Saturday, November 29, 2014

A Post-Black-Friday Nosegay

Had enough turkey yet, Gentle Reader? I haven’t. At least, that’s what the C.S.O. says.

(Note to self: For next wife, select one who wasn’t Chief Cook for the entire U.S. Army in some previous life.)

1. “The Business Of Business Is Business!”

Our beloved Instapundit today cites a passage from a recent novel -- something that needs to be said more often, even though it shouldn’t need to be said at all!

    He looked at me curiously. “What was your main objective, Skipper? Improve the ship’s reputation?”
    I shook my head. “You can’t improve reputation by focusing on reputation, Avery. You always earn it by your actions.” I stopped to think for a couple of heartbeats. “I almost didn’t take the berth because of the Agamemnon’s reputation on the docks, but once I was here, my main goal was simple. Make money.”
    He cocked his head to one side. “Isn’t that rather cold, skipper? Make money?”
    “Maybe,” I shrugged. “But it’s why we’re out here. It’s why the ship exists. We’re all out here because we make money. If we didn’t make a living at it, we couldn’t do it.”

Quoth Professor Reynolds: “I wish more people understood that basic point.” At first I responded by nodding, but then I got to thinking: What evidence exists to the effect that many people don’t understand it?

Well, for certain values of many, it’s beyond dispute. But is that fraction of the American populace significant in comparison to the rest?

It’s an interesting question, really. A century ago, when most Americans were either self-employed or worked in small, family-owned businesses, the don’t-understand-it fraction would have been minuscule. Even persons employed for wages by large corporations would have grasped it, simply because of the overarching commercial environment. The matter is more elusive today.

Superficially, an individual’s attitude can often be discerned from his casually offered opinions. Phrases such as “obscene profits” and “corporate greed,” and exhortations toward “living wages” and price controls would seem a dead giveaway. But such a person can usually be led to see how irrational such notions really least, if he’s not of the “won’t-understand-it” tribe.

The won’t-understand-its are a separate and less tractable case. Usually, they have to be beaten across the chops by reality. Sometimes even that won’t suffice. Yet there’s worse: the Left’s leadership cadre, the ones who understand it very well but are determined to efface that understanding from their followers, because to grasp it would fatally undermine their power and prestige.

I had an exchange with such a villain just yesterday. He was the sort of devil who cites Scripture for his purposes: in this particular case, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “four freedoms,” only two of which are logically or ethically defensible. His basic argument was that “freedom from want” is just as valid as any other interpretation of freedom. When it became clear that he would not grapple with political freedom as a category that precludes State action to feed people, I left him to play with himself. Yet his is the sort of pseudo-argument that has animated those who have traditionally been the American Left’s cannon fodder: those who demand the unearned as a “right.”

They can often seem quite numerous when they take their bullhorns and spittle-flecked mugs to the streets, as for example in the current foofaurauw over “living wages” for retail clerks and fast-food workers. But how many of them are there, really?

2. The Left’s Hate Parade.

Liberal Logic 101 presents a highly illustrative piece today:

If you’ve ever had the misfortune of trying to attempt a polite discussion with your typical Liberal you’ll quickly find how full of hatred and venom they are. You can actually gauge how effective you are at defending your point of view, by how quickly they start calling you names. But their most intense hatred they reserve for a few people who they especially loathe.

Please read the rest. Note that the persons enumerated are all happy, successful, and admired by many Americans – essentially any American who’s also happy and successful. In other words, they’re admired by anyone who has grasped that his life and values are his own responsibility to act upon. But he who has taken his life into his own hands is not politically reachable with the Left’s indispensable tools: envy and hatred. If he’s outspoken about his convictions as well, that makes him a target the Left will strive to defame, degrade, and destroy. The more passionate and widely heard he is, the more effort the Left will give to bringing about his downfall.

