Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the day—Lyle@UltiMAK

Posted on by

I suppose that if we’re going to discuss who is compensating for what; the argument could be made that those who want more government in their lives, those who feel the need for the forceful interventions by government, are compensating for a lack of confidence in their ability to interact productively with other people in a free society. They don’t see themselves as capable of prospering when the rules are level and people’s rights are equally protected, so they have to advocate a system that gives them some special advantage over their betters. They’re compensating for weakness, meekness, timidity, self loathing, lack of imagination and other inabilities, so they’re looking for outlets for their jealousy and the hatred that comes from it.

Lyle@UltiMAK
February 27, 2012
Comment to Quote of the day—OC.
[This makes a lot more sense than some sort of penis envy the anti-gun people claim to exist in regards to firearms ownership.—Joe]

Quote of the day–Rep. Daryl Metcalfe

Posted on by

Local elected officials are not above the law, and I think it’s arrogant and disrespectful of the citizens of this state when you have a local elected official who thinks they can pass any law they want willy-nilly.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe
February 25, 2012
Gun bill could put Allentown on defensive–NRA wants owners of firearms to take cities with reporting laws to court.
[It’s no different than if a city were to pass a law prohibiting interracial or gay marriages. The state possess the sole power to regulate marriages and in this case as well as many others the state has the sole power to regulate firearms. City politicians that think they have the power regulate firearms have a lot in common with those that discriminate against other minorities and should be dealt with in the same manner and public scorn.—Joe]

Quote of the day—James Huffman-Scott

Posted on by

The existence of a position with the title “Political Officer” fills me with rage. In the military or a business the mere existence of such a position is evidence the government should be overthrown.

James Huffman-Scott
February 20, 2012
This was said while watching Voices of Authority in season three of Babylon 5.
[Yeah. It is just a TV show but I can understand that if it were to happen in real life. And I can see we aren’t that far away from it actually happening here. Having your friends and neighbors sending an email to the Whitehouse (search for “flag” on this page) about something you said in opposition to a government program or policy in violation of Federal law is a relatively small step from having a political officer looking over your shoulder all of the time.

It’s probably because of my advancing age and desensitization from the constant assaults to our freedom over the years that I don’t get nearly as angry about things like that anymore.

Instead of getting angry I spend my time building tools to enable the revolution should the offenses reach an intolerable level with no other options available.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Posted on by

Why apply prior restraint to a Constitutionally-protected right, then? Barring stupidity, deliberate ignorance or outright insanity, … unreasoning prejudice is the only motive.

Roberta X
February 21, 2012
Running The Numbers
[For a simple one-word answer “prejudice” is close enough and probably should be used in those contexts where sound bytes are important. But the real answer is probably much more complex. There is more than a little ignorance, a fair amount of stupidity and a lot of near insanity as well. Read about Peterson Syndrome for a more complete story on that mix.

But what Roberta left out was hatred, maliciousness, and evil. There are those that would disarm us because they know that if we have arms we will forcefully resist their final ultimate solution to what they believe to be the problems of the world.—Joe]

It a government rule! It doesn’t have to make sense

Posted on by

Now that my ATF license to manufacture explosives has been successfully renewed I’m going to take a chance and poke a little fun at them.

First off let me say that the people I dealt with were all very professional and went out of their way to help resolve the problem with far less hassle than they could have had they just wanted to be bureaucratic jerks. I find no fault whatsoever with the ATF people I dealt with. The problem is with the regulations. Regulations sometimes aren’t really applicable to every situation. But that doesn’t mean that the bureaucrats enforcing the regulations or the peons subject to those regulations can decide to ignore them. We are mostly just stuck with them.

With those caveats imagine my surprise when after several years of using the Taj Mahal for storage of explosives as a “Type 1” explosives magazine I was told it was actually an “indoor magazine” and hence a “Type 2” magazine. See the applicable regulations here.

The Taj Mahal looks like this:

The door you see inside the metal shed is the theft and bullet resistant portion of the magazine and is 3’x6’x6′. The metal shed is 10’x14’xHeadScalpingHeight. I considered the shed part of the magazine. The shed provides protection from the rain and snow and the heavy steel and locks provides the theft and bullet resistance. For several years the ATF inspectors apparently saw it the same way.

