Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the day—JB Williams

Posted on by

It will be ALL Americans, including their military, against the Marxist anti-Americans destroying America, which means politicians, their lawyers and their leftist minions in the press. I wouldn’t want to be them when they finally succeed in pushing the nation to internal war.

Politicians, their lawyers and their minions in the press are NOT the kind of people that go to war. They are only the kind of people that order other people to war. When “other folks” refuse orders to go to war on their own citizens, their families, their friends, the people issuing those orders will be standing bare naked on the front lines and nobody will be able to save their sorry asses from the wrath of the American people.

JB Williams
February 2013
Is Obama Pushing for a Civil War?
[I have nothing to add that I haven’t already said.—Joe]

Manifesto summary

Posted on by

Most sites do not have the entire text of the “manifesto” of the former LA Cop on the rampage in California. The part where he praises left-wing politicians and anti-gun policies is missing. It’s almost as if the media don’t want people to know that someone on the left is on a violent rampage. If it were a someone with even a hint of right-wing leanings that would be in the headlines.

I found my version of his manifesto here.

My summary, if you don’t have the time to read it all, is as follows:

He is really pissed off about being fired. His side of the story is that he reported another officer kicked a handcuffed suspect. He claims a video of the suspect confirms his side of the story. A hearing determined he was lying and he was fired over it. There were also confrontations with other officers who used the n-word.

There is a large section outlining how he is going to kill a large number of police officers and their families for the injustice inflicted upon him. The only way he will stop is if the LAPD issues a public apology and says it was wrong to fire him. He calls out a number of people and groups as “high value targets”. He claims private citizens, unrelated to LAPD officers, and law enforcement from other agencies will be safe if they leave him alone. He won’t hunt them as he will the officers and families of the LAPD.

He claims he owns AR-15 carbine(s), Remington precision rifle(s), suppressors, and a .50 BMG. He has military training and scored high in marksmanship both in the military and in the police force.

That was in the first half of the document. The second half is praise for various public figures and his friends. Some of it is of the form “good-bye, sorry to leave, I will miss you”. Almost all the politicians are democrats with anti-gun policies which he praises.

Some selected anti-gun quotes:

  • “All of these small arms are manufactured by Cerberus/Freedom Group. The same company responsible for the Portland mall shooting, Webster , NY, and Sandy Hook massacre.”
  • “Mia Farrow said it best. ‘Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.'”
  • “Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB.”

To me it seemed there was a bit of a disconnect between the first part and the second. Perhaps he was in a different mood. It seems as if he was sad and saying good-bye rather than angry and plotting revenge in the earlier part.

Quote of the day—Robert Higgs

Posted on by

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

Robert Higgs
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

A zombie outbreak in Moscow Idaho

Posted on by

Via email from Mike B. we have a letter from the mayor and city council of Moscow Idaho advocating for a kitchen sink full of gun restrictions including an “assault weapon” ban, magazine restrictions, ballistic fingerprinting, armor piercing ammo ban, explosives ammo ban, recording ammo sales, mandatory safe storage, waiting periods, elimination of private sales, restricting the number of firearms purchased in a given time period, and all guns be sprinkled with fairy dust daily.

It appears the zombie infection broke out far from the front lines. Don’t worry. We know how to handle it.

Quote of the day—Phelps

Posted on by

The fundamental difference between them and us is that we think they are stupid, and they think we are evil. Thinking we are evil justifies, in their minds, all the offenses and abuses they heap on us.

It’s been a good thing that this division existed, though, for a long time. I say that because when we think we have confronted evil, we destroy it.

Phelps
February 4, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Sebastian
[He has some very good points.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

Gun control advocates really do not understand the fire they are playing with, with much of what is being proposed. How many millions of Americans are you prepared to imprison? How many are you prepared to kill? What is the count of ruined lives, broken families, and ruin are you willing to inflict to try to achieve your rainbow farting unicorn utopia where every gun turns into a flower? Widespread disrespect for the law by millions of Americans is not going to bring that about, and in fact, may only serve to create larger unregulated markets, and far more willingness to engage in law breaking people would not be willing to engage in under normal circumstances.

Sebastian
January 28, 2013
Gun Control Requires Our Willing Compliance
[Another way to look at this is that people generally “play by the rules” as long as the rules are reasonable and the other side plays by the rules as well.

If the rules are unreasonable and/or the other side does not play by the rules people get angry and have a strong tendency to ignore the rules. They “play” rough and play to win by any means possible. The new New York State “rules” for gun owners are completely unreasonable. They were pushed through without input from those most affected and are a gross violation of the Second Amendment “rule”.

