Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the day—Matthew Willington

Posted on by

Matthew Willington (@MD_Willington)
Tweeted on October 10, 2013 in reference to this post about liberals getting special privileges from the D.C. police.
[Almost for certain Matthew was referring to this line in Animal Farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Animal farm is one of the few books I have read more than once. It is a really, really good book and a fairly quick read.

In the past few days I’ve been listening to the book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto*, thinking about conversations I have had with Marxists, and our current government situation. It appears, and Mikee independently posted the same conclusion, the “liberals” (communists) in our government act as if and work toward the condition of there being no limits on the power of government. The Bill of Rights is considered “loopholes” that citizens “hide behind”. The listening in on our telephone calls, the storing of all our Internet traffic, the tracking of all our vehicles, the tracking of our cell phones, the abuse of the IRS, the search and seizure of property, the requirements of financial disclosure, and much, much more is strong evidence they want there to be nothing to “hide behind”. They are working toward a society where there are no limits to what the state knows about you and what it can do to achieve the ends of those in power.

What many people don’t consciously realize is that the greater the value of some the greater security it much have to protect it. If you leave a penny on the sidewalk there is a good chance that if it is in a puddle of water it will still be there if you come back for it the next day. If you put $1000 in plain view in your locked car near that same sidewalk it is likely to be gone by morning.

The 20 year old beater car needs less security than the new Mercedes. The piggy bank of a child needs less security than an ATM. The ATM needs less security than Fort Knox. The financial information at your accountants office requires less security than the computer system that contains the financial information of an entire nation. The personal information in the medical records of your doctors office needs less security than the computer system that contains the personal information of an entire nation.

Government power is something of great value to those that control it and extraordinary measures must be used to secure against abuse. The enumerated powers, the multiple branches of government, the reservation of powers for the states and the people, and the Bill of Rights, were all intended to secure government power from abuse.

It is extraordinarily clear government power is expanding without the bounds intended and is being abused with the abusers suffering no consequences. The IRS, Fast and Furious, and NSA, scandals are just the tip of the icebergs. We are in a positive feedback loop. The more power government gets the greater the attraction to those that abuse it. Those that abuse it want more power and less controls. The Marxists who want more government power and claim, “We just need the right people in control” either do not understand the issues involved and/or are the very people who should not be in control.

Scary times are here now and far more scary times are ahead. Read Animal Farm and 1984 as they were intended to be read. They are warning of the dangers of government power. They are not instructions manuals.—Joe]

* I’m annoyed by his claim there can be no morality without belief in god(s) but other than the religious parts it’s a good book so far.

“If I were in charge!”

Posted on by

I get these emotional appeal type e-mail forwards every day. I usually delete them without reading them (just so all you forwarders know, and besides; I get the same information, if it’s even real, days to weeks, to sometimes years, before you apparently did). This one caught me eye as something that needs to be addressed though;

“PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good..”

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.”

Followed of course with the obligatory;

“Now, if you have the guts – PASS IT ON…”

Oy. I guess we’re supposed to respond with a hearty; “YEAH! You Tell ’em!” and then go back to our search for other emotional stimulants, such that by the end of each day we’ll need to get drunk or bury our faces in the television to calm down.

Uh, no. I responded to the forwarder thusly;
“This is all assuming that the government is rightly and should forever be in charge of “charity” by way of coercive redistribution, which of course is the problem from the start. It shouldn’t.

‘Put me in charge’ she says….

No, Young Grasshopper; PUT THE CONSTITUTION BACK IN CHARGE. PUT THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES BACK IN CHARGE and then we won’t have those in government usurping the very concept of charity and turning it into something horrible.”

Oh, and just as a side note; If you can’t vote as long as you’re on government subsistence? Heh! No problem; we’ll just make sure everyone is forced onto government subsistence. The Progressives are working on that right now anyway, and so long as you’re dependent on them, vote or not, you’ll have to do what they tell you.

This is the difference between Democrats and Republicans on one side, and libertarians/objectivists and Christians on the other. The former see the problem as an issue of WHO is in charge, while the latter see the issue as being whether or not the guiding principles are in charge. Whoever wrote the forwarded e-mail is every bit as clueless as any card-carrying, ideological Marxist, and most likely is a die hard Republican; take all of the leftist assumptions, make them your own, and wish you were in charge of administering them so you really SHOW THEM, BY GOSH AND BY GOLLY, GEE WHIZ!!!. I’d tell such people to go to hell, but they’re almost certainly already there, so even if they were genuinely inclined to take my advice it would make zero difference.

I’ve tried to say this in several different ways already, but we’ll give it another try;
That which irritates you owns you. It has converted you over to its purpose. This e-mail forward is a PERFECT example of that, and think how many cultures have been trading one tyrant for another, for another, for yet another… Get it?