The new inspector and her supervisor didn’t see it that way:

It is not considered a permanent structure because it is a shed that can be moved. Am I correct in the fact that the building is not attached to the ground (with cement, etc)?

It is attached to the concrete with bolts. But that wasn’t good enough:

I have reviewed the report and photographs of the magazine and have determined it to be an indoor Type II magazine.   Even though the magazine is bolted into the concrete, does not make it permanent and the shed is not incidental.    For purposes of establishing an indoor magazine, ATF has determined that the building or structure in which the magazine is placed:

1.     Is of suitable, stable construction to provide protection from wind and other inclement weather conditions.
2.    The structure’s walls and roof are constructed of metal, wood, brick, cement or concrete and makes the structure unsusceptible to mobility or intrusion.
3.    The base or floor of the structure consists of earth or other flat, level material which can sustain the weight of the magazine.
4.    The doors are secured to provide additional security and theft-resistance to the magazine.

In my review, I have determined that the shed meets the requirements, as stated above, for a building or structure.   Even though the magazine may weigh 3000 lbs and is bolted to the concrete it still does not meet the definition of a Type 01 magazine.  As it is currently constructed, this magazine is classified as a Type 2 indoor magazine.  Thus it can only hold a maximum of 50 lbs of explosives materials. 

Okay, so what?

The issue is that the maximum amount of explosives you can store in an “Type 2 Indoor Magazine” is 50 pounds. For a “Type 1” magazine it is determined by the distance to the nearest inhabited building or public road or railway. With a distance of 1950 feet to the nearest inhabited building I was previously allowed to store up to 18,000 pounds of high explosives at that site (sorry Barron, I was mistaken, it has to be 2000 feet before we could store 180,000 pounds). The Taj couldn’t hold that much because it was too small but it was nice to know I could pack it full without worrying about getting in trouble with the ATF.

A 50 pound limit just doesn’t work for our situation. We store about 1600 pounds at the Taj on the Saturday night before Boomershoot.

After getting the bad news from the ATF I started asking questions:

Would it become a Type I magazine, and hence be allowed more than 50 pounds of explosives material, if the shed were removed and the magazine were exposed?

I didn’t get a reply so some time later I sent another email:

I would like to know if a solution to Type I/Type II problem is for me to remove the metal shed.

It would also be useful for me to find out the definition you are using for the word “permanent” in this sentence:

Even though the magazine is bolted into the concrete, does not make it permanent and the shed is not incidental.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary (used by the ATF in ATF Ruling 2005-3) permanent means:

1. Lasting or remaining without essential change: “the universal human yearning for something permanent, enduring, without shadow of change” (Willa Cather).
2. Not expected to change in status, condition, or place: a permanent address; permanent secretary to the president.

By that definition the shed and magazine are permanent. I am having difficulty in imaging how it can be considered a Type II magazine because according to 555.208, “A Type II magazine is a box, trailer, semitrailer, or other mobile facility”.  Below is a picture of the base of the magazine and shed while it was under construction:

Four inches of concrete were poured into the forms above and the shed and magazine was bolted to it. I am unable to find any definition of “mobile” for which the concrete slab and attached structures qualifies. If it would make a difference I would be glad to weld the magazine to the slab instead of just bolting it.

If necessary what I can also do is only use it to store materials “In the process of manufacture” as per 555.205 since if it is “In the process of manufacture” the materials don’t need to be kept in a locked magazine.

Please advise.

In response the story changed just a little bit:

Just to make sure that I have classified this magazine correctly, I am forwarding your e-mail to our Explosives Industry Programs Branch for review.  They will make a classification of your magazine. 

I have one question, I agree that the shed would be permanent but it is not part of the magazine.  The shed is what makes it an indoor magazine.  Since the regulations do not have a description of an indoor Type 1 we must classify this as a Type II.   Even though difficult, can the bolts be removed and thus making the magazine mobile?

Less than hour later (I’m impressed the bureaucracy could move this fast) I received the following email:

The Explosives Industry Programs Branch (EIPB) also has classified this as an indoor magazine.  Since there is no definition for a Type I indoor magazine, it must be classified as a Type II.  EIPB stated that you can remove the shed and that would resolve the 50 lb limitation.  The limitation for the magazine would be 18,000 lbs.  The other possible solution is that you can apply for a variance to store in excess of 50 lbs in an indoor magazine.  The magazine must meet the Tables of Distance and construction requirements.  I am not sure it will be approved but you may want to make that request before taking down the shed.