The other side in this political contest shouldn’t push us so far that we decide to play to win by any means possible. They wouldn’t like us when we get angry.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brennan Bailey

Posted on by

I submit that every politician, federal or otherwise, who runs on a claim of support for the 2nd Amendment should be faced with the following question:

What gun control laws will you work to repeal first?

I look forward to a day when gun haters are forced to debate the question of how they can reasonably accommodate our demands.  If that day does not come, and soon, our defeat is inevitable.

Brennan Bailey
January 31, 2013
From the gun email list at work.
[Only in rare cases can you win a battle or a war if you only defeat the attacks of your enemy. To win you must eventually go on the attack.

When you attack you are better able to chose their weakness which is far superior to defending your own. That is why we made progress on concealed carry for the last 20 years. Their denial of the right of self-defense was their greatest weakness. Prior to this strategy our opponents were close to banning handguns. The names of our opponents reflected this. Examples include National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Handgun Control, Inc. They say, in their own strategy documents, they should delay the attack on handguns in favor of an attack on “assault weapons” because of lack of progress.

“Assault weapons” were a softer target than handguns even though they had more interest in banning handguns. Our attack on their denial of a right to self-defense is a good part of the reason they could not make further progress on the handgun front.

With our success on the concealed carry and self-defense front we were able to make progress in the culture war and in the courts. We now need to find a new weakness to attack while continuing the attack in the courts on their continued denial of the right to self-defense.

At this point I don’t have any clearly winning ideas for a new front to attack. The most plausible would seem to be:

  1. Elimination of the registry and heavy tax on suppressors.
  2. With our huge debt, anything that costs money such NICS. California is currently unable to confiscate firearms from people they know have guns illegally because they don’t have the money (H/T to Mitchel M. from work for the link). We may be able to leverage this on multiple fronts. This is especially true if we can demonstrate the law not being enforced is pointless anyway.

The problem with the suppressor front is that it probably doesn’t motivate the vast majority of gun owners.

The problem with attacking the NICS check is that background checks seem like a great idea on the surface. It’s a “no-brainer” at first and even second thought. This will generate even less support from the majority of gun owners than making suppressors easy to obtain. It will be difficult to convince even strong gun rights activists background checks are pointless.—Joe]

Original Principles

Posted on by

You cannot claim to defend the second amendment while supporting or openly accepting the NFA of ’34 and GCA ’68. Or background checks. It makes absolutely no sense.

Progressive president FDR knew exactly what he was doing. Before 1934 you could buy a Thompson sub machinegun by mail order with no paperwork. Or a BAR. Or an M2, et al. The second amendment said so. It was understood. The convenient ruse was Prohibition. Never let a crisis go to waste. Prohibition naturally led to gang warfare, widespread corruption and a general degradation of society, just as the “War on Drugs” does today. Then, as now, the violence and degradation guaranteed by a profitable, government-enforced monopoly for criminals is used as a tool to intimidate you into accepting infringements on your rights. It isn’t so much a conspiricy as a natural progression for those in power.

You don’t HATE children, do you? Of course not, and so you must give up more of your rights, and your children’s rights. Remember that, Grasshopper; this “for the children’ or “for the good of society” crap demands giving up not just yours but your neighbors’ and your children’s rights – so now who hates children? Who hates your grandchildren? Since you gave up THAT little bit (NFA, GCA, NICCS, et al) you have ceded the enemy’s point. You’ve agreed that restrictions on gun ownership are a legitimate and sensible way of addressing crime. You’ve proven to everyone that, under the right pressures, you’re willing to give up more, and more and more, until you’ve forgotten what the right was in the first place. Which is where we are now. You’re dancing someone else’s dance and you don’t even know it. It works so well that many of us are afraid to articulate the true meaning of the second amendment in public, for fear of being branded as extremists. That cheap, transparent game is as old as the hills, but it’s so effective, over and over again, that many of you reading this are still falling for it. Cowards. Don’t think that your clever rationalizations make you less of a coward. You’re clever cowards.

If we allow ourselves to be suckered by proposals for “mental health” screening for gun purchases, for example, just watch how quickly the number of people being determined to have “mental health” issues starts to climb, and climb, and climb exponentially. Don’t ask later, in bewilderment, (NRA) how it could have come to such a state of affairs. It will. And you will have helped it along (which means you’re crazy, which means you can’t have guns ; )

No, Young Grasshopper; the only way to fix this is to rediscover Original Principles, then articulate them clearly, then stand our ground, and then win it all back. The enemy wins through subtle lies, mind tricks, degradation, intimidation, smear, and outright lies. We are better than this. We win with the truth, and with the courage to stand up for it.

