Category Archives: Freedom

The setup, the pitch, and… WHACK!

Posted on by

Home run!

“The nationalized preschool promoters, led by feckless bureaucrats who piled mounds of debt onto our children with endless Keynesian pipe dreams, claim that new multibillion-dollar “investments” in public education will “benefit the economy.” But ultimately, it’s not about the money or improved academic outcomes for Fed Ed. The increasing federal encroachment into our children’s lives at younger and younger ages is about control. These clunkers don’t need more time and authority over our families. They need a permanent recess.”

I was just telling my daughter on the way in this morning that you need to look past the authoritarians’ rationalizations, dismiss them out of hand, and look instead at their behavior and results over time. Then you see the disease for what it is. Malkin is exactly right; they need a permanent recess.

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.

Thomas Sowell
November 26, 2013
Random Thoughts
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Stossel

Posted on by

We don’t live in a reasonable world. We live in a big government world.

John Stossel
2012
No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed
[I’m just finishing up this book. It’s a good book. For me there were lots of examples of how government screwed up things—all with the best of intentions. I knew in general that was the case but having more examples was nice. If you could get them to read the book the most benefit would be gained by politicians and progressive voters reading it. But if they could be convinced by facts and logic they probably wouldn’t be politicians and they certainly wouldn’t be progressives.—Joe]

Ordered thought of the day

Posted on by

You know; ordered as opposed to random, just because I feel like being a smart ass.

The most ignorant, uninspired person in the room is the one who’s most interested in running things.

The person who’s doing nothing, seeing the person who’s doing something, will become irritated and try to tell the person who’s doing something that he’s doing it wrong or that he shouldn’t be doing it, and/or that the doer is victimizing the non doer with all his inconsiderate and irresponsible doing. Failure in that strategy requires falling back on plan B; taking credit for the works of the doer that could not be redirected or discouraged.

The non doer views the mastery of this simple strategy as incontrovertible proof of superior intelligence and worth.

This is the basis of all politics, in the same sense that space, time, matter and energy are the bases of life– It is a fundamental law of nature.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

The Bill of Rights isn’t about protecting rights the government has no interest in infringing. It’s about protecting those rights which are in danger of being repressed by government.

For about the first 150 years of this country there wasn’t a serious effort to disarm the citizens. Starting in about 1934 and continuing until the present day there has been.

The Second Amendment isn’t outdated. It was ahead of it’s time.

Interview with Jeff Cooper of Gunsite

Posted on by

From the 1970s

Nothing new to those who’ve read his work, but it is interesting. He certainly never minced words.

When I heard the militaristic sort of music they used, I couldn’t help thinking that it would be taken as sarcasm today. Back then? I’m not sure.

Slowing the march isn’t a step in the right direction

Posted on by

Say Uncle pointed me to this article about MSM whining about the lack of “productivity” of Congress. Apparently slowing down the destruction of freedom with still more laws is considered a bad thing.

In my book Congressional “productivity” would be measured by the net number of laws repealed per unit of time. But no one really knows how many laws we have so we really need a different metric for productivity in Joe’s world.

We do know as of the 1980 we had something on the order of 23,000 pages of Federal law. But we know that Obamacare has about 2,400 pages all by itself! And that doesn’t include the regulations that are derived from the law. The estimates on the number of pages of regulations are on the order of 170,000 pages. And the U.S. tax code has something on the order of 13,000 pages.

I’m thinking a reasonable productivity rate would be something on the order of a page per minute. After an entire year on the the job they would be most of the way through Obamacare. It would take decades to get back to constitutionally enumerated limits. But it took us decades to get here so as long as they are making progress at a rate equal to or greater than the rate we arrived here I can’t really complain a whole lot.

Explain to me how this works

Posted on by

There are more and more people calling for constitutional amendments, or a convention of states.

Let me see if have this right– Those in office aren’t obeying the constitution, so we’re going to change the constitution that they aren’t obeying.

Isn’t that a bit like a “gun free zone” sign, in that those who would obey it aren’t the problem we’re addressing? “We must pass new laws because criminals aren’t obeying the laws” is what we scoff at when it comes from Progressive communists. Now we’re doing it too?

The best I can see coming from a new or revised constitution is that it would represent an official mandate– It might serve as a psychological incentive for the three percent, somewhat like the Emancipation Proclamation which on its surface had no teeth being that there was already a state of active rebellion.

Just don’t think for a second that the dirtbags in power are going to see your shiny new, libertarian constitution and say to themselves; “Golly! Now THERE’S a constitution I can obey to the letter, the spirit, the whole deal! Heck yeah! No problem! No more redistributionist/interventionist/kleptocratic thinking for me! No, Sir! This is GREAT now…all of a sudden…like!”

Really?

