Archive for the ‘Constitution’ Category

Freedom Isn’t Free…This Means You

Monday, June 17th, 2013

“Phil from Hawaii” via Protein Wisdom:

I hear the voices of all murdered children. It is a joyful noise: they laugh and sing; safe at the footstool of the Lord.

I hear the voices of all parents of murdered children. They wail, they rage; lost in an abyss of grief. And no amount of teddy bears, no hugs, no laws can heal them. They are forever broken.

I hear myself. I rage, I weep: for all parents of murdered children; for my wife; for me. My 27 year old stepson, Michael Edward Young and, my 8 year old first grandchild, Joshua Allen Young were murdered in 1995 in Tempe, AZ. Abiding pain says it could have been just yesterday.

And I hear the drone of politicians. They weep in public, claiming others murdered children as their own. These children are not theirs, they are ours, are mine. For them to claim otherwise is pandering at its worst; is vile; is despicable.

Sometimes, the price of freedom is most steep. But personal tragedy, no matter how excruciatingly painful and enduring, is never justification to trash our Constitution.

Please, please read the whole thing; it’s important. Phil has put his finger on the magma rising in the rift that’s destroying my nation, and writes here why spilling blood in the coming fight is necessary.

It’s not just the military that will have to pay the price of freedom; it’s every single one of us, even our children, one way or another.

Unpragmatic

Thursday, May 16th, 2013

Speaking of The Fall, see this over at House of Eratosthenes:

I am weary of pragmatism being placed before altruism, seemingly, from my perspective if from none other, at lightning speed. Republican or democrat, I’m sure all presidents are going to have political enemies in positions of power, and it’s important to me that politically weak presidents be held to the same standards as strong presidents. Okay, not really — in the sense that I acknowledge this is never going to happen. Politics is political. Weaklings die early on and die hard in political things. It’s in the dictionary definition, I think. People who “shouldn’t” come out on top, do. Is it too much to ask, though, that we can minimize the effect? We certainly demand it out of our representatives that they pretend to debate these cases based on the merits. Seems to me, if we don’t demands substance behind the symbolism, then we’re pretty much demanding that all our representatives have to be liars.

Which, later on, we’re going to want to complain about it. And boy howdy are there are lots of people who like to! But you don’t get to complain about the house being on fire if you’re the one pumping gasoline.

So, a little honesty please. If the point is that impeachment charges should not be brought, let’s hear all about Obama’s innocence. Or, if He’s guilty, how strong the nation is and how capable it is of surviving the stewardship of someone who, we know now, we can’t trust about anything anywhere…who’s never going to know anything about anything that’s going on, if & when it turns to crap. Let’s hear how we’ll get through it all just fine and that’s why we shouldn’t make a big deal out of it. I’d really like to hear those arguments right about now.

But I don’t want to hear about how damaging it would be for Republicans. Or, Obama will politically survive anything and we all have to get used to it.

If Obama makes it to the next unelection, it’s all over anyway.

Life, Fortune, Sacred Honor

Sunday, April 21st, 2013

Mike Vanderboegh puts them where his mouth his.

So-Called

Saturday, April 20th, 2013

Erin at Lurking Rhythmically:

Here’s the lovely thing about rights: They aren’t up for a vote. That’s why they’re rights.

Let’s put it another way:

  • your so-called “suffrage”
  • your so-called “emancipation”
  • your so-called “integration”
  • your so-called “religious freedom”
  • your so-called “freedom of speech”
  • your so-called “right to due process”

One guess as to the right originally described as “so-called”.

Go read the whole thing. It’s a lovely little jewel of bracing vitriol.

via MArooned, who’s got some good words to say as well.

Two Liberal Lists: Lies and Racists

Sunday, March 17th, 2013

Glenn Reynolds starts many posts by saying, “They told me if I voted for Romney….”

Of course Romney lost despite Insty’s support, and all those things are happening anyway, and more, and worse.

But what else did “they”, those liberal prog Democrats, tell us?

Doug Ross has a list, and it’s pretty damn ugly:

They told me that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons would turn our streets into rivers of blood.

They told me that taking trillions of dollars from the successful and giving it to those “who truly needed it” would cure poverty.

They told me that giving home loans to those who couldn’t afford them would make the American dream achievable for all.