So it’s the existence of the shed and not the “mobility” of the shed that makes it a Type 2! That give me an opening for more questions:

Assumi
ng I remove the shed I would then need to cover the magazine with a more weather resistant covering such as the metal from the shed. What would the maximum spacing between the magazine and the metal covering before it would become an indoor magazine again?

You can see where I’m going with this, right? Apparently so could the ATF because they responded with:

I am trying to find a simpler solution to the problem.   I have a few suggestions into our EIPB that may not be an extensive as building a new structure but changing the old one.   I should have an answer in the morning.

Early the next morning I received the following email:

Here is the easiest solution that we could come up with.  Empty the shed of all materials except the magazine, remove the doors or a wall of the shed.  Since the magazine is not totally enclosed in the shed it would no longer be an indoor magazine.   I think that would resolve all of the issues.  Let me know what you think.

So the bottom line is that if I remove the doors from the shed I can store 18,000 pounds of explosives. If I put the doors on I can only store 50 pounds.

It doesn’t have to make sense. It’s just a government rule.

Message for Rick Santorum

Posted on by

I read the book this guy wrote. It is awesome: Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships.

Reading the book you find your jaw sort of dropping and thinking, “Wow! That make so much sense and explains so much.”

I was reminded of this after Say Uncle pointed out Rick Santorum says he will fight the dangers of contraception—some people will want to have sex without any intention of had a child result from it. As a commenter pointed out, “I thought Ron Paul is supposed to be the kook…”

Quote of the day—Elias Isquith

Posted on by

I’m a great example of why it is that the NRA simply mops the floor with its opponents when it comes to influencing DC. As Bloomberg rightly notes, they — gun fetishists or simply Second Amendment absolutists — care way, way more. In fact, it’s not uncommon for that to be the only thing an NRA member cares about. A lifetime of political activism funneled into simply one tiny and, I would argue, frivolous niche.

Elias Isquith
February 17, 2012
Mike Bloomberg And The Politics Of Gun Control
[Regardless of his distain for gun owners there is a certain amount of truth in his statement. Many of us are willing to vote for (or against) someone strictly on the basis of their stand on specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Yes, many of us use the Second Amendment as a strong indicator of a politician’s support for freedom in general. But conversely the anti-freedom people could claim the same thing with a sign change, “If a politician supports gun ownership then you know he is not going to support the type of government that is going to send all the people we don’t like off to the reeducation camps.” But for some reason it doesn’t work for them that way.

It is my suspicion the anti-freedom people can only succeed when they are deceptive. They have to hide their true intentions. They have to express their goals in terms of free unicorns for everyone instead of jack-booted thugs crushing human skulls. Raw anti-freedom simply doesn’t generate that many votes. Gun owners understand that guns are a strong indicator, and a requirement, of free society. Hence we do care more about guns and are willing to vote on that single issue.—Joe]

Here Come De Judge

Posted on by

Via Uncle;

I don’t know the whole back story, but I sure liked all the “what ifs”.  Yes; Ronald Reagan, The One, to whom all others must be compared, Ronaldus Magnus, presided over a near doubling of the federal budget, and was all in on the drug war.  I hadn’t previously heard of the things he said about Santorum.  Oh goody.

So how can we fix it?  It’s already been push verses shove for a long time (my neighbor, the political prisoner, gets out of the federal poke in a few months, but his business is totally gone)(I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told, “You’d better watch what you say…!”).  Ours has just been less violent than, say, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Cultural Revolution.  So far.  I for one would like to keep it that way, but only if it can be going the opposite direction (away from statism and toward liberty).  We’d had far too much of this shit by the time I was born, during the Eisenhower administration.

I suppose then, what we need in a presidential campaign is someone who has a plan to “maintain the revolution, but turn it around the other way and without unnecessary killing”.

I’ll be interested to know where De Judge goes from here.

Quote of the day—Manolis Glezos

Posted on by

Enough is enough! They have no idea what an uprising by the Greek people means. And the Greek people, regardless of ideology, have risen.

