The press is the only weapon with whose aid the Party every day speaks to the working class in the language of the Party.
Joseph Stalin
Contribution, Pravda, c. 1917
[From The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition–1985) .
Stalin was referring to the Soviet press but it generalizes quite well.—Joe]
As Tam said, “This is too beautiful to not link it…”
You must watch that video.
The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority…it is the one guarantee of human freedom to the American people.
Frank I. Cobb
January 1920
La Follette’s Magazine.
[Some people should get over it and just accept that the Declaration of Independence claims sedition is required under some circumstances and the Bill of Rights deliberately enables it.
The only people that could possibly object to this are those that aspire to be slaves or tyrants. Such people and their opinions should be given all the respect they deserve.—Joe]
Via Alan we have this chilling scenario proposal:
The UK’s tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.
What’s next?
I think I can guess.
First, total control of the money. You will no longer need cash because all the financial transaction will go through the government via your ID card.
After that you will no longer need money because the government will just take care of everything in their database. The government can assign you your living space and will have food other things delivered (or not) as the government thinks you need it.
They should have shot a bunch of politicians while they still had the tools to do it.
I was considering competing in the contest (via Say Uncle) but then I saw the Judging Criteria included this:
Externalities (such as noise pollution, public relations, etc.) imposed onto other businesses which may locate aboard the same seastead and to the overall seasteading movement.
What I had in mind might have “rocked the boat” a little bit.
Now if Microsoft would set up shop offshore someplace where we wouldn’t have to pay such high taxes I’d be near the front of the line to volunteer for the transfer.
Via Roberta I discovered Obama’s popularity is still quite high—in China.
Click on the first picture to see the text “The revolution isn’t success comrades, we must continue to be studious.”
In that last picture I had to look up “RMB”. It refers to the Chinese currency.
I find it “interesting” that under the Obama administration many Chinese believe U.S.A. stands for “United Socialists All”.
Obama and his friends should be aware there are such things as counter-revolutionaries. And the body counts (via Alan) might end up a little different if the gulags, famine, and torture start being implemented in this country.
I know that the members of the Gun Club at Microsoft picked up over 100,000 rounds of ammunition just yesterday. And how many of those rounds do you think went to capitalistic freedom loving people? And I wonder how many the Socialists at Microsoft picked up.
I would like for the Socialists to do the math before they engage in a purge. Math lessons can be “difficult”.
There was a call-in to one of the Marks that fill in for Limbaugh, responding to the Mark’s favorable comments on the “Fair Tax” today. The Mark repeated Steve Forbes’ call for a flat 17% income tax.
The caller tried to make the point that, although 17% would represent a large tax cut to the rich, which isn’t a bad thing, it would represent an undue hardship for those with the lowest incomes. The Mark’s reply was that at least this makes everyone a taxpayer, and therefore we’d all have a stake in things. True, but the major point was missed, in my opinion, by the host.
The correct reply to the caller’s concern is; “Perfect! Now you’ve started down the road to understanding, Little Grasshopper! If 17% percent is too much for the poor, it is too much for everyone else. If 17% will restrict the poor, it will restrict everyone else.
Let’s refer to the poor as our canaries in the income tax coal mine. If 17% makes the canary sick, we’re all being slowly poisoned, and whether we notice it right away or not, we’re all inhibited or restricted because of it.
Reduce taxes and investment and employment increase. Raise taxes and investment and employment decrease. Even if all you care about is revenue to the fed gov, and the issue of personal liberty is meaningless to you; do you want 17% of 14 trillion, or say, 8.5% of 28 trillion? That’s the sort of question we’re asking here. I say if there’s going to be an income tax it should be constitutionally limited to 5%. Any more than that not only cuts into charity in a big way, it encourages a black market, and stifles liberty and economic growth. If the fed gov can’t make it on a 5% flat tax, they’re either doing too much or wasting too much, and they need to be replaced with someone who can do the job right.
There’s another mechanism working here, that is at the same time obvious and proven, largely unreported, and almost never discussed. That is; America once was, and can be again, a haven for creativity, productivity, wealth creation, and a haven for wealth in general. Make it a safe bet that your property rights will be protected, and capital will flock to America, while at the same time wealth creation will be, once again, popping and scintillating across the fruited plains.
Let the enemies of Mankind go off and bang their heads against a concrete wall someplace. It doesn’t matter, so long as they’re ignored and powerless here.
Over at Oleg’s blog there’s this comment, in Russian, to this post about Survival4Chicks;
Извините, что не по теме, но из России трудно оценивать различные американские явления.
Например, не ясно, что представляет из себя движение Militias.
Его часто описывают как экстремистское, но относится ли это ко всем , кто входит в различные негосударственные ополчения?