They told me that paying into the Social Security “Trust Fund” would guarantee a comfortable retirement for everyone.

They told me that allowing teachers to unionize in public schools would help inner city students reach for the stars.

They told me that the federal government could run a guaranteed, affordable health care program for seniors forever.

They told me that the new employment paradigm consisted of millions of “green jobs”.

They told me that their support for immoral and criminal behavior wouldn’t result in the breakdown of the two-parent family.

Of course, that’s not all. You should read the rest.

But his conclusion needs to be cast far and wide:

Everything they told me was a lie.

Everything they told me was wrong.

Intentionally, diabolically, criminally wrong.

And if we don’t begin to turn back the tide of centralized government, if we don’t politically obliterate the Democrat Party, this beautiful Republic, this magnificent country, this bastion of free enterprise and private property rights, this shining city on a hill… well, it will be finished.

Nice little blog you got there, Doug. Too bad if something happened to it, like the dreaded…RICKETY-LANCHE!

BWA-hahaha!

Seriously, the one or two of you out there, go give Ross the attention he deserves.


Then Brad Torgerson, consie SF writer, got into a fight with a liberal, Marguerite Reed, and some other liberals, few as smart or even polite as Reed was.

Still, this was pretty much no more than a fairly well mannered food fight, with tea and finger sandwiches. Eventually, though, the fuss attracted the attention of Larry Correia, he of Monster Hunter International fame, who stepped through the french doors, now transformed into swinging salooners.

And it was on. A good rollicking fight ensued. Noses bloodied, chairs smashed, tables toppled–Torgerson knows how to take care of himself, mind, but Larry just wants to get the job done, with as much fun as can be wrung out of such limp-brained prey.

And then, oh best beloved, and then, Larry called for orbital support, you know, just to be sure, and Tom Kratman laid down this carpet bombing.

He’s given his permission for wide dissemination. Well, I can’t help him with that, of course, but at least I’ll be able to find it again when I need it.

The Left’s 20 Rules of Racism

1. If you believe that general intelligence exists, is heritable and at all testable for, you’re a racist.

2. If you point out that liberal philosophies and programs intended to have a good impact have had a disproportionately bad impact on the ethnicities targeted by liberals, you’re a racist.

3. If you notice that other cultures have some problems, you’re a racist.

4. If you notice your own culture has had some successes, you’re a racist.

5. If you try to identify subcultural problems, you’re a racist. If the problems existed or got worse under liberalism, see item 2, above.

6. If you’re mainstream American culture, and don’t hate that culture, you’re a racist.

7. If you’re capable of noting unpleasant facts about subcultures and discussing them without your brain fogging, you’re a racist.

8. If you won’t kowtow and grovel as soon as someone accuses you of racism for one of the reasons above or below, you’re a hopeless racist.

9. If you do not believe that mankind is a tabula rasa for liberals to make whatever they think would be good to make of man, this week, you’re a racist.

10. If you don’t take personal responsibility for all the evils of slavery, you’re a racist. This is true even if you only arrived from Poland last week.

11. If you’re white, you’re a racist.

12. If you’re white and just arrived from Poland last week and don’t accept that you’re a racist, you’re a racist.

13. If you try to interject logical thought into a discussion of culture, you’re a racist.

14. If you refuse to admit culture is a racial matter, and a liberal wants to conflate the two, you’re a racist.

15. If you believe that race and culture are indistinguishable and a liberal decides that you shouldn’t conflate the two, you’re a racist.

16. If you believe that black or Hispanic girls who are paid by liberal inspired programs from the age of 13 to have babies will have babies, you’re a racist.

17. If you believe that _any_ girls of whatever color who are paid to have babies will then have babies but then, insensitively, observe that a smaller percentage of white girls do, certainly because they haven’t been targeted for as much “help” from liberals, you’re a racist.

18. If it doesn’t bother you that the truth offends liberals, you’re a racist.

19. If your name is Tom Kratman and you write and in your writing your heroes and heroines tend to be from minorities while your villains are white liberals, you’re still a racist.

20. If you read The Bell Curve, you’re a racist. On the other hand, if you didn’t read it but wrote a scathing review on Amazon anyway you might not be a racist provided you take personal responsibility for 300 years of slavery even if you just arrived from Poland last week.