Quote of the day—Emily Miller

Posted on by

The police stonewalling and cover-up are so that the public doesn’t find out that Chief Lanier enforces laws differently in the District, depending on whether you are a powerful liberal who opposes Second Amendment rights, like Mr. Gregory and Mrs. Feinstein, or an average American.

Emily Miller
October 9, 2013
MILLER: Smoking gun exposed- D.C. police covers up giving Feinstein illegal ‘assault weapons’
[Why can’t this be considered a violation of the constitution via liberals being granted titles of nobility with special privileges?

The only other way I can see to look at this is that the liberals are saying the law does not apply in the “game” they are playing. I don’t think they really want to go there because a lot of people who normally play the rule also consider it fair play to play by the rules of their opponents. And if there are no rules, well, then there are no rules.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Luke Chitwood

Posted on by

Whether or not Barack Obama actually has plans to personally invade the homes of America’s 100 million gun owners and forcibly remove their firearms is irrelevant. The NRA has achieved great success in making this event seem possible to the Americans who fear it the most. The NRA has perfected the use of slippery-slope arguments and doomsday predictions to activate a passionate, idealistic, and focused base.

Luke Chitwood
October 8, 2013
Here’s How the NRA is So Freakishly Effective in the Gun Control Debate
[Chitwood has a problem with the truth. This is just one of many examples in the article. Obama would never personally do this and the NRA would never suggest he might. And as usual, if someone starts out with false data and assumptions whatever follows is almost certain to be in error.

What Chitwood apparently doesn’t understand is that NRA members drive the NRA rather than the NRA driving it’s members. People join the NRA to, among other things, encourage them to protect gun owner rights. I know a few people that have quit or refused to join the NRA but all of them did this because the NRA compromised or were to soft of supporters of gun owner rights. Not that they were too “extreme”.

The NRA is a grassroots organization. Our opponents cannot seem to understand that. Their model appears to be that the NRA recruits members and turns them into some sort of mindless minion that does the bidding of the evil NRA overlord. As is usual, anytime an anti-gun person says something you can be fairly certain it’s crazy talk.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Gerry Spence

Posted on by

The police, as in every police state, would simply level their charges and lead the defendant to his blind-folded stance before the firing squad. During Randy Weaver’s trial, an agony for him that he endured for nearly three months, I found the minions of the law—the special agents of the FBI—to be men who proved themselves not only fully capable, but also utterly willing to manufacture evidence, to conceal crucial evidence and even change the rules that governed life and death if, in the prosecution of the accused, it seemed expedient to do so.

Gerry Spence
From Freedom To Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America
First St Martin’s Griffin Edition: May 1996
[The 1990’s were exceedingly dark days for gun owners. The shooting of Randy Weaver’s son and wife by Federal agents and then the trial of Weaver and Harris could be considered the turning point. The egregious behavior and arrogance of the Feds enraged gun owners and inspired thousands, if not millions, of people who had never owned guns to purchase them. The Weaver shooting took place less than 20 miles from where I lived at the time and I was among those that became a gun owner shortly thereafter.

This blog, Boomershoot, and a great number of significant events in my life were the result of what happened at Ruby Ridge.

That was over 20 years ago and many of the freedom activists I know don’t remember the events or that it even occurred. And many that do probably don’t understand the significance of that event in today’s fight for freedom. The Federal government learned some important lessons as a result of that incident and the response of the American people. The “militia movement” was part of that response and it was a real wake up call to the Feds.

But I’m not sure it was the lesson we wanted the Feds to learn. My impression is they learned it was too risky to begin using naked force to subjugate the people. They did not reverse course.

They grudgingly accepted we have at least some narrowly defined right to keep and bear arms but attacked our economic base, our privacy, and regulate the minutia of nearly every activity. The “assault weapon” bans, TSA and Obamacare are just the most obvious infringements of our freedom.

There are probably 10s of thousands of regulations which by themselves would be laughable and easily dismissed if it weren’t for the fact they are each tiny links in huge and heavy chains that enslave us through the daily sapping of our time and money to avoid committing numerous crimes each day. Ultimately these laws can, and probably will, be used to create the police state Spence warns us of. And it will all occur with firing only the occasional, and almost entirely ignored, shots.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John M. Snyder

Posted on by

The atmosphere in congress right now, and Washington D.C. generally, is more favorable than it has been since 1966.

John M. Snyder
CCRKBA Public Affairs Director
September 27, 2003
Gun Rights Policy Conference, Morning Session 1
[The quote isn’t in the web page at the link, I pulled it from the recording I picked up at GRPC 2012.