Background checks

Posted on by

The anti-gun people insist “improved background checks” and even “universal background checks” should not be controversial. Let me try to explain why they are both pointless and completely unacceptable to thinking people.

Pointless demonstration number 1:

The claimed purpose of background checks is to prevent “people who shouldn’t have guns” from acquiring them. That is a noble objective. It sounds so reasonable and “common sense” that I want to agree without giving it even a seconds thought. It’s an excellent idea! It’s such a great idea we should apply that to some other dangerous things. Let’s have background checks before people can purchase recreational drugs. Far too many people abuse them and destroy their lives and frequently the lives of others. Keeping recreational drugs out of the hands of people that would likely abuse them is just “common sense”. Right?

Oh! That’s right. We have something way beyond background checks in place for most recreational drugs. We have banned them not just from “people that might abuse them” but from everyone. How’s that working out? How long does it take the average high school dropout to find a way around the ban? Yeah, that’s right, Einstein. The average high school dropout can get all the recreational drugs they want within an hour anytime of the day, any day of the week. So just how effective you think a background check would be in reducing the abuse of recreational drugs?

Now apply what you know about the recreational drug issue to firearms. A background check is totally pointless.

Pointless demonstration number 2:

Universal background checks can only claim effectiveness if they can be enforced. Prostitution is illegal in most states but if a beautiful woman leaves a $100 bill on my nightstand when she leaves in the morning (yes, stretch your imagination a bit, or a lot, for purposes of illustration) how does  the government enforce the “no sex for money” prohibition in this case? It was a “private transaction” between willing parties. Do you think either party has an interest in disclosing the transaction to the police? And even if they do there is a significant obstacle in that it becomes a “he said, she said” problem.

In the absence of gun and/or gun owner registration the case of the “private transaction” between gun owners boils down to the same thing. The government, and perhaps one party to the transaction, can claim no background check was done. As long as the person being prosecuted keeps their mouth shut and the transaction wasn’t recorded it is going to be impossible to prove that a background check wasn’t performed. Remember, in order to get the Brady Act (“instant” background checks for gun transactions) passed the law states that all record of passing background checks must be destroyed. Searching the records of all those authorized to perform background checks would be a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

Pointless demonstration number 3:

Even if a background check is performed it only requires a stolen or fake ID to defeat it. The fake ID doesn’t even have to be for a real person! The check is not against a “white list” of people that are “allowed” to have guns. The check is against a “black list” of people that are disallowed from possessing guns.

Conclusion:

If you still advocate for background checks for firearms I can only think of two possibilities:

  1. You have a motive other than reducing the misuse of firearms.
  2. You also get confused when your caretaker is reading Dr. Seuss books to you.

Now that we have it settled that background checks are completely pointless let’s proceed on to the “unacceptable” demonstrations.

Unacceptable demonstration number 1:

Background checks cost money and time. The FBI portion of them is “free” to the people doing the transaction. But really that just means the government is wasting scarce law enforcement resources using money they obtained through taxes (obtained at gunpoint–oh, the irony!). The only people authorized to do background checks are people with Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). Because it is time consuming they always charge a fee and you must do a face-to-face transaction. This adds more wasted time and money to the transaction. A transaction which is a specific enumerate right.

This pointless waste of time and money is unacceptable at any time but when the government is deeply in debt and the economy is doing poorly wasting precious government and private resources it is even more so.

Unacceptable demonstration number 2:

If law requiring universal background checks is passed it will only be a short time before the politicians will “discover” the “loopholes” that prevents the law from working as intended. These include the lack of gun registration and the lack of defense against fake IDs. Any attempt at gun registration in the U.S. will result in massive non-compliance on a scale that will make alcohol prohibition look like first graders failing to stay in a straight line while waiting to go on recess. Look at the non-compliance experienced in the failed long gun registration in Canada. Multiply that by three (the difference in per capita gun ownership rate), multiply that by two (U.S. citizens trust the government less than Canadian citizens), then add ten billion rounds of ammunition (annual consumption by private citizens). Or look at New York state,  multiple by fifty (the citizens of other states included in the non-compliance) and multiply that by ten (the citizens of New York state have the option of moving to a freer state, with no place to escape the resistance will be more fierce), then add ten billion rounds of ammunition.