И второй вопрос:
Не способствует ли появлению Militias тот факт, что Национальная Гвардия фактически перестала быть “домашней армией”, объединяющей живущих по соседству людей, которые готовы к мгновенной мобилизации для защиты именно своих дворов и улиц?
Не слишком ли бюрократизировалась и оторвалась от улиц Национальная Гвардия?
Не потому ли удается так легко “обрабатывать” людей самозванным Militias?
Извините за беспокойство
Apparently he got his view of America from ABC/NBC/CBS, AKA the Old Media, AKA the Lamestream Media. I stepped in with the following comment, trying to set the record straight. I wanted to keep it short and to the point, hopefully without over-simplification. If I’m mistaken in any of this, let me know;
Traditionally, and by the intent of the American founders, the militia in this country consists of regular citizens with their own arms and equipment. They receive no pay, as the intent was to keep government influence upon the society to a minimum, thereby keeping government power from growing out of control and becoming destructive to liberty.
Some militias gather in groups of various sizes to train, while most either train on their own or not at all. Some militia groups are organized, with a headquarters and a command structure, and others are very informal, but have a common interest in fostering marksmanship among the population generally. Many years ago, our Congress formed a Civilian Marksmanship Program for that purpose. The CMP sells military surplus arms at very low prices to any regular citizen who can demonstrate that he or she has attended some number of organized marksmanship events.
Many militia members have no arms or equipment, but since they are citizens they are militia according to our nation’s founding principles. Some of them actively lobby for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms. Hence they are citizens actively working against the citizenry.
It has to be sarcasm:
If you teabaggers don’t like the president, you can always leave
America voted for socialism and if you hate big government, you hate America. Teaching kids about homosexuality, taxing the rich, abortion and gun control are American values now, if you don’t like it, fuck off. Redneck scum that you are.
At least Marxism and Nazism were beautiful.
Sure, lots of people think that. But they wouldn’t come out and say it. Would they?
I tend toward the rational rather than emotional way of thinking. However I realize that isn’t the case for everyone. And I realize music is means by which people express their emotions and influence others to feel similar emotions. The peace songs of the 1960’s were very influential in changing the attitudes and politics of that era.
I received an email from a musician about his song:
I’ll keep this short. I have a project, the goal of which is to use mass media and popular culture to change the psychology of the whole country. Participation is free and easy, but I need to get the word out. Here is the website with all the information
http://mycountrymyass.com
I don’t usually care for country music but I do really like this one. You can listen to it here. The lyrics are:
Now tell me again how this country is the land of the free and the home of the brave
You can’t really believe that what you see now is the reason so many brave men gave
Teacher used to say we had the Bill of Rights
I think they took our rights and sent us the bill
Well I don’t know about you my friend but I think I’ve had my fill
They been walking on me for my whole life I think it’s finally time to draw the line
You can tell old John Cougar Mellencamp he can stick his song where the sun don’t shine
My country my ass- This is not the land I learned about in class
My country my ass- That freedom justice stuff is all in the past
Got a checkpoint up the road ahead better pull out your ID
And your taxes just went up again gotta cough up some more money
Be careful what you’re saying when you’re on the phone you never know who might be listening in
They got cameras watching everywhere you go so they know just where you been
You know you better think about the books you read or your name might go on a list
Don’t take too many pictures now, or they’ll think you’re a terrorist
They’re watching you every time you turn around and they don’t like what they see
You gotta be f*** ing kidding me if you think this country’s free
My country my ass- This is not the land I learned about in class
My country my ass- That freedom justice stuff is all in the past
Well the banks messed up so they took money from us and gave a zillion dollar bonus
And they didn’t give a damn what we had to say I swear to God they think they own us
But when they say “bend over” and you say “yes sir” and then you vote for them again
If you’re the kind of people who fought our wars tell me how’d we ever win?
They been walking on us for far too long and don’t you think it’s time to draw the line?
Why don’t you tell those jerks in Washington to stick their laws where the sun don’t shine
My country my ass- This is not the land I learned about in class
My country my ass- That freedom justice stuff is all in the past
They say America love it or leave it
Well I loved it, and it left me
Had we lost the war against our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms we could be facing this:
Via email from Ben who simply said, “Fucking brits.” and gave me this URL.
As I pointed out before Alan Gottlieb of SAF is daring San Francisco to take down his posters.
The bigots are having second thoughts about their opposition to both the First and Second Amendments:
A Supreme Court decision could alter what riders here see in ads on city buses and trains and in transit shelters.
Pro-gun images, which are banned under an ad policy of the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, showed up recently on posters for a conference for the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group based in Washington.
…
When Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, read that Wahlberg and Ferrell had been stripped of their weapons, he had 16 posters printed to promote the group’s gun rights policy conference, scheduled to be held here. To his surprise, the posters were installed last week in what a news release called “something of a coup.”