While the quote is from 10 years ago today there is a good chance what he said is still true. Snyder has been part of the gun rights movement since the 1960’s. His perspective is very valuable.

For over 40 years many of the same people fought against the anti-gun forces. Many of the pro-gun organizations have been around for nearly that long and at least one, the NRA, has been around much, much longer. How many anti-gun people and organizations have been around for 40 or more years? I can’t think of any.

Perhaps that tells us something. Perhaps pro-rights people become more passionate and more dedicated the more they learn about the ideas and consequences of adopting policies advocated by our opposition. Or maybe it means our opposition become disillusioned as reality sinks in. Gun control creates victims. It does not prevent predators.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Daniel Greenfield

Posted on by

Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him.

Daniel Greenfield
September 22, 2013
The Central Planning Solution to Evil
[H/T to Caleb.

Another way to think about it is that the political jurisdictions in this country that heavily restrict firearms and have high crime rates are in an awkward position between freedom and a centrally planned police state. You may be able to achieve low crime rates in a benevolent police state but run a high risk of poverty, political corruptions, gulags, reeducation camps, and genocide. Or, you can have the appearance of chaos, the uncertainties, and the insecurities of a free society.

The question is, “Which way will those states, and this country, teetering on the edge of a police state, trend toward in the next few years?—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael C. Dorf

Posted on by

We can test the hypothesis that Heller and McDonald played a substantial role in sapping the strength of the gun control movement by taking serious gun control off the table by looking to see whether the gun control movement had greater intensity before Heller and McDonald.

Mike Dorf
September 25, 2013
The Non-Paradoxical Role of the Supreme Court With Respect to Gun Control
[Dorf is law professor at Cornell. Even though he appears to have an anti-gun bias he has done a thoughtful and fair analysis of the political dynamics of gun control as well as the post the above quote was taken from.

I believe it was Sebastian who hypothesized after the Heller decision that people would stop supporting the anti-gun organizations because banning guns was off the table. Basically, if the end game wasn’t confiscation then what was the point? Dorf addresses that and arrives at essentially a softer version of the same conclusion.

What Dorf doesn’t address and perhaps doesn’t understand is that with the Heller decision gun rights supporters now see most existing gun control laws as infringing the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Viewed through the lens of the First Amendment, any law that has a chilling effect (in the legal sense) on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms should be struck down as unconstitutional. The outrage at having our rights violated motivates us and increases the intensity of gun rights people. Most hard core anti-gun people surely recognize at least some portion of this and are demoralized by it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Barack Obama

Posted on by

As long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on guns, then we’ve got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children … to do more work to make it harder.

Barack Obama
President of the United States
September 21, 2013
Citing shootings, Obama says must ‘go back at’ gun-control push
[One of the criminals that supposedly prompted this renewed push to make the exercise of a specific enumerated right more difficult via enhanced background checked had a military security clearance. How much more thorough of a background check does this guy think one should have before they can exercise their rights?

The only conclusions I can come up with are that he, and others like him who advocate for more rigorous background checks in response to the Washington Navy Yard shooting, are either totally irrational and/or evil. Regardless of the conclusion there is no point in “conversation”, “compromise”, or “debate” with people who are insane and/or evil. There is nothing to be gained from talking with crazy and/or evil people. I’ve been there and done that. It will only drive you crazy. Your only option is to get them out of your lives.—Joe]

Quote of the day—DumbGeezer

Posted on by

To them Stalin is a feature, not a bug.

DumbGeezer
September 2013
Comment to Dr. Grover Furr – An Example of Recto-Cranial Inversion
[I believe there is more than sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis.

Do not forget that in every genocide the victims outnumber the perpetrators by at least 100:1 and that you have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms and use them in defense of innocent human life.—Joe]

Say WHAT?

Posted on by

They just keep coming.

I’m still wondering about Fast and Furious, and we’re what, a couple dozen scandals removed from that now, each one taking the former one off the main headlines? You couldn’t make this stuff up– It would be taken as way too far beyond believability.

Another defeat for criminals…

Posted on by

…both inside and outside of government. This time in Illinois.

I give more money to the SAF than anyone else outside my family.

Quote of the day—Billll

Posted on by

Sen. Morse is proud of his accomplishments and has said that if they cost him his job then it’s still worth it. He has the mindset of a suicide bomber.

Billll
September 11, 2013
Comment to Senator Says MAIG Should “Fold It Up”
[His accomplishment was to pass a repressive and unconstitutional anti-gun owner law.

It’s trivial to imagine scenarios where his actions kill more people than any one suicide bomber has ever killed. Senator Morse should be held accountable for his actions. He lost his job but he should be arrested and put on trial for violation of civil rights under the color of law.—Joe]

More on voter suppression

Posted on by

Heh!