The “ID loophole” was identified years ago by the Feds and they passed a law requiring “Real ID” by the states. How’s that working out?

For the government to force this sort of situation upon the people is unacceptable.

Unacceptable demonstration number 3:

Since demonstrating that background checks are pointless the continued insistence upon forcing them upon the people this must mean that those continuing to advocate for them are either evil (option 1 above) or have the comprehension skills no better than that of an above average German Shepard (option 2 above). Despite the existence of blue dog democrats we have never elected someone so stupid as a real dog to a Federal office (Senator Patty Murray is not a counter example, she is capable of reading and comprehending most Dr. Seuss books). One can only conclude those advocating for background checks are evil or are doing so under duress.

Good people don’t knowingly and willingly cooperate with evil. It is unacceptable.

Conclusion:

Background checks are pointless and unacceptable. We are better than this.

Even compromising with those that advocate for them is the moral equivalent of compromising with people that want “common sense” limits on the 13th Amendment or someone intending to rape your 10 year-old child. The response must be an exceedingly firm no.

Update: I almost forgot, as pointed out by Tim S. in email a few days ago, there is a form of background check almost all gun owners would accept. That is if there were an “endorsement” on your state ID card (such as drivers license) like the restriction for corrective lenses or endorsement for motorcycle or commercial drivers license. It wouldn’t be much, if any, more effective than that currently proposed by the anti-freedom people. But it would eliminate the concerns over registration and most of the expense and wasted time. If such a thing is offered as a compromise to the anti-gunners expect it to be vigorously rejected. They know it doesn’t meet their “needs” and as such will refuse to give in.

Update 2: See also the conclusions which can be drawn from this study.

Quote of the day—Senator Dianne Feinstein

Posted on by

It will not effect hunting or sporting firearms, instead the bill will protect hunters and sportsman.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
January 24, 2013
Feinstein: Goal is to Dry Up the Supply Of Weapons Over Time
[Ignore the “effect” instead of “affect” error. That could have been the reporter not Feinstein. Instead concentrate on “the bill will protect hunters and sportsman”.

Thank you Senator Feinstein, that line should go down in history with other memorably phrases such as the following:

I am of the opinion that Senator Feinstein has fully mastered doublethink. What she did here demonstrates her contempt for the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

This quote should be used as evidence at her trial.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adrian Bogdan

Posted on by

In the old country we used to celebrate holidays with a day of rest, a picnic, going to the pool, etc.  Until they came up with the idea of celebrating “through work”…  kinda like this:

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama–national-day-of-service-offers-a-chance-to–change-lives–110548447.html

Adrian Bogdan
January 18, 2013
[I find it interesting in a very scary sort of way when I talk to people that lived under communism.

See also other comments from Bogdan.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Posted on by

As I listened to Barack Obama’s inaugural speech yesterday, the memory of Sing-Sing and that particular prisoner floated into my memory.

Obama’s vision of America is Sing-Sing.

The government will provide just about everything you need to survive.

In return, you will surrender your freedom.

But don’t worry—and this is the most insidious part of post modern liberalism—slavery will be redefined as freedom.

Robert J. Avrech
January 22, 2013
Welcome to Obama’s Sing-Sing
[Roosevelt’s four “freedoms” can be met in a prison. Avrech merely expresses it in more direct language than some Obama and Roosevelt defenders would be comfortable with.

From talking to a fair number of people I’m shocked at the number who see it as a reasonable trade. I can see now why tyrants often come to power from the ashes of a collapsed economy. And because of this one might also postulate that those that drive an economy into collapse frequently want to be tyrants.

Avrech status with me is close to reaching the point where I put him in the same category as Tam. Tam is no longer eligible for QOTD because she would dominate nearly every day.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark Ridley Thomas

Posted on by

Let’s stop mincing words; Let progressives — not all but certainly many — stop feigning tolerance for a gun culture we abhor and rampant gun ownership we cannot comprehend.

Mark Ridley Thomas
January 17, 2013
Supervisor for the Second District in Los Angeles County
The National Rifle Association Is Correct: I Do Want Your Guns
[First off, his admission should be used as evidence at his trial.

Second, if he has that tough of a problem with comprehension why isn’t he in an institution of some sort instead of public office?

Third, H/T to Say Uncle.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Doesn’t it seem more than a little messed up when Pravda is urging us to never give up our guns, telling us we are wrong to go down the Marxist path while the New York Times is urging us to give up the constitution?