The Right’s Twenty Rules of Racism

1. Anyone responsible for three hundred years of slavery would have to be a lot older than you and me.

2. There has to be some genetics in “racism’s” DNA, some DNA in its gene pool, or it just isn’t racism.

3. Racism could be eliminated in the United States if we could just eliminate the white liberals who so plainly depend on it so much and do so much to keep it going.

4. Reality isn’t racist: The reality is that there are pond-scummy gallows bait in every group. Some of those will be more of a problem to their own group than to you (see Rule 14, below). Some will be more of a problem to you precisely because you’re not a member of their group. It is wise, not racist, to avoid the latter. In Boston, this may be referred to as the “Evelyn Wagler-George Pratt Rule,” and that’s not code. Odd exception to half of Rule 4: Jesse Jackson would much rather be followed by a white on the streets of DC, at night, than a black.

5. There have been two instances in recent history where the concept of “honorary white” held sway. One was in apartheid South Africa where, for example, Japanese were considered “honorary white.” The other was when, in relation to the Trayvon Martin shooting, the American mainstream media made Hispanic George Zimmerman an “honorary white.” This is not entirely coincidence since (see Rule 18) the very liberal American media is as racist in their way as ever the Afrikaner Broederbond was in its.

6. Nobody really thinks whites are as evil as portrayed by white liberals and black demagogues. If they really thought so, they’d be too afraid to ever leave the house, since a) there are a lot more whites, b) those whites are much better armed, c) they’re more likely to be veterans of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ ground gaining combat arms, and d) they have an historically demonstrated cultural aptitude for mass, organized violence.

7. People who insist you’re speaking in code insist on it because they believe it’s true. They believe it’s true because they really do speak in code and can’t imagine anyone who does not speak in code. It’s not racist to think those people are idiots, nor to note that they’re mostly white. (Exception to rule: When conservatives talk about guns and zombies? Especially in terms of using the former to kill the latter? Yeah; “zombie” is code for “liberals of any color.” See Rule 6, above.)

8. It’s not racist to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of slavery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.

9. Speaking of slavery, the bulk of slave raiding and trading in Africa was black, usually Islamic black (see Rule 16, below), on black. The Arabic word for black and slave is the same, “Abd.” And the first registered slave owner in Virginia was black. Pointing this out to liberals, white and black, is always fun.

10. It’s not racist to wish that our first black president had been Thomas Sowell.

11. The “Some of my best friends” defense against a charge of racism is no defense…unless it happens to be true. Sometimes it’s best expressed to a white liberal as, “You don’t have so much as a day in uniform, do you, dipshit?”

12. The system of education that white liberals have inflicted on inner city blacks is a crime against humanity. No amount of money that they toss at it helps to overcome the elimination of discipline liberalism has caused. It’s neither racist to note this…nor wrong.

13. The various college and university minority “studies” programs, because they give a useless pseudo-education, and at very high cost in both money and time, are racist in their effects.

14. Most black crime is black on black crime. It is racist in its effects to deprive the black community of the social good that comes from executing black criminals that prey on other blacks.

15. It takes a white liberal idiot (Lord, forgive us our redundancies) not to understand the difference between casual sex with a member of another race and marrying and investing one’s entire reproductive effort in a member of another race. See, e.g., http://www.tomkratman.com/yoli.html. Dipshits.

16. Islam is not a race. Detesting Islam is not racist. There is nothing in Islam which genetically compels either slightly tanned Palestinians or totally white English reverts to pray toward Mecca five times daily, to self-detonate in crowded squares and movie theaters, to find offense in just about everything, nor even to clitorectomize their women. Flash alert: Lysenko was wrong. Dipshits.

17. When a liberal accuses you of racism, rejoice; it means the dipshit knows he or she is losing.

18. The worst racists are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that blacks and hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance. (That this also keeps a lot of liberal white social workers and bureaucrats employed is, of course, merely incidental. Ahem. Dipshits.)

19. There was a conservative argument for a kind of affirmative action. Unfortunately, all the money’s already been spent on employing white liberal social workers and bureaucrats, and we’re broke now, so that ship has sailed. Again, blame dipshit white liberals.

20. Screaming “Racism! Raaaacissssm!” on the part of a white liberal, when the matter in question has no DNA in its gene pool, no genetics in its DNA (see Rule 2, above), is the surest proof that said white liberal is genetically defective. And a dipshit. And it’s not racist to point this out.