In this connection, science fiction writer John C. Wright tells an important story:

There is an old Chinese legend of a golden scroll on which the secret of human happiness was written; and sages and warlords, merchant-princes and emperors sought the scroll with fervor. When found, they saw the secret of the scroll consisted of one ideogram printed over and over, an ideogram they could not read. However, there was a beggar girl who could read the mysterious word.

If you know that word, then you know the secret of human happiness.

The word is gratitude. Gratitude for one’s nature as a being of independent consciousness and volition. Gratitude for the ability to conceive of goals and ways to pursue them. Gratitude for the possession of an immortal soul and its equipage of conscience. Gratitude that even when times are darkest, as long as one lives and breathes one can still hope and work for better. Gratitude, in other words, for the gift of human life and freedom.

Gratitude is the Left’s most feared and despised enemy. He who has taken his life into his own hands cannot help but be grateful. He must be silenced at least, destroyed at best.

“The Fascists cannot argue, so they kill.” (Victor Marguerite) The Left has deliberately forsaken argument in favor of force, fraud, and intimidation because its arguments have all been defeated. The sort of street protests and pseudo-ethical shaming the Left employs today can all too easily give way to violence. Should that day come to America -- and by my reading of matters, it’s not far off -- make sure you're locked, loaded, zeroed in and ready to fight.

(Cross-posted at Liberty’s Torch.)

Friday, November 28, 2014

Political Disagreement Leads to - - - SPIRITUAL Shunning?

This is both provocative and enlightening.

For many who have little to no religious upbringing, the temptation is to use strict political/social rules to separate the sheep from the goats.  The rules often are FAR more restrictive than those of conventional religious groups.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

When Others Have Already Said It Ably...

...I feel no need and little incentive to repeat it in my own terms.

First up, the inimitable Fred Reed:

Two questions, methinks, arise from Ferguson's latest outburst. The first, political, is "Why does the country tolerate it?" The second, more anthropologically interesting, is "Why the eerie incapacity of underclass blacks to understand evidence, or law, or much of anything?" Of the countless explanations given for the poor performance and poor behavior of blacks in the US, one of them dares not speak its name: Low intelligence.

Yet it fits all the evidence. It explains why Africa never built cities, why it did not invent writing, why there was no African Fifth-Century Athens. It explains why Rhodesia, prosperous and an exporter of food when run by whites, fell immediately into hunger and barbarism when whites left. It explains the dysfunction of black societies from Africa to Haiti to Detroit. It explains why blacks invariably score far below whites and Asians on tests of IQ, on the SATs, GREs, on entrance and promotion exams for fire and police departments.

It explains the need for affirmative action and for departments of Black Studies in universities when black students can’t handle real courses. It explains why the gap in academic achievement never closes. It explains the criminality, the violence, the poor impulse control, the dependency on welfare, the unemployment, and the inability to integrate themselves into a high-tech society. It explains the constant scandals involving teachers in black schools giving students the answers on standardized tests.

Further, it explains why none of the programs intended to raise performance of blacks in the schools ever work. Head Start didn’t work. Integrated schools didn’t work, nor segregated schools, nor black schools with white teachers nor black schools with black teachers. Expensive laboratories and free computers didn't work. Schools run entirely by blacks with very high per-student expenditure (Washington, DC for example) didn’t work. There is no indication that anything at all will ever work. Low intelligence is the obvious explanation. There is precious little counterevidence.

Second, consider this from Sara Noble:

Time Magazine published an article by freelance writer Darlena Cunha. It provides a good trip through the liberal thought apparatus. It’s a frightening trip.

Cunha wrote an article about the Ferguson riots titled “Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting”. The violent protests that destroyed 25 businesses and put many in danger are, according to her, “part of the American experience.” Only the “mainstream” can enjoy the “luxury” of “peaceful protesting,” she says.

It’s a perfect example of how these new liberals think. They’re not your grandfather’s liberal.