Paul Rose, a spokesman for the city transportation agency, said that after the gun group’s posters went up, the city decided to take another look at its policy.
“At this point, we’re not taking any action to remove the ads. We are currently reviewing our advertising policy in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, which may have altered the legal landscape regarding firearm advertising.”
That would be the June 28 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun control laws.
The team of Alan Gura (the lead lawyer in McDonald) and Alan Gottlieb are a force to be taken seriously and are taking point on a lot of skirmishes these days.
SAF is a 501 (c) (3) corporation and your donations are tax deductible.
The current batch of Democrats is not a particularly liberal bunch.
…
[L]et’s examine what America would look like under the current Republican Party ideology:
Health care reform will be undone. At least 45 million Americans will lack health insurance. According to a Harvard School of Medicine study, the absence of health insurance leads to the deaths of 45,000 Americans a year.
…
Republicans will eliminate all gun control. We now suffer about 30,000 gun deaths per year.
…
The current batch of Republican candidates ignores the overall benefit to society of redistributing wealth from the haves to the have-nots through taxes. For Republican politicians, deaths from abortion are unacceptable, but deaths from pollution, gun violence and poverty are just background noise.
Few Republican voters would actually choose to live in the Republican ideological world. Most of them want good schools for all children, safe streets, a clean environment, fair treatment of the disadvantaged and Social Security benefits — all of which require taxes and regulation.
Steven Lachman
September 7, 2010
A GOP-run nation would be barren
[From the first to the last sentence of his opinion I was agape. I found it hard to believe he was serious. He had to be mocking the political left or something, right? Then I read his job title. He is a professor.
Okay then. That explains it.—Joe]
Under current Federal law the ATF is authorized to inspect Federal Firearm License holders (FFLs), unannounced, up to once per year and to do audits of their records. Every single gun must be accounted for by manufacture, model, and serial number. The FFL will face consequences if some buy wrote “N” and “Y” instead of “Yes” and “No”, they failed to include the county of residence in addition to the city, state and Zip Code, or they used the abbreviation “MINN” instead of spelling out “Minneapolis” in the small box for the city name. The FFL must record the NICS Transaction Number (NTN) on line 21b of the ATF Form 4473 and retain the form for auditing purposes. Form 4473 must be retained for 20 years.
Imagine if we had a Federal Book License holders (FBLs) and similar record keeping requirements. Would the book banners be able to claim such regulations were “common sense” and justified?
Imagine if the IRS were authorized one unannounced inspection and audit, without cause, of every taxpayer per year. Would people tolerate that?
Why is it that the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be so heavily regulated when the Second Amendment explicitly says “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Is there anyone surprised gun owners are pushing back and winning?
None can love freedom but good men; the rest love not freedom but license, which never hath more scope than under tyrants.
John Milton
The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates (1649)
[From the Wikipedia link above: “The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates is a book by John Milton, in which he defends the right of people to execute a guilty sovereign”.
I found the quote in The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition–1985) compiled by George Seldes.—Joe]
Frequently the anti-gun bigots claim that since “strict gun laws are the norm in most countries” we should have similar restrictions in our country. If that were, in fact, a valid basis for implementing laws then when this country was founded we would have had a state religion and a king.
And suppose slavery was the norm in most of the world. Would that be justification to implement slavery in this country?
All I can do is pray that all the publicity will make them want to decide to take down the ads — so we can sue!
Alan Gottlieb
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation
September 3, 2010
San Francisco may start gun fight over pro-firearm ads
[It’s about this ad (here is a link to the photographer and larger pictures of the posters):
It is, as McCullagh writes, because:
A San Francisco transit agency spokesman says the city is investigating whether pro-gun ads, which an advocacy group recently purchased, should have been posted in transit stations this week.
The city’s policy on such ads is strict but clear: It says that “no advertisement” shall “promote the use of firearms.”
Have these people forgotten they live in the United States instead of someplace like Cuba or North Korea? I can’t imagine the courts siding with the want-to-be tyrants in San Francisco on this issue. Establishing more precedent for freedom is a very good thing.
Do not forget this is their goal:
Even toy guns must be destroyed. There is no common ground with these people.
It’s nice to know the money I have been donating (matched dollar for dollar by Microsoft) is being put to good use. SAF and friends haven’t been winning all their court battles but they sure have been making good progress with their objective to “win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time”.—Joe]
Recently I have been seeing the anti-gun people almost begging for mercy and asking for “common ground” (see also Paul Helmke):
I am quite sure there is common ground somewhere. Can we get there? Can we talk? Can we agree on just a few things?