Ammunition Capacity Limits – the “why” of the matter

Posted on by

Trying to cut to the chase; there are two possible reasons that I can see, why a rogue government (and let’s be honest– that’s what we’ve had for some time now) would want to limit ammunition capacity. One would be simply to irritate and harass their political opposition, putting a few innocent people in jail now and then as a bonus. The other would be to limit the ability of the citizenry to fight against mass attacks (two or more assailants).i.e. to promote the ease of government attacking citizens. A possible third reason, going along in part with the first, would be to generally degrade society with more complex laws, more bureaucracy and more violent crime (criminals will have 30 round mags, but law-abiders won’t).

Any or all of those motivations would appeal naturally to any authoritarian, and to anyone who sees the founding of the U.S. as a problem (unfair, unjust, etc.)

If anyone can think of another reason, I’d like to know it.

ETA, 1-18-13; I’d thought of another, hoping maybe someone would chime in with it, and Publius pretty much, sort of did in comments here, though it’s not the way I would have put it. That motivation being to control the framework of the conflict (between liberty and authoritarianism), to keep us fighting THEIR fight and not ours. On that they have done a most excellent job– I bet you can find a million words, just today, about details of this or that proposed restriction and how it will not “work”. Well, it is working– they’re keeping us talking about THEIR ideas. As I’ve said before and elsewhere; it is a subtle yet crucial tactic, though most every little kid understands it. You see that bratty kid fussing loudly at his mother in the supermarket? He knows how to keep his mom off balance, off kilter, off her game, distracted, irritated, embarrassed, until he gets something from her (recently I noticed one such brat pause in his “tantrum” to look around and make sure he was getting a reaction from bystanders, then resume his fake tantrum, thus demonstrating that he understood exactly what he was doing). HE set the agenda, the framework of the conflict, not his mom. That one should have occurred to me foremost. It goes along with number one, but the distinction is between simply wanting to irritate your opposition on one hand, because you dislike them, and maintaining control of the whole discussion’s very framework on the other. The communists are experts at this.

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

Posted on by

Governor “Common Sense” Cuomo is a stumbling, bumbling example of the kind of person emotionally unsuited for high office, a fact the flaws in the draconian SAFE Act will show over time as unintended consequences catch up to bad legislation.

Bob Owens
January 17, 2013
Oops. Were there not LEO magazine exemptions in the rushed NY SAFE Act?
[H/T to Chris Knox who retweeted thegunwire.

The only thing I can add is that anyone who advocates for gun control is emotional, logically, and philosophically unsuited for any public job above toilet scrubber.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Daniel Greenfield

Posted on by

Revolution works best when the authorities are weakened by a transition period, when they were once oppressive, but have been liberalizing, or where they are asserting a new level of authority that the people are not used to. It is in these transition points that revolutions are most effective because the authorities are not ready to cope with them and the people are made bold and desperate by the uncertainty.

Daniel Greenfield
January 14, 2013
And This is Revolution
[H/T to Rudy Kearney.

Interesting stuff. Almost all assertions with a bit of anecdote thrown it, but still interesting.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Adrian Bogdan

Posted on by

I cannot begin to tell you how many memories, flash-back and déjà vu moments I’ve had…

Youth brigades with full indoctrination programs and training to rat on all non-conformists, including their own families, mandatory service of up to 2 years in some sort of “service corps” for “mandatory national service” (which ultimately will turn out to be work brigades needed for cheap slave labor), nationwide police force with full military capabilities and numbers surpassing it and all the “patriotic” work they will be doing like income verification (making sure you’re not living above your means), suppression of free speech and all other basic rights, midnight roundups and arrests, impromptu inspections of homes/businesses/vehicles with no need of any kind of search warrant, unlimited detention at the slightest suspicion of illegal activities (guess how many things will still be legal by then) and so on, so forth. 

Just a recommendation: start showing these proposals to the people you know from the old communist block and then take notes.  Most of them can tell you from memory what the road map will look like. 

Adrian Bogdan
January 15, 2013
From the gun email list at work.
[While the context was the anticipated attack this morning on gun rights by the President Adrian was actually referring to a different article. Still, the road map could be similar.

Other people don’t exactly have a “warm and fuzzy” feeling over the current activities of our public servants either.