Without considering the facts or the evidence, she said the “anger” in Ferguson was “inevitable” because a “police officer” shot “a young, unarmed black man in the streets.” She wrote “inevitable” as if the rioting is to be expected and she wrote “in the streets” as if Michael Brown was dragged into a gutter.

“Riots”, she states, “are a necessary part of the evolution of society.” People aren’t living in a “universal utopia” and they don’t have “basic human rights”.

Third, ponder this, from Lee Cary via Doug Ross:

On the morning after the Grand Jury No True Bill decision was announcement, it was clear that the policing authorities followed a planned, minimum-response strategy. They offered little resistance to looting and property destruction, perhaps in order to avoid bloodshed and media scrutiny.

The outcome: On the morning after, there were few, if any, reports of serious injuries. No media videos went viral showing police physically subduing looters. No ambulances were filmed loading bleeding rioters or police. Just the burned and broken evidence of an orgy of looting and property destruction....

When the welfare state begins to dial-down, and the value of EBT cards atrophy, some of those neighborhoods will burn at the hands of their own thug-teens. And policing authorizes will either be unwilling, or unable, to confront the lawlessness....

Meanwhile, the well-established, well-funded, social-activist organizations, many that have been active in Ferguson for months, hope to use Ferguson as a catapult to a sustained, new, civil rights movement. They are professional, crisis ambulance-chasers. The Ferguson looters are their cannon fodder. Wilding is a just one means to their social-transformation end.

Fourth and last, the great Thomas Sowell:

One of the reasons for being glad to be as old as I am is that I may be spared living to see a race war in America. Race wars are often wars in which nobody wins and everybody ends up much worse off than they were before.

Initial skirmishes in that race war have already begun and have in fact been going on for some years. But public officials pretend that it is not happening, and the mainstream media seldom publish it at all, except in ways that conceal what is really taking place.

What’s that? You didn’t come here to read a collage of quotes from other writers? You’re here for my peerless ranting? But Gentle Reader, haven’t we been here enough times already?

It’s on.

(Cross-posted at Liberty’s Torch.)

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

What is an American?

I've been thinking about this, lately, what with the Imperial Decree from El Jefe that we WOULD admit all those He deemed worthy - not those icky non-Hispanic immigrants, who fail to show proper homage by voting solidly Democratic.  No, the Right Kind of immigrants, who deliver the Dem vote, year after year, and - this is a plus - also show up at rallies demanding their Right to take over this country, and join any union that will have them, cheerfully paying exorbitant fees for - nothing.
Like we're gonna let that happen.  The world already has enough failed dictatorships.
I've been thinking about what it means to be an American:
  • You might, like me, have a family history that traces to BEFORE this was a United States - even before the American Revolution.
  • Or, you might be the 1st generation to hit our shores.
  • You might, like me, be of largely Euro background.
  • Or, you might be from any other ethnic branch, or several.

Updating My R-Date

I've been blogging at Over & Out, which I started to put information about my future retirement.  The idea was to explore the many aspects of leaving paid employment, including medical, legal, Social Security, retirement pensions/investments/savings, and other items that might apply.  I expected it to be a story of one person's journey through the process.

From my latest post:

Initially, I thought going out at 65 made a lot of sense.  I'll be 64 in March (cue music)
- and I've been looking at our finances.  We still have the Cleveland house (my husband just left today, as there is a plumbing problem) - if you know anyone who wants a West Park address, with 4 bedrooms - call me!
Right now, I'm STRONGLY thinking of working until 2017.  At that time, I'll be 66.  If I can hold off until then, I'll have 11 years in the SC retirement system (adding in the 2 NC years).

Continue reading.

The Sickness At The Heart Of Contemporary Conservatism

With all the lambasting I do of the Left, I sometimes forget to be “fair and balanced.” Mind you, that’s not to imply that the Right is equally sinful, or in the same ways. But self-nominated conservatives are far from stainless representatives of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.