Manolis Glezos
February 12, 2012
Glezos is one of Greece’s most famous leftists.
This was in response to the looting, rioting, and burning of the city of Athens and other places in Greece due to cuts in government spending.
Greek lawmakers approve austerity bill as Athens burns
[I know what it means. It means:

  • If leftists can’t loot via political means they will loot via direct violence.
  • Leftists do not understand economic reality.
  • We can expect to see the violence spread across Europe and to America as economic reality runs its course.

Barb and I had breakfast with son James and his wife Kelsey today. They were contemplating what the economic collapse would look like. This is probably a glimpse of what we have to look forward to.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jacob Sullum

Posted on by

Every time an advocate of gun control promises not to impair the recreational activities of hunters, he demonstrates his contempt for the values underlying the Second Amendment, implying that the issues at stake are trivial.

Jacob Sullum
Reason December 1995: 50-55
Via Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms page 60.
[Or as Weer’d Beard said, “George Washington didn’t cross the Delaware River to get to his duck blind.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jonathan Rauch

Posted on by

How can I let the introvert in my life know that I support him and respect his choice? First, recognize that it’s not a choice. It’s not a lifestyle. It’s an orientation.

Second, when you see an introvert lost in thought, don’t say “What’s the matter?” or “Are you all right?”

Third, don’t say anything else, either.

Jonathan Rauch
March 2003
Caring for Your Introvert—The habits and needs of a little-understood group
[This entire article really resonated with me. In addition to the “Caring for your introvert” aspects there are some profound political considerations addressed. The first thought I had was “Too bad it would be unconstitional to ban extroverts from seeking public office.”

Hi. My name is Joe and I am an introvert.—Joe]

Update: Applicable images from a reader who says the first one “… is especially for Lyle”:

 

IntrovertImage02IntrovertAnonIntrovertImage01

Quote of the day—Wallace Carroll

Posted on by

Can’t we Americans here at home do something to lift the gun terror from our schools, playgrounds, parking lots, malls, post offices, housing projects, highways and the grim reaches of our cities where the police must risk their lives to uphold the law?

Of course we can. What we have to do now is to free ourselves from one of the great hoaxes of the 20th century.

This mighty country stands paralyzed in the face of an ever-spreading plague of guns. This national calamity we owe to the leaders of the National Rifle Association in Washington. With a tenacity and ferocity worthy of a better cause, they have fought every proposal, however moderate, to bring the menace under control.

In this endeavor, their principal weapon has been the Second Amendment to the Constitution — or, rather, their version of the Second Amendment.

That amendment, they have insisted, gives everyone an absolute constitutional right to have every kind of firearm. Brandishing that “right,” spending millions in lobbying and legal maneuvers and threatening doom to politicians who would oppose them, they have killed or stalled gun control initiatives in Congress, state legislatures and city governments.

At last, however, the nation is on the move.

…

Now the great Second Amendment hoax can be nailed once and for all if the rank-and-file of the NRA and other responsible citizens will master one simple truth: The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means. It does not mean what the NRA leaders have been telling the nation all these years.

Wallace Carroll
July 4, 1993
To End the Gun Terror, End the Second Amendment Hoax
[Those were the dark days of gun rights activism. That was the attitude nearly everywhere in the media and many of the politicians. Guns were a terror, a plague, a menace, and a national calamity. The standard view of the Second Amendment was a hoax, a lie, and a fraud.

I agree with one thing he said. The Second Amendment means what the courts say it means.

The problem for Mr. Carroll is that he was, probably deliberately, misreading the Miller decision and ignoring the Cruikshank decision. The Heller decision made things much more difficult for people like Carroll to distort. The question is now that the courts have agreed with the NRA on the meaning of the Second Amendment does Carroll still insist that the meaning of the Second Amendment is what the courts say it is? Or does he now insist that the Supreme Court has perpetuated a fraud on the American people as well?

Or does Carroll now admit it was he that was the hoaxer or at least the one that fell for a fraud?—Joe]

Tell me if you already heard this one

Posted on by

Numerous individuals, known as straw buyers, were recruited to buy AK-47 like semi-automatic firearms. These firearms were then sent to Mexico for use by a drug cartel.