Thats what he opened with, and all that was left was cleanup, until Reed shut the place down.

Go. Read the whole thing, it’s a lovely little riot, with tasty hot dogs and marshmallows roasting on spits over the still screaming bodies.

[update: fix a few linkage and copy-pasta errors, and some misteaken typing.]

Japete Attempts Reasonable Discussion

Tuesday, February 5th, 2013

Over at Commengunsense, and invites the rest of us to answer twenty questions.

I submitted answers, but somehow clicking preview resulted in publishing, so there are likely errors. Fortunately, I saved a copy before submitting. So here it is, as it went it up, bumbling and all.

1. …Criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns…

People who can’t be trusted with guns, can’t be trusted with liberty.

2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?

No way to do this without also infringing on the rights of the law abiding and peaceable.

3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?

Absolutely.

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Absolutely.

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen (I mean the physical action)?

Door to door civil war. Not the way it would start — mandatory, universal registration is a good bet — but that’s how it would end.

6. What do you think are the “second amendment remedies” that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?

Don’t know about Angle, but for me, if civil servants know that their masters, their masters, are armed as well as they are, they’ll be civil, not surly.
[Gah. This should be, "if civil servants know that their masters, the people".]

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don’t like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?

Hahahahaha. No.

8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?

I believe it is OK to call liars, liars. And when people demean me verbally, I should turn the other cheek. Or ignore them. As soon as they start trying to demean me with the law, or through force, though, it is OK for me to resist. With lethal force, if nothing less suffices.

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person’s face?

I would respond in kind.

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?

Yes, excepting laws against using weapons to commit violent crimes.

11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.

I believe there are current gun laws, yes. I believe most of them infringe the right to arms. And certainly they’re being enforced — sometimes, but often not against violent criminals. They exist and are enforced to disarm the lawabiding, not the criminal.

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

No.

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?

I believe my right to arms ought not be judged with statistics.

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should “count” in the total numbers?

See 13.

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?

See 13.

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?

See 13.

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
Arm the law abiding. Restrain the government. Repeal laws against contraband, especially, and allow law enforcement to concentrate on crimes with actual victims.

18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted

I’m not familiar with these articles.

19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally?

I doubt the ATF has ever heard of me.

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

I have tried, dozens and dozens of times, to engage in reasonable discussion.

But I have learned that almost always, “reasonable discussion” means that I’m supposed to shut up and do what I’m told. For my own good, of course.

Found via Cold Fury and Lawdog.

Saying It Right Out Loud

Saturday, February 2nd, 2013

I’ve been saying it privately for awhile now. Chris Muir says it in public.

Chris Muir -- Day by Day

Let’s be clear what illegitimate means: The laws and regulations the Feds pass, promulgate, and enforce aren’t legitimate either.

None of it is. The whole thing is rotten. The bad has infected the good, and far more of the government’s resources are spent on what it ought not do than what it must.

That doesn’t give folks free rein. It’s not a call for anarchy.

It means that we, the people, have to decide for ourselves what’s right and what’s wrong. It means we do for ourselves, and help each other.

It means that we think very carefully about what we do in response, if and when and how we show defiance.

There’s good news out there, of course. I won’t review it here. People are beginning to wake up.

But it’s not going to be easy.

QotD: Things We Think But Don’t Write

Friday, January 18th, 2013

Mike, writing as always in a Cold Fury, applauds the Missouri bill to make enforcement of any federal gun ban a felony, and stabs to the heart of the tyrants:

It’s no mystery why they hate [the Second Amendment] so much, and are so afraid of it; the fact is, they’re supposed to be. That’s, umm, the whole friggin’ point.

I should add that in this case, it’s not fear that keeps us from writing it, it’s that we have this in our hearts and bones; it’s one of our underlying assumptions. We forget that not everyone understands this.

And, of course, our servants, who should properly be trembling in fear of our lash, pray daily that not only do we withhold it, but that we forget it was ever in our hands.

If It Saves Just One Child

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

So, President God-Emperor has slipped the Constitutional leash completely, with the full support of The Children, and of course that of Responsible Gun Owners.

And not just, and how I love this, “The Usual Suspects”. Suspects, indeed.

It is, of course, a great temptation to nitpick the speech. Not worth it.