Have a gander at the following clinker, emitted by Kevin Williamson in the middle of a column in which it’s entirely gratuitous:

The Libertarian party should hold its convention at the Boot Track Café in Loving County, Texas, the least populated place in the United States; the café is closed at the moment, but I am sure that they would open it up to give the Libertarian party a place where its members — both of them — can be lonely together.

Oh, how clever. And how utterly irrelevant, mean-spirited, and small-souled. Do you suppose Mr. Williamson is aware that the most popular Republican now in federal office is libertarian Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky? But that might require that he confront data that doesn’t conform to his prejudices.

I’m getting rather sick of this garbage. I hear a lot of it from so-called conservatives, most of whom can’t even articulate what conservative means. Yes, the LP is small, far smaller than either major party. But do you suppose Mr. Williamson will be happy to be reminded of his cited statement the next time a Republican candidate loses by a small margin? Do you suppose, mindful of the LP’s trivial size, that he’ll refrain from castigating the Libertarian candidate for “stealing” votes from his partisan preference?

I left the LP because the persons rising to the leadership of the Party struck me as uncongenial and impossible to work with. But the core libertarian principle –i.e., that individuals have inalienable rights that no one may legitimately invade or infringe – remains a staple of my convictions. Within its sphere of application, it is unchallengeable...and never explicitly challenged, except by those who proclaim that “only might makes right.”

American political conservatism has been trending ever more strongly toward libertarian positions. This is a notable development, inasmuch as the heart of the conservative world view is a firm attachment to existing institutions and methods, many of which imply the exact reverse of inviolable individual rights. Yet there is important explanatory material here, for a political family’s most threatening competition comes from those whose principles and positions are closest to its own.

(No Democrat who loses his bid for office has ever blamed it on the Libertarian candidate. Food for thought.)

But if you want a really revealing look at the sickness at the heart of conservatism, consider how little conservatives really understand about the Rule of Law. John Hayward’s recent column provides a starting point:

Not only is the Rule of Law a hollow phrase in America today, it lacks the proper intrinsic weight. Even the most hideously savage regimes have laws, and they bloody well expect everyone to follow them, Or Else. The Islamic State has all sorts of laws, with divine authority cited for many of them. They’re even minting their own currency these days. If you know absolutely nothing else about a particular society except that it features absolute obedience to the Rule of Law, I suggest asking a few more questions before deciding to purchase a summer home there.

Yes, indeed. In particular, ask this one:

Are government agents permitted to break one law in the course of enforcing some other law?

...and demand a yes or no answer – unqualified.

What’s that? You want to know what I have in mind? How about just about everything? For example, the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, explicitly recognizes and guarantees certain rights of privacy and property in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Yet government agents routinely violate those rights for “law enforcement” purposes in the enforcement of other laws: everything from municipal zoning ordinances to the income tax and the War on Drugs. Indeed, we’re expected to surrender those rights upon request when a gaggle of myrmidons needs our property for a “stakeout;” recent developments in California have made this plain.

The usual excuse is “compelling government interest.” But under the theory behind the Constitution and the state charters, government, an agent with delegated powers, can have no interests of its own. It exists solely to discharge the responsibilities delineated for it in those documents, and for no other purpose.

A conservative who waves this aside to make room for his favorite intrusion on our rights – perhaps by saying something like “We’ve got to be practical” – is no friend of freedom. Nor will he rise to defend freedom when his personal ox is gored.

Quoth Louis Thiers:

Either rights exist, or they do not exist. If they exist, they involve absolute consequences...Furthermore, if a right exists, it exists at every moment. It is absolute today, yesterday, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, in summer as in winter, not when it pleases you to declare it in force.

I have no problem with a conservative who’s willing to accept that statement...but far too few self-styled conservatives are so willing. It might threaten their campaigns against drugs, sodomy, or abortion. It might make it difficult to fund their next military expedition! Can’t have that.

Small wonder conservative commentators so frequently slather contempt upon libertarians and libertarianism. They usually know, in their heart of hearts, that their positions contain quite a lot of contradiction, and they’d rather not have us point it out...especially when the powers and perquisites of high office are at stake.