…
Can we get together and do what’s right? Can we agree that too many people are shot to death in our country? Can we agree that some common sense laws make sense and won’t affect those who are law abiding and want to own their guns and carry their guns? Can we agree that there are actually a few places where we don’t actually need guns? Can we agree that gun violence is a public safety and public health problem? Can we agree that stopping the injuries and deaths caused by guns is a social justice issue?
What they do not seem to understand (or just a likely do not want to admit) is that any of the laws they advocate which would “prevent gun violence” are prior restraint on a specific enumerated right and have a chilling effect on the exercise of that right. We can no more find common ground on this topic than we can find common ground with someone who would demand we get government approval before buying a book, dating someone of the same sex, or marrying someone of a different race. And in fact a better legal case could be made for the last two examples because they are not specifically enumerated rights.
These people are weasels that have no interest in finding common ground, playing fair or even pretending their laws “won’t affect those who are law abiding” and only affect criminal when they are in the drivers seat. They need to be, and deserve to be, politically exterminated and their leaders sent to prison.
The guy yesterday that held people hostage at Discovery Channel making demands that they “save the planet” by having a programing agenda that advocated for the voluntary extinction of humans (thanks to Ry for sending me the link to his webpage) will be dismissed as a nut case. This is probably valid but perhaps further consideration should be given to the topic. Don’t forget that not only did this nut case base his philosophy on the work of Al Gore but so did Ted Kaczynski.
We have known for a long time that anti-gun activists have strong violence tendencies. And such things as John Cusack’s “I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES [OF DICK] ARMEY AND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS” is not all that uncommon.
And of course all the great genocides of the last century were under leftist regimes.
The Animal Liberation Front, and Earth Liberation Front are two of the top domestic terrorist organizations in the U.S. and are, obviously, liberal. Add in the Weather Underground, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Symbionese Liberation Army, and lots of other leftist terrorists going back to at least the 1960s and you realize that while they don’t have a monopoly on illegal violence they dominate to such an extent they might as well have a monopoly.
Why are liberals so violent?
My hypothesis is that at some level they know that is the only method by which they can achieve their goals. They, almost by definition, believe in the power of government to “do good” no matter what domain they enter into. They believe in central planning and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” But as George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” Government is force. It is violence. Every dictate of the government is backed up with people with guns who job it is to force compliance.
Those who want to expand government, by definition, want to expand the use of force to achieve their goals. It should therefore come as no surprise that liberal individuals and groups are inclined to use violence to further their goals even outside the domain of government.
This also might explain why most liberals are opposed to the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It explains why they keep insisting, long after the courts have ruled otherwise, that the Second Amendment only protects the power of a state to arm itself independent of the Federal government. The explanation is that they see the willingness inside themselves and those they associate with to use violence and they fear it. They believe they, and everyone else, might use violence in an unethical manner if allowed the tools and the opportunity. They believe in the wisdom of “the central committee” to temper the violent impulses they believe the individuals to have.
This might also explain why liberals accuse the others of violence tendencies. They are projecting the worst fears about themselves onto their opponents.
These violent tendencies can be dealt with at the individual and small group level via the police and the legal system and amount to noise in the big picture of things. It’s at the governmental level that we have genocides with millions dead in the span of a few years. It is at the government level that we must enforce strong restrictions on their power to deliver violence against individuals. This is why we have a constitution that (by design, not in practice) limits governments to a small set of enumerated powers and the Second Amendment to stop a runaway government from becoming tyrannical. One might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.
Update (6/16/2016): The Orlando Florida gay nightclub shooter was a registered Democrat.
More examples from here:
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln.. President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield President of the United States who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 Jame Pough a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office….
In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza..shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown CT.
Sept 2013.. an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship
1968 James Earl Ray… worker in George Wallace’s presidential campaign(Democrat), shot and killed Martin Luther King…..`
June 2016 Registered Democrat, Omar Mateen, murdered 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at the Orlando nightclub Pulse.
Update 1/7/2017:
One scientist confirms the claim that leftist are violent and has a different hypothesis as to why:
Update June 19, 2017: Surveys show that criminal prisoners who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of more than two to one.
Update February 27, 2018: See also Elaboration on the inherent violent nature of the modern liberal.
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Ben Franklin
Also attributed to a motto found among Thomas Jefferson’s papers.
[You would think that with all the data supporting the concept of the right to keep and bear arms as a legitimate method of last resort to overthrow a tyrannical government the anti-gun people would give up trying to scare people into giving up that specific enumerated right. It didn’t work when the Democrats in the deep south tried to “scare the white folks” about all the terrible things that would happen if people with dark colored skin weren’t closely controlled after the civil war. So why would they think it would work when Democrats from the west coast and the Northeast try to scare people about the exercise of rights that have existed since before this country was created? —Joe]