One of the firearms in the hands of the cartel was used in a shooting which resulted in the death of a U.S. law enforcement official.

Sound familiar?

Okay. Well this is probably something you haven’t heard. The perpetrator, Manuel Gomez Barba, of Baytown, Texas, has been sentenced to 100 months for the exportation of the 44 firearms.

The ATF illegally exported something on the order of 2000 firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Does that mean those criminals will receive 2000/44 x 100 months (~380 years) in prison for their crimes?

I don’t think so. Tar and feathers might also be considered appropriate but also have a near zero chance of coming to pass.

I claim retirement at full pay with bonuses will be the most likely outcome.

Quote of the day—Jim Geraghty

Posted on by

The administration that took military action in Libya without any authorization from force from Congress, that appointed czars with policymaking authority without Congressional confirmation, and that made ‘recess’ appointments while Congress was not in recess is invoking executive privilege to cover how the Department of Justice reacted when Congress began asking about a gun-trafficking operation that got U.S. law enforcement officers murdered by Mexican drug cartels.

All from a president who railed against a runaway imperial presidency when George W. Bush sat in the office he currently occupies.

Jim Geraghty
February 2, 2012
Eric Holder Should Become a Campaign Issue Today
[H/T to Say Uncle.

I’ve had admitted Marxist’s tell me, “We just need to have the right people in charge.” The problem is that power always attracts the people that can least be trusted with that power.

The only option is to not give anyone that much power. I don’t understand why this lesson has to be taught again and again. People have understood this since at least 1776.—Joe]

Shame on NSSF and Glock

Posted on by

I received an email from author Paul Barrett (my review of Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun is here) this afternoon with a link to this article. The most interesting thing I found was the following:

Apparently, the executives at Glock Inc., the Smyrna, Ga., subsidiary of Glock GmbH are worried about the book’s look behind the scenes at the company. So Glock Inc. forced the National Shooting Sports Foundation to rescind my press credentials for the 2012 SHOT Show expo floor. Talk about disrespect for First Amendment free speech rights!

What?

Okay, so the First Amendment doesn’t always apply to non-government actors attempting to silence or restrict your access information. But even if it isn’t actually a First Amendment issue there are some principles involved here.

I can understand Glock being miffed at the revealing of some unsavory insider details in the book. But this is shutting the barn window after the horse has left, found a mare or three, and established a herd on the open plains.

I could see Glock employees refusing to talk to Barrett and maybe even asking him to leave their booth. But putting pressure on NSSF to rescind his press credentials? That’s way out of line. It was also stupid. Can you say, “Streisand Effect“?

And NSSF went along with this?

Shame on both of them.

Blind faith

Posted on by

I’ve met and talked to a lot of anti-gun activists. With perhaps one exception I always got the impression they were generally nice people. Misguided, sometimes ignorant, and frequently not very bright but they were nice and I wouldn’t have minded having one of them as a neighbor or socializing with them if the topic of guns didn’t come up.

That said we sometimes ascribe evil intent to the anti-gun people. In the case of certain politicians such as Chuck Schumer, the Clintons, and President Obama (none of which I have ever met or talked to) this may be true. But generally there is something else going on. The people just aren’t the “evil type”.

But of course just because someone is a “nice” person doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t inadvertently advocate for and enable something terribly evil all the while believing they were doing good. Like I said, a lot of these people aren’t that bright.

Lorne Gunter said something on this topic that struck me as highly likely (emphasis added):

There are around 340,000 violent crimes reported to police in Canada each year. Just over 2% of those (around 8,000) involve firearms. (There’s another reason to question the initial wisdom of the gun registry: Why was Ottawa expending so much time, effort and taxpayer money on such a tiny percentage of violent crimes, while doing comparatively little to prevent the 98% of murders, robberies, kidnappings, rapes and beatings not committed with a gun?)

Typically, gun crime is committed by street criminals using stolen or contraband weapons. The gun registry never had any effect on this class of thug. Some of the 8,000 violent gun crimes no doubt were committed by licensed owners using registered guns — people who might be tracked or even deterred using a registry system. But since no one in Ottawa ever had any idea how many people are in this latter group, they had no way of determining the usefulness of the registry.