ADDENDUM: Don't bother to comment if you can't do so without insulting me. Don't bother if you can't grasp why unenforceable laws are a bad idea. And especially don't bother if you think agents of the State should have the privilege of breaking laws that bind the rest of us. As I've said more than once, I'll entertain intelligent arguments only. Either play at my level or play with yourself...a practice I'm told has its devotees.

(Cross-posted at Liberty’s Torch.)

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

A Question Of Public Deportment

By now, the entire country knows what’s happened in Ferguson, Missouri in the wake of the “no true bill” decision by the grand jury that sat on Officer Darren Wilson’s fatal shooting of giant thug Michael Brown.

I had a predictable reaction to the rioting and looting:

You can take the savage out of the jungle,
But it’s much, much harder
To take the jungle out of the savage.

I claim that the videos that have surfaced since the disorder began support that evaluation, and no other.

Chiefest among the nominally nonviolent obscenities of this affair are the words of His August Majesty, Barack Hussein Obama, first Emperor of the United States:

That this man should have the gall to stand before an audience and prattle about the rule of law – he who routinely flouts the law! – is a blasphemy beyond my power to adequately condemn. That he should call the rioting “an understandable reaction” – he who accused the police of “acting stupidly” in the Henry Louis Gates matter, without having even a superficial acquaintance with the facts! – recalls Maxine Waters’s defense of the Los Angeles rioters after the acquittals in the “Rodney King” trials. Has there ever been a less sincere, more barefaced liar in any American public office, much less in the Oval Office?

America, your greatest shame isn’t allowing Obama the presidency. It’s having returned him to it.

But let’s not dwell on the present when we have the past and future to address. After all, they’re so much bigger!

Time was, there was no hesitation on the police’s part to enforce noncontroversial norms of public conduct. They would routinely tell “undesirables” to “keep moving.” Nor was there any unease among law-abiding citizens about the practice. It was well understood that we would grudgingly tolerate much that went on behind closed doors that we could not countenance in public. Absolute intolerance of public misbehavior expressed an understanding of “camel’s nose under the tent lip” dynamics: a “broken window theory” of public conduct that reached well beyond vandalism and random disorder.

The breakdown, as always, started with little things. Littering. Public nuisances such as loudly played radios and boom boxes. Jostling on crowded sidewalks. Much followed from the mistaken tolerance of such behavior – a refusal by ordinary citizens to haul the offenders up by the scruff of their necks and compel penance and redress – that few predicted at the time.

We were opening the door to savagery in the streets. Some of us saw it coming and said so. Not enough Americans listened.

Incentives to savagery won’t affect everyone equally, of course. Those who responded by “acting out,” in the common parlance, were already predisposed toward such conduct: the sullen, the wrathful, the violently inclined previously held in check by a sense that they’d never get away with it. That the great preponderance of them are Negroes should surprise no one. What other demographic cohort has systematically been told that it’s “owed,” that “Whitey is holding you down,” that “justice” demands the mulcting of the innocent as “reparations”...and of course, “no justice, no peace!” -- ?

No one can hear such a gospel year in and year out without reacting to it. A hefty fraction of American Negroes have internalized it. Thus we have reached a situation quite similar to that of Muslims. It’s often said that, whereas the radical Muslim wants to behead you, the “moderate” Muslim merely wants a radical Muslim to behead you. Similarly, whereas the black rioter wants to loot your store and burn it down – assuming he gets the order right, that is – many a “peaceable” black merely condones such conduct as “an understandable reaction.”

Needless to say, this is not a formula that will restore order to America’s cities.

The violence will continue. It’s likely to intensify, as the public reaction to it has been hesitant at best. Why, for example, have so few affected business owners not organized a private militia to guard their establishments? Why has no governor acted to arrest and confine those openly exhorting the “protesters” to violence and vandalism, as is licit under the doctrine of incitement to riot? Why has the president not federalized the National Guard nationwide and sent it to the sites of rioting and looting with orders to shoot to kill?