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

The Federal government has laws against marijuana use, possession, and sales. Although heavily regulated in Washington state you can soon buy pot in stores and people currently openly admit to using it in private. To the best of my knowledge the Feds have not and do not plan to prosecute anyone for violation of their marijuana laws but continue to do so in other states.

But the Feds aggressively fight the Firearms Freedom Act in the states which have passed such laws. And I’m certain that if I started manufacturing guns and selling them in Montana, Idaho or any of the other FFA states without a license or complying with the hundreds if not thousands of Federal laws and regulations on firearms I would soon get an unpleasant visit from the Feds.

What does this mean? Doesn’t it mean that laws are enforced by the whim of the politicians in power? How is this different than having laws against assault and battery but not enforcing them if the victim is of the “wrong” color, religion, or sexual-orientation?

You have to “just know” the law does or doesn’t apply to you this week/month/election-cycle. I firmly believe it would be better that all laws be vigorously and equally enforced. The outrage would result in the stupid laws being repealed.

The existence of a multitude of unenforced laws is a huge risk. How you ask? With so many things being illegal it means our government has the power to arbitrarily imprison anyone at any time. We have fully equipped our government with tyrannical powers just waiting for the “right person” to use them.

We will finally be safe and secure…

Posted on by

…once we have been stripped of the best means of defending ourselves.

That was originally posted on Angelfire as one of the “121 Tenets of Socialism” my brother and I wrote many years ago, and which has since disappeared down the rabbit hole of early internet restructurings and multiple computer replacements. It’s one of the tenets I remember well. They all highlight the blatant logical contradictions we’re expected to embrace in the name of the coming Heaven on Earth that Progressive communism promises in exchange for total surrender to government authority.

Sheep testicles

Posted on by

I came across a “TED Talk”  by the guy that does Dirty Jobs. In the comments, there was a link to a podcast he did giving some background on how it came about. The first in fascinating, funny, and thought provoking. The latter I thought was hysterical. Mike Rowe is sharp, and surprisingly well educated (I don’t mean just “he has a degree,” but seems to be familiar with Classics, Greek and Latin). He’s an excellent speaker. [Edit: Hmmmm… It doesn’t like to embed the frame with the video. Link to TED Talk is here.]

 

Continue reading →

What’s wrong with this statement?

Posted on by

This is from a Second Amendment Foundation e-mail;
“With a track record like Barack Obama has on health care, we don’t want the president getting involved in gun care or firearms safety.”

Anyone?

If your IMMEDIATE reaction wasn’t something along the lines of; “Wait! The president’s track record is irrelevant. The second amendment (and more importantly the ideal of liberty) prohibits politicians getting involved in such things” then you have some reflectin’ to do.

What the statement implies, whether its originators know it or not, is that the “right” president would be more than welcome to tell us how to do things, pushing us around, meddling with our lives using intimidation and coercion as though humans were no better than livestock.

There is no “right person” (or group of people), regardless of their track record, who can properly use coercion, wielding the Ring of Power so to speak.

I donate regularly to the SAF, and they do a lot of good work, but that statement is just sad. Plus it is simply wrong on its face– If you understand the meaning of the word “We”, then yes, certainly; “We” DOES want Obama in charge of our guns.

ID Verification

Posted on by

I came across this, a story about people getting hung up on the “ID Verification” part of the application, because Healthcare.gov won’t let you shop for plans until it “knows” who you are. So data-security issues aside, could this hangup be used to leverage a renewed call for new universal ID cards, now possibly (probably) tied in with biometrics, DNA, and medical records?

Let me rephrase: I know can be. Any bets on whether or not it does (soon) and who will be the first to call for it?

Quote of the day—Richard C Suquer

Posted on by

As you can see, any reasonable person would support the banning of all guns. It is time we put these gun-toting extremists in jail where they belong!

Richard C Suquer
November 7, 2001
Ban All Guns Now!
[I could almost believe this post was satire but not quite. Here are some more choice quotes from the same post:

It all goes back to an obscure centuries-old document called the “Constitution of the United States of America.”

…

Many right-wing members of today’s United States have interpreted this amendment to mean that every citizen has the right to “keep and bear arms.” Absurd? Perhaps. But uneducated people in our society (such as members of Congress) can still be fooled into believing this absurdity.

…

Suppose a person breaks into your house at night and attacks you with a knife. Now, according to the right-wing point of view, you would be justified in shooting him with the gun you keep hidden under your pillow.

However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person’s breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man’s life? The answer is: you can’t.

In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.

…

Imagine the typical day of the white male hunter:

The hunter gets up early, before daybreak. While shaving, he cuts his face. He tastes the blood and it is good. His desire for the prey has become sexual.

Later that morning, the hunter enters the forest with his phallic firearm, and stalks the great horned beast. He sees one innocently drinking water from a stream, and raises his phallus-gun to his shoulder. Pulling the trigger he releases his sperm-bullet into the innocent mammal. But rather than life, his sperm-bullet spreads death.