No, the argument now comes round to this:

“But, Rickety, why do you need high magazine assault rifles with hundred bullet full-auto clips? And grenade lugs? And shoulder things that go up? The Founders, evil slave mongers that they were, never imagined such child murdering horrors! So why, Rickety? Why?”

“So I can clean the shit out of the brain-pan of any liberal fascist who comes to take them.”

I Will Stand

Monday, January 14th, 2013

NCRenegade LT declares “A Time To Kill“:

Therefore, as much as my soul laments against the harsh truth before me, I make this declaration to my enemies who press me into this battle, that none shall be able to afterwards say “I did not know, you did not warn me”;

I do not care why you took that job with the government, or why you continue to hold it. I only know that you have become Judas and sold yourself to an oppressive state – your government office buildings and vehicles are part of the battlefield, and as a soldier I shall act accordingly.

I do not care why, as a journalist, you choose to spin and corrupt the news, rather than report the plain truth and let the people judge for themselves. I only know that you have violated the public trust in the most vile and seditious manner, and thus your homes, offices, studios, vehicles, and any other place you may find yourself are part of the battlefield, and as a soldier I shall act accordingly.

I do not care why you signed that union card. I only know that you pay dues to a communist organization which conducts treasonous works against my Republic daily – and so your union hall and your work-sites are part of the battlefield, and as a soldier I shall act accordingly.

I do not care that you only voted for the traitor because you are elderly/disabled or otherwise dependent upon government largess. Are you so ignorant and/or disinterested that you could not see through their propaganda, to the fact that your sustenance was assured either way? What have you gained now that the public housing areas you live in, and the public facilities you depend on are part of the battlefield? Though I am a soldier, I can afford you little protection, for you have placed yourselves on the battlefield.

I know that all of these places and all of these people are part of the battlefield ,not just because I am a soldier, and have experienced a few battlefields in my day; but also because our President declares that even our own homes are on the battlefield, whether we wish them to be or not, and I have no choice but to believe him; it’s not just that the NDAA passed – a battlefield is not defined by law; it’s the profound build-up of martial power and resources across my once-great nation which tells me a battle is being prepared here. Over two billion rounds of ammunition procured by DHS and its sub-agencies in the past 18 months, plus machine guns in the tens of thousands, armored vehicles, combat aircraft, drones, and other implements of war being staged throughout our nation, our home – how do you explain that except as the preparation for battle?

I will fight not because I desire it, but because I cannot justify any other course of action – when the enemy attacks, you must fight – you must kill or you will die.

As I said in comments there:

I was denied enlistment for a bad foot.

Now I am too old, and fat, and out of breath and ill-equipped, having come late to an understanding of what my duty is.

But I will stand.

I will stand, though I expect to be among the first to fall.


From a comment there: Don’t take the bait too early. Or to put it another way, don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes.


And this, which I should have posted long ago: “What I Saw at the Coup“:

The first real jolt indicating a serious problem with the plan came when television reporter Cathy Carlsen was killed in Norfolk, shot dead while covering the commissioning of the Harvey Milk, the Navy’s newest destroyer. That she was killed was bad enough. That it happened on a “secure” naval base—a federal installation—made it much worse. Her blood splattered across the Admirals’ white uniforms made quite a picture. The videos…

We were two women born in the same year, with similar academic backgrounds. We had known each other for decades, and her untimely death hit me hard. Cathy Carlsen had been a reliable voice on the progressive side of a supposedly impartial television news network. That a respected member of the media would be assassinated was big surprise, at least to me. Up to that point, only a few federal officials and high-ranking agents had been targeted.

Then a new photo was released on the internet. I had always thought the NSA could trace those things back to their origins, but apparently not. The photo was taken through the Norfolk sniper’s rifle scope just a few moments before the murder. It showed thin black crosshairs and other reference marks across Cathy’s smiling face. And it showed some text added just above her head:

If the media lies, the media dies.
You take a side, you’re along for the ride.
A traitor in front of a camera is still just a traitor.

This single act of domestic terrorism immediately dampened the enthusiasm of most of our formerly reliable reporters to continue to carry our water.


Thanks to Mike Soja at Kayak2U for the link.


A flood of payday spam has prompted me to hold all comments for moderation.

If you login and post one comment, I’ll never pester you again.