A cynic might say that not knowing was the point all along. Backers of the registry knew it would produce very little impact, so they deliberately didn’t bother collecting data that would confirm the database’s uselessness.

I think the truth is less conspiratorial (and far more arrogant): Backers were so sure the registry would produce tangible benefits, they never thought they might need to show proof. After all, they were experts and they had thought it up, so how could it not work?

…

It was purely on blind faith that supporters of the registry — police chiefs, victims’ rights groups, women’s shelter operators and grandstanding politicians — assumed that making Canadians register their guns would magically cut down on violent crime.

Faith, in this context, means believing in something without, or even in spite of, evidence. It was, and is, blind faith motivating these people to continue advocating for gun control. As I have pointed out before and some of them have even agreed, they do not know, or care, how to determine truth from falsity.

As an engineer this is abhorrent to me. When I design a filter using an op-amp, a couple capacitors, and resisters I can predict the frequency response within a fraction of a decibel. But I still test it because it’s possible I made a mistake someplace or a part doesn’t meet the vendor’s specification that I used for the design.

When I design an algorithm for estimating the location of a phone based on the presence of visible Wi-Fi access points and cell towers I know pretty darned close what the accuracy is and how long it will take to do the calculations. But I still test it and there is a test team doing their best to shoot my design and implementation down.

I recognize that human behavior is far more complex and less predictable than electronics and software algorithms. But that just screams that tests have to be done on social experiments. Yet, these people are so stupid (or, granted, in some cases malicious) they not only don’t even bother trying to predict the results or think to do tests but cannot imagine why tests would be needed.

These people deserve all the “respect” of a cargo cult or Heaven’s Gate followers.

Unfortunately this faith is not confined to just gun control. It is my hypothesis that this same blind faith template would match most U.S. government program of the last 100 years.

Quote of the day—Roberta X

Posted on by

Both of the big parties — matched set of jackboots that they are — assume they own women’s bodies. They just have differing plans for them.

Roberta X
January 14, 2012
They Both Think They Own Me
[I was just listening to Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by Thomas Sowell. One of the things he pointed out that it’s the wrong question to ask, “Where did slavery come from?” As near as we can determine slavery has been around (and continues to exist) since before writing was invented. The real question is, “Where did freedom come from?”

With this background it seems likely that the desire to “own” other human is hardwired into some primitive part of most peoples brains. This manifests itself in many different ways.

Some people are more aware of these urges than others and outright claim, “I was born to regulate.” Others have claimed a divine right from the god(s) to rule other people. Even many of those who do not claim ownership or the right to rule others for their personal benefit will insist there be a ruler to take ownership of both them and their neighbors.

It may be that brief twinkle of freedom in history was an aberration and those reaping the benefits of freedom grew too fatigued to support it (see Thomas Paine). I know that at times I feel the fatigue and yearn to have the burden lifted even as I see our freedoms rapidly disappearing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—President Barack Obama

Posted on by

We expect to have a full — a fully — or a comprehensive approach to dealing with these issues of border security that will involve supporting Calderón and his efforts in a partnership; also making sure that we are dealing with the flow of drug money and the guns south, because it’s really a two-way situation there. The drugs are coming north; we’re sending funds and guns south — and as a consequence, these cartels have gained extraordinary power.

President Barack Obama
March 11, 2010
The President and the Drug War: Part I
[I find it fascinating how his words, “we’re sending funds and guns south”, can be interpreted completely differently in present day than most people would have interpreted them at the time he said them.—Joe]

The Quintessential Republican

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

Quote of the day—Amos

Posted on by

It’s about feelings and self-identity for Progressives. They’re like monkeys. They’ve got enough primate brain to form tribes, but they just don’t use the higher faculties. So it’s no surprise that flinging crap is their modus operadi.

Amos
January 4, 2012
Comment to Well, your legislature asked for it
[The tribes thing stuck with me. They do have thing about about groups don’t they? The individual and individualism is denigrated. They say things such as “The good of society is more important than the individual.” And “It takes a village.” They put a lot of effort into masses of people into the streets without any clear rational message.

Yet it was individualism that created the tremendous advances in Western Civilization which other societies were forced to adopt (or attempt to destroy) lest they be left far, far behind.—Joe]