It’s interesting to hypothesize parallels to the Palmer Raids which could be used in our current situation:

The Justice Department launched a series of raids on January 2, 1920 with follow up operations over the next few days. Smaller raids extended over the next 6 weeks. At least 3000 were arrested, and many others were held for various lengths of time. The entire enterprise replicated the November action on a larger scale, including arrests and seizures without search warrants, as well as detention in overcrowded and unsanitary holding facilities. Hoover later admitted “clear cases of brutality.” The raids covered more than 30 cities and towns in 23 states, but those west of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio were “publicity gestures” designed to make the effort appear nationwide in scope. Because the raids targeted entire organizations, agents arrested everyone found in organization meeting halls, not only arresting non-radical organization members but also visitors who did not belong to a target organization, and sometimes American citizens not eligible for arrest and deportation.

The Department of Justice at one point claimed to have taken possession of several bombs, but after a few iron balls were displayed to the press they were never mentioned again.

About 10,000 were eventually arrested.

Also the Japanese (and lesser known Italian and German) internment camps are also examples worthy of using for potential parallels.

And, of course, it was a liberal/progressive administration in charge at the time of both the Palmer Raids and the internment camps.

The way it could come about is as follows. There will be widespread noncompliance and heated talk about the “common sense” legislation when the next tragedy occur. Then, particularly if it involves a government entity, those most vocal will be targeted even when they had nothing to do with the violence.

Our Federal government hasn’t passed a budget in, what, three years now? There is significant political tension over the debt and debt ceiling

In times of discontent the government needs scapegoats. Gun owners are now the designated scapegoats. It’s could turn into an extremely rapid escalation of events. The more we complain and the more we resist the more valid the claims that “we can’t be trusted with weapons of war” may appear. They then “have to” confiscate them to preserve our “democracy” (I know it’s a republic but they won’t admit that).

I can see the sound bites now:

  • Those most hostile to our way of life must not be allowed to spread their hate.
  • They do not represent true American values and respect for our form of government.
  • While still respecting the 2nd Amendment we must restrict the rights of a few gun owners in order to respect the rights of the population as a whole to be free from fear.

    Sure, virtually no one is talking about stuffing people in cattle cars right now. But five weeks ago we didn’t, and most probably couldn’t, imagine we would be seeing seven round magazine limits being law, or a full-court press for a more restrictive “assault weapon” ban at the Federal level.

    Things sometimes happen extremely quick. The Rwandan genocide went from moderate tension to mass murder in 30 minutes. Many other events of historical significance went from moderate tension to massive human rights violations over the course of a just a few weeks or months. And, of course, it will be for the children.—Joe]

    • Gun cartoon of the day

    Posted on by

    ExecutiveOrder2ndAmendment

    From The Patriot Post.

    What if the president were to publically announce they were going to sign an executive order to “research” the detrimental effects of free speech or Christianity? Or how about the prohibiting the reading of material from international sources that had no “sporting or scientific purpose”?

    Why can’t people see how disturbing it is that a single person has the power to place restrictions on a specific enumerated right? It’s a really bad precedent to allow.

    Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

    Posted on by

    The automobile represents freedom.

    You climb into a car and go, go, go, whenever and wherever you want. The car is modern man’s path to liberty.

    Contrast cars with trains.

    Railroads are an expression of the collective. Individual identity is erased. You are at the mercy of a state-controlled system that turns citizens into passive cogs, manipulated and at the mercy of government bureaucrats.

    That’s why democrats/progressives/liberals/ (what are they calling themselves this week?) are obsessed with high-speed rail. The freedom of the road is repellent to big government fanatics. The ruling elite seek to regulate and control tobacco, food, calories, soda, education, light bulbs, toilets, health care, reproduction — your every cell. In short: liberty is constricted by any and all means.

    And all in the name of an amorphous, preadolescent concept: Fairness.

    And you better believe that the chattering elite are the ones who get to define what’s fair and what’s unfair. Funny how that always works out in their favor.

    Nazis just adored trains. And hey, the Italian fascists boasted that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Though Italian trains were about as effective and efficient as the Italian army. Which is to say: Not.

    At a certain point, one must acknowledge the convergent philosophies of post-modern liberals and iron-fist fascists. Both ideologies assert the power of the state as the final arbiter of human affairs. Hence, the government replaces G-d and family as the center of man’s universe. It’s no surprise that the formal title of the Nazi party was “The National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

    Robert J. Avrech
    January 3, 2013
    Hollywood: I Drive Therefore I am Free
    [And what point will we “acknowledge the convergent philosophies of post-modern liberals and iron-fist fascists”? As a nation we clearly have not yet acknowledged it or else many who acknowledge it also welcome it. And I fear even if we were to acknowledge today it would already be too late.

    We have some very rough times ahead of us.—Joe]