We’re being asked (told?) to believe that the voters who wanted Progressives in office “couldn’t get to the polls” (Where are they? I don’t know. What IS a poll anyway? Where am I? Who am I? Who are you? What planet is this? Vote for Who? Why? What’s happening and is there any way of stopping it?) while those who wanted freedom didn’t have any trouble at all finding those pesky, shifty, sneaky, evasive polls, even after the Progressives massively out-spend those who prefer freedom.

Well there you have it. When Progressives win it’s grass-roots democracy in action– a beautiful expression of The American Way and what could ever be better or more wonderful than that. When Progressives lose it’s big money corporate-funded voter suppression by mean people who suck and are probably terrorists.

Quote of the day—The Denver Post Editorial Board

Posted on by

We hope the outcome of Tuesday’s recall elections closes an ugly chapter in Colorado’s political history, an instance when recalls were used against elected officials not for malfeasance or corruption in office but for simply voting their consciences.

The Denver Post Editorial Board
September 10, 2013
Time to move past Colorado recall elections
[“Simply voting their consciences?” Would they be saying the same thing if the lawmaker in question had come out of the closet as a KKK member and had helped passed laws which forbid mixed race marriages? How about “simply voting their consciences” to reinstate slavery? Or outlawing all non-Christian religion? Or outlawing books having more than 150 pages?

It is an ugly chapter in Colorado’s political history but not for the reason they believe. It’s ugly because bigotry and prejudice is a terrible thing regardless of the people being targeted.—Joe]

More on redistribution

Posted on by

Charity is a vitally important component to any civilized society and as such, government should be kept completely out of it.

The first amendment touched upon the concept that a most highly important societal aspect or institution should be hands-off (no government involvement) but it is not well understood. We tend to focus on the particulars (religion, speech, the press, redress and assembly) but ignore the principle behind it.

Quote of the day—Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America

Posted on by

From the outset, this recall was designed as a tool of intimidation funded by the gun lobby. What a ridiculous temper tantrum by a bunch of bullies – moms know them when we see them.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
September 10, 2013

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: MOMS DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN SENSE IN AMERICA RESPONDS TO COLORADO RECALL ELECTION RESULTS
[It’s called psychological projection.

“Moms” were the bullies (by proxy) in this political battle. They supported anti-freedom laws that drove many millions of dollars worth of business out of the state, made criminals out of innocent people, violated the specific enumerated rights of millions of people, and cost million of people countless hours and dollars in their battle to remove some of the law makers who implemented the illegal laws. Those are the actions of bullies. Not the innocent people who just want to be left alone.

In addition to the recall elections being successful we now have the opportunity to give Mayor Bloomberg some investment advice. If you want to get a return on your money in politics invest in the NRA. MAIG got nothing in return for the hundreds of thousands they spent.

It’s all good news but as I saw in one Tweet, I’m a little sad that we’re not following through with the traditional tar and feathers.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Liberals/progressives/etc. want to increase taxes on things to discourage such items and/or activities. Examples include the NFA of 1934 which taxed firearms and certain safety equipment, huge taxes on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, And of course there are the frequent demands for huge taxes on ammunition and sometimes on gasoline and other fossil fuels.

What this makes crystal clear is those same people use the tax system in a way that is consistent with a belief that there should be fewer rich people and more poor people. They place huge taxes on “the rich” and want to eliminate taxes on “the poor”. If they really wanted to reduce or eliminate poverty shouldn’t they be taxing it? Sort of like the demand for taxes on guns and ammunition to “pay for the costs of gun violence” shouldn’t there be taxes on poverty to pay for the cost of supporting the poor?*

* No. I’m not entirely serious about this. Only a little bit serious.

Quote of the day—Brian Mann

Posted on by

New York adopted one of the toughest gun control laws in the U.S. — banning the sale of assault rifles and banana clips. Many of the state’s county sheriffs hate the law and some say they won’t enforce it. The fight over gun rights and gun safety has become a hot issue in sheriff races, as local law enforcement officials seek re-election in rural counties.

Brian Mann
September 10, 2013
New York’s Gun Control Law Gets Even More Controversial
[“Assault rifles?” “Banana clips?” Gun rights versus “gun safety?”

The ignorance is strong with this one.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chris Cox

Posted on by

We’ll never match Bloomberg dollar for dollar, but we don’t have to. The hearts and minds of the American people certainly aren’t for sale to a billionaire mayor from New York City.

Chris Cox
September 1, 2013
Mayor Bloomberg is the best friend of 2nd Amendment advocates
[What is just as interesting to me about the above quote is that it, and about half of the opinion piece by Emily Miller, has been removed. Even Emily’s name was removed! The full opinion piece was there and more of it can be seen here.—Joe]