Given the identity and character of the president, I doubt we need an explanation for that last point.

Would anyone care to dispute John Derbyshire’s “The talk, non-black version” today?

There’s more and probably worse to come. Stay tuned.

(Cross-posted at Liberty’s Torch.)

Odds and Ends, Random Neuron Madness on a Monday

1. It seems we finally received around an inch of the white stuff today. The weather guessers were forecasting anywhere from 3-5 inches. Once again proving you can have a job which pays good money, requiring you to be correct only 20-50 percent of the time.

 2. The latest news (at around 1pm this afternoon) is the Grand Jury for the shooting in Ferguson MO has reached a decision …when this will be released to the general public is anyones guess. If the media spin is to be believed (yeah, right), the protesters, rioters, looters, their fellow travelers, and any who enable same, will be ready to give us a hot time in the boarded up town tonight! (Or, perhaps tomorrow?) Oh, wait perhaps this might give the more cautious ones cause to refrain…

Get your popcorn ready kids.

 3. And let’s close out this bit of randomness, with a comment or two.

 Some of this is perhaps a bit date, but I have been away from the keyboard for a bit.

If the owner of a professional sports franchise wants to name his team “The (Washington) Redskins”, or the “Peter Puffers”, that should be his choice, and his choice alone. The State, assorted victims groups, and or those with agenda(s) of their own, should just shut the hell up. If the public at large finds it objectionable they have the right to “vote with their feet/pocketbook”. Vacant stands, low viewership ratings, and the like will either cause him to rethink the necessitate for the current name…or he may continue on with same knowing he is not going to be making any money off of same (or perhaps not as much money as he would like).

 The same is true for any business.

 I liked smoking in bars. It seemed like a very logical place to do so. If I had the money, time, and opportunity, I would have had a bar, and there would have been smoking allowed. If you don’t like it (smoking), and I understand there are many reasons for not wanting to be around same, that’s fine. But you wouldn’t see me “turning off the smoking lamp” anytime soon.

Rather than banning the use of tobacco products in bars and restaurants, here’s a thought, let the market decide. If I can’t get enough patrons for my establishment, then I will face the same choices the Washington Redskins fella would above.

 The State needs to be out of the “bandaging the buttheart by enacting idiotic lows”. It was never about the children, or second hand smoke. It was (always) about control, and or increasing revenue for the State.

This is as true (give em time, they will figure out a way to pressure the Redskin’s owner into changing their name) with the Redskins kerfuffle as it was with the smoking. Hey, just give the LGBT community a bit of time, and you may see them attacking Green Bay in much the same manner. (At least when you put “Fudge” in front of my teams name, it sounds like a candy.)

Monday, November 24, 2014

Black Out The Blackers-Out

Ostrich tactics only work if your enemy is an ostrich – and an ostrich afraid of you, at that. Just now, the major networks, wholly dedicated to the protection of His August Majesty Barack Hussein Obama, first Emperor of these United States, are employing ostrich tactics: they’ve completely embargoed the most devastating revelations of the political cycle: Sharyl Attkisson’s Fast and Furious discoveries, and Jonathan Gruber’s megascandalous admissions that ObamaCare’s passage was made possible only by a systematic campaign of deceit.

To be perfectly fair to the satraps of the networks’ news divisions, the tactic has served them well in the past. Republicans and conservatives have almost never confronted them on it in a significant way. Indeed, we’ve tended to act like ostriches ourselves. We’ve disdained the Big Three as unreliably biased, turned to the alternative media for our news, and let it rest there. We’ve allowed the farce to continue unchallenged.

But that doesn’t loosen the Big Three’s grip on the national consciousness, which remains terrifyingly strong...and malevolent.

