always comes as a shock to the tyrant when he finally gets his due at the hands of the people, as did Mussolini and his wife.  “Why, they don’t love me?  Surely this is some mistake.  I am the Father of The People.  I don’t understand.  No wait…”

ETA; Congress getting involved in the likes of baseball and vegetables is the very definition of totalitarianism— the doctrine that says nothing is outside the realm of politics, that everything is government’s business.  I used to pose the question to leftists; “What, if anything, do you believe is absolutely, positively, none of government’s business whatsoever?”  It’s a rhetorical question of course.  We know the answer, as evidenced above.  Now that it is settled– that we live in an ideologically totalitarian state, I pose another question.  What is the way out of this?

Lead contaminated tin foil hat?

This article (also found here) via email from Jon at work claims:

Later Friday evening, this FSB report continues, the vehicle from which the shots were fired from was located by US Secret Service, FBI and local police authorities with the AK-47 laying across the back seat with a warning note saying “Aquí está uno de los nuestros, no la suya necesitan,” roughly translated from its original Spanish meaning… “Here’s one of ours, we don’t need yours.”

The FSB states that the warning note found on the AK-47 was in direct reference to the Obama regimes gun-running efforts (known as Operation Fast and Furious) to arm the dangerous Sinaloa Cartel as it battles to gain supremacy in a Mexican Drug War that has so far cost nearly 40,000 lives.

The article goes on to invoke the CIA and claims the American people are “not being allowed to know”.

Interesting.

I have to wonder if there isn’t some lead in a tin-foil hat that is getting into the bloodstream of the author.

In Honor of Veterans

Today I’m reminded of this quote from David Crockett;

Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

Representative David Crockett (TN)

Those are the words of a real man.  I don’t know specifically who it was he was referencing.  That’s not the point.  If you want to help a veteran, by all means help a veteran.  That’s your job.  Personally.  Don’t try to make a federal case out of it.  Our military exists, ostensibly, to defend liberty, see.  If we set up system of coercive redistribution to “honor” veterans, we’ve just insulted the hell out of them by contradicting everything they supposedly fought for.  Hmm?  So what side are we really on?

Because That Would Make Him a ‘Gay’ Basher

That’s the answer to Billy Beck’s question.

I’ve criticized your religion, certainly your politics, and the inconsistency behind the idea of women’s equality.  Why not criticize your thoughts on homosexuality?

We’re not supposed to talk about it, right?  It’s a taboo subject.  For one thing we’re supposed to shut up out of fear– fear of being ostracized as a ‘gay’ basher or a homophobe.  So when a man sees another man raping a boy, he clams up.  If he’d beat the shit out the rapist as he should have done, he’d be the one charged with a crime and no one would say anything in his defense for fear of being labeled a ‘gay’ basher.  Same as when a black, homosexual, Democrat man in Congress (probably the most protected class of humans, unless you’re talking of a black, lesbian Muslim extremist) running a homosexual prostitution ring in his basement.  What?  I suppose you’re a racist homophobe with a political agenda.  Shut up.  You Suck if you criticize this hard-working American who cares about kids, the poor, race relations, union workers and the environment, you racist homophobe.  Neanderthal!

Sure; the witness should have done the right thing and kicked the rapist’s ass, even if he knew full well that he’d be the one prosecuted.  But our cultural insanity makes doing the right thing just that much more difficult.  And that, I submit, was the whole purpose of what I will call the insanity movement the first place– what’s good is bad and what’s bad is good.  What’s wrong is right and what’s right is wrong.

How else do you get 300 to 400 million people to tolerate being treated like sheep?