I have to conclude people like this have a mental illness.–Joe]

This is what they think of you

Posted on by

Via a Tweet from Linoge:

BZ7FaIaIYAApckf

After you grasp the fact that this person regards gun owners as “murderers who hate children” think about what the next step is. What is the normal disposition of “murderers who hate children”?

My conclusion is that this person wants people who exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm in prison or executed. And just what does someone like this think of people who defend Second Amendment? My speculation is they are hostile to the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments as well as the Second.

These are very, very dangerous people.

Update: Linoge emailed me more tweets from this person. Imagine if they were saying these things about blacks, Jews, or gays. It reinforces my conclusion that these are very dangerous people.

lougagliardicompromise1

lougagliardicompromise3

lougagliardicompromise4

lougagliardijustifiedhomicide1

lougagliardijustifiedhomicide2

lougagliardilibertarian

lougagliardireligion

lougagliardireligion2

lougagliardiwantpeopletodie

lougagliardiyoukilledthosechildren

The law does not apply to us

Posted on by

I used to work for a government lab. One of my most persistent memories is of when a co-worker vigorously asserted, “See this badge? This means the law doesn’t apply to us. The people that enforce these laws are the same people that want this work done.”

It’s as if these exact words were used when building the Obamacare web site:

H/T Joey for the email.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

After President Obama set the precedent with not enforcing the individual mandate and the discussion I had with Ry the other day I thought back to some of the other things he has done along the same line. The rule, in direct violation of Federal law, about reporting long guns sales to the ATF is one example. The selling of thousands of guns to people known to be ineligible to posses them who were delivering them to the Mexican drug cartels is another. And failure to prosecute officials in D.C., New Jersey, Chicago, and New York, etc. for infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm in general.

I was then anticipating the sweet, sweet pleasure of the screams of the anti-gunners at some time in the future. I was imagining that we get an extraordinarily very pro-gun president in office and, just like President Obama, he say you don’t have to pay a particular tax for the next year. The $200 transfer tax on suppressors, destructive devices, and machine guns would be at the top of the list. Form 4473’s are a burden, people affected don’t like them, so don’t worry about them. And, oh, by the way, we won’t be enforcing the NFA 34 registry or Hughes Amendment for the next year either.

At the end of the year, machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and destructive devices would be so widespread they would be considered, “in common use” and therefore protected by even a strict reading of the Heller decision.

The tears of the anti-gun people would be so plentiful we would collect them, put them in empty pop cans and sell them as reactive targets. Life would be good.

Then I had another thought. Obama also is not punishing the IRS for oppression of organizations opposed to his political party. Nor has he done anything about the NSA spying on everyone. And now the judges being appointed don’t need the support of even a single person in the minority party of the Senate. What justification do I have for even having a wild fantasy about something like that? What justification do I have to imagine the socialists will ever lose control of the Whitehouse? Or after the next election even either house of Congress?

The reality is that I need to put more effort into Plan B.

My next shipment from Dillon Precision arrives on Monday:

DillonPackage

Differing only in degree and implementation

Posted on by

Ry stopped by my office today and after we completed the work discussion I mentioned that I had lunch with a friend who is in the health insurance industry. I repeated part of the rant I heard at lunch. It went something like, “We spent years implementing Obamacare and we had to get information from the Whitehouse blog because they did rule-making via the blog. Then last week it was from the President’s speech. And today they came up with a letter we will be ‘required’ to send our customers?”

Ry replied, “I hope they like discounts on Samsung products.”

I thought about that for about five seconds without being able to make any sense of it. I was a little behind in the news. Venezuela is nationalizing businesses and selling things at “fair prices”. Samsung is the most recent to enter into a “joint venture” with the government.

“So you think he will take over the insurance industry with the stroke of a pen?”, I asked. Paraphrasing just a bit; Ry replied, “Just like in The Matrix where there was no spoon, here, there is no pen. He is playing 3-D chess and we are trying to play checkers against him. We are concerned about the rule of law and he has changed the legal landscape and moved on. What is happening here only differs in degree and implementation from Venezuela.”

I have no counter to his assertion.

Total speculation

Posted on by

I’m an optimistic sort of guy, really. Kind of a contrarian because I get to explore and test my thinking and assumptions better that way, but I’d rather look at the bright side, all things being equal. So, what’s the possible bright side of the ObamaCare crap sandwich we have been handed? Just spitballing a few thoughts, here… Continue reading →

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Posted on by

We usually think of it terms of incorporation doctrine, but;

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Just sayin’. Now I know the times and the environment in which it was passed, but read the words. As an amendment to the construction they were meant for all times and all environments. They say what they say, and nothing different, and there’s been a whooole lota rebellin’ and insurrectin’ goin’ on out der.