Here’s Ricochet’s Stephen Miller recommendation to the Republican National Committee:

ABC and NBC have instituted a three-week blackout — on network broadcasts, websites and social media pages — of the devastating admissions of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. The ACA architect repeatedly boasted of deceiving the American public about legislation that cost six million people their family doctor. This should be the final straw in any relationship the GOP and RNC leadership has with these networks, period. No more debates, no more appearances on “Meet The Press,” “Morning Joe,” or “This Week” on ABC.

Boycott both NBC and ABC over failing to report on Gruber’s revelations and put CBS on final notice over the revelations that they coordinated with the Obama administration to tank Sharyl Attkisson’s Benghazi reporting. Network news is a dying religion becoming more ideologically rigid, forgoing any attempt to stay relevant in a media landscape that no longer needs them. Leave them behind. We’ve already shown that it works. Marginalize them and label them progressive news outlets and make them live by it. MSNBC came out of the progressive closet fully earlier this year and their ratings and web traffic got worse. Air America is no more and Current TV is now an unloved stepchild Al Gore gave away for oil money.

Indeed. Broadcast news departments are middlemen. They don’t produce the news; they package and resell it. Should one of the two major parties deny them access, appearances by its national figures, and the privilege of covering its conventions and other events, they’d lose a hefty fraction of their wares. Now that that party holds 31 of the 50 governorships, the majority in both houses of Congress and in 67 out of 99 state legislatures, the loss might be enough to send the networks’ news divisions into irremediable collapse.

Alternately, it might evoke a long-needed purge of network news department mandarins whose faces have been wedged so long and so deeply in the Democrats’ posteriors that they’ve become inured to the taste and aroma.

On a tangentially related matter: have you followed the broadcast networks’ coverage of developments in Ferguson, Missouri? Have you felt adequately informed by it? Were you aware that private citizens and businessmen in that city have been buying guns and ammunition faster than local retail stores can stock them? That Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton have been egging the black mobs on? That the mouthpieces of those mobs have threatened “demonstrations” – mass violence – in 90 cities nationwide unless Officer Darren Wilson, not even the subject of an indictment yet, is convicted of murder?

Feeling safe in your home, Gentle Reader? I did, once long ago. I check my own armory a lot more often these days than I did back then.

(Cross-posted at Liberty's Torch.)

Obama Fiddles While Ferguson Burns

I nave said this before,in various comments, and among friends ... and will say it again. I have some serious doubts as to the length of time the current resident of the Oval Office will stay in same. No, I am not talking about Obama being impeached and removed by that method, nor am I referring to a military coup (I have serious doubts about the current military leadership having the testicular fortitude needed to carry that one out. I would not want to take any bets on how many really take their "oath" to heart. I would love to be proven wrong about that.)

 I am talking about Obama using any opportunity available, to give him an excuse to place this country under Martial Law.

Now I am sure there are any number of you out there who are thinking what is this nut job talking about. Understand this, I have served, and I understand not only the Chain of Command, the Constitution, the three branches of government, and the power(s) granted to them, and the President.

I also know "The Oath".  Granted the version taken by enlisted varies somewhat from the Oath taken by the Officer corps, and by elected officials, the overall intent is the same.

This being said, we have, in Obama, an individual who has either sanctioned, directly enabled, or enacted himself, via "Executive Order", any number of events or actions which are in violation of the Constitution.

 Why then, would it be so surprising to find out this individual is not intent on using any excuse (available)  in order to insure either he, or those he so deems to take his place, are allowed to do so under the constitutional constraints provided by Martial Law?   In other words, there is no need for another Presidential least not until the current "National Unrest" is brought to a close.  This being the case, I am going to stay here, in DC, in the Oval Office, until order is restored.

We have, at the very moment I am typo-ing this, a town erupting in flames (matters not, for the moment, who or what started this). Obama has already gone on national television to pontificate on same.  With split screens on Fox and MSNBC, showing the lawlessness on one screen, and the rioting in Ferguson, on the other.  One wonders if this is the spark Obama is so devoutly hoping for. The one thing he needs to "validate" declaring Martial Law, for the safety of all (the children!!!).