I put the word “gay” in scare quotes because it doesn’t mean what most people today think it means.  I try to use the language properly, so using “gay” to mean homosexual requires the quotation marks.  He’s a bit “queer” is of course a euphemism.  Lots of things are queer, but we’ve lost track of the word’s meaning.  “Gay” is the same sort of euphemism, as is “fag”, as applied to a homosexual.  If we’re going to use the terms in their true meanings, or understand them when we encounter them in classic literature, we have to be aware of this, and talk about it.  So there you have it.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to suck on one of the nice faggots I usually keep with me right now.  And by the way; I suppose I could sue you if you criticize me for smoking.  If it’s an addiction, or a disease, you’d be harassing or “bashing” a person with a disability.  Shut up.  You have no right to talk about it unless you give me lots of money.  Oh, and stop taxing me because of my disease.  Would you propose a tax on “gays” who get AIDS?  Shut up.  Now I’m thinking of closing comments because no one is supposed to talk about any of this stuff.  Shut up.

Women’s ‘Equality’ and the Offendedness Movement

We’re not even supposed to talk about this, I guess, because it proves we’re sexist.  Too bad.

When the Flappers painted the town red in the 1920s, we were told women had achieved equality.  When women hit the factories during World War Two, we were told women had achieved equality (see the trend yet?).  When women burned their bras in the 1960s, we were told women had achieved equality.  When the pill came out, we were told that women had finally achieved equality.  Women’s suffrage happened somewhere back there too.

A hundred years of non-stop achievement of equality later, we’re being told how sexual harassment is a problem in the workplace, and it’s 99.999% men doing the harassing and women, still, are the victims.  Because they haven’t achieved equality I guess.  What’s the message to men with ambitions?  If you’re going to be running for high office ten or twenty years later, you better keep women out of your workplace so they can’t come back when the time is right and destroy your campaign.  Don’t hire women.  Don’t work with women, because all it takes for a women to destroy you is for her to point a finger at you.

If men and women were equal, there’d be roughly the same number of men complaining about harassment by women as the other way ’round, or at least it wouldn’t be so overwhelmingly one-sided.  A high school aged male I knew was getting rather steamy text message from a far older, married woman employer.  It was fairly apparent that sex was happening between them.  An experienced  lawyer said that maybe he should count himself the luckiest kid in school.

That’s the double standard and it’s everywhere.  At the same time we’re being told that women are strong, that they can not only take care of themselves they’re capable of doing anything a man can do at least as well as he can do it, we are simultaneously asked to believe that the slightest gesture can turn a strong, capable, professional woman into a quivering blob of dysfunctional, sobbing, frightened, victimized jelly that only huge sums of money, or certain political outcomes, or both, can cure.

When I was interviewing a college-age woman for a bookkeeping position at my small business, she asked if there was enough work there to actually keep her busy full time.  Fair question.  In addition to telling her that although the business was small, it was complex, and that furthermore, being small, there were a lot of other things she could do besides keep books.  What I meant, and I expected it to be as obvious as the rather prominent nose on my face (she was a business major after all) was that total specialization is something a small business cannot afford, therefore we all have to pitch in with cleaning, stocking shelves, receiving shipments, answering phones, and hundreds of other tasks that are involved in keeping a business running properly that don’t warrant separate employees.  Her response caught me off guard.  I was accustomed to working in the real world, unaware of just how bat-shit insane the world of leftist political academia had become.  Condition white;

“WELL…just what’s THAT supposed to mean…?!!”  Gawd.  She’d apparently been to one of those “How-to-know-when-you’re-being-sexually-harassed” classes they offer to women on college campi these days as part of the “Women’s Studies” curriculum.  Interview over.  Don’t call us, we’ll (not) call you.  We have enough problems without having to deal with stupid shit like this.

Which is it, then, ladies?  Are you capable of standing up for yourselves, strong, and proud to play a vital and dynamic role in all the action, or are you perpetual victims, bent on being perpetual victims for social, financial and political gain?  Do you want to be taken seriously or do you want to be a poor little victim, ’cause it sure as hell can’t be both.  This bi-polar premise is running rather thin and I for one quit falling for it sometime back in the 1970s.