 By all means, tell me I am wrong. And give me some concrete evidence. Because as the months and years have gone by with this current administration, and the confederacy of dunces we have comprising both the House and Senate, I don't have much else to place my faith in (the good Lord aside) other than my gut. And that puppy is a-grumbling.

 We are rushing toward Third World status. Sadly, a good chunk of this country isn't even warm enough to qualify as a banana republic.

Got a letter from one of my readers, one of my biggest mind brothers

Others of you may know FX Phillips. He has made so many brilliant comments, and given me some HUGE inspirations. What I'm going to do here is give you that letter to read, and suggest a copy/paste routine to send it to YOUR congresscritters:

Dear Mssrs. Toomey and Fitzpatrick,
I address you here at a critical juncture in American history. Obama, I can not in good conscience refer to this man as President you will see why as this rambles on, has just taken a historic electoral beating on the premise that his agenda is destroying America and two weeks leader baldly announces that he is circumventing congress to legalize millions of invaders at the expense of the American citizen.
To date I have seen nothing but servile deference from you party and wishy washy boiler plate from you both. Obama has made it abundantly clear his contempt for the American people both directly and through the proxy of their elected representatives. His remarks following the election indirectly questioning the legitimacy of such an election was the bleating of an incipient tyrant using the absence of evidence fallacy. His sophistry of speaking for the “two third who didn’t vote” is poppy cock on stilts.
While you are correct that this is unlawful it rises to the high crime of usurpation of the prerogatives of congress and by extension the American citizen. The twisted language in both of your statements leads me to believe you are trying to understate the seriousness of this act. Promises of “no government shut downs” by the increasingly unctuous Mitch McConell or preemptively implying that Obama will not face impeachment is for all intents and purposes giving Obama a blank check to do as pleases. The fact your leadership and you by extension for re-electing those two cowardly hacks as you leaders doesn’t speak well of your own fortitude.
You have three mighty weapons to wield.
First: the power of the purse.
Produce budget bills and send them up in regular order. One for each department like before the execrable Harry Reid and the earth mother harpy Nancy Pelosi changed the way business was done. Defund Obama’s illegal acts, defund Obamacare and any other department that has abused its power exceeded its authority or refused to co-operate with congressional inquiries. When he and his media propagandists try and blame you point out two obvious points and keep hitting them. 1) You sent up a bill and it was Obama refusing to act. 2) He is so hot to violate the law and screw the American people that he refused to fund what he loves most(besides himself).
When the “press” tries to spin this as politics point out the “press’s” cheerleading for this lawless hackery and state it just like that. The fancy words and supposed civility are not winning you anything. You know very well the leadership wouldn’t pull any punches if they were TEA partiers. But of course McConnell and Boehner feed from the trough of big government don’t they?
Second: the power of the pulpit.
No you don’t have the same platform to speak from as Obama but this is a matter of efficiency as he can command national time. That just means you have to work harder to make your case. But of course in order to make a case you have to realize what you are dealing with. Your party has not shown any inkling that they know even remotely what they are dealing with. This is not a man whose intentions are what are best for the country and is just mistaken. Taking the same destructive ideas and putting them in a shiny new wrapper is dishonest not mistaken, malign not incompetent. Obama and his cadre know the results and it is power for them and shared misery for the “other”. This is why someone like Jonathan Gruber is sought out as mercenary academic who will lie to anyone if the price is right. The regime knew these (Obamacare) were all lies just like their excuses for the VA. IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious scandals were a lie. Because they think their own excrement doesn’t stink they feel they are entitled to employ Plato’s noble lie. But just because they believe in their own infallibility and virtue They trade on the falsely advertised expertise of intellectual bag men.
Obama knows he is breaking the highest law of the land. It is up to you to call him out as the malignancy he is. He is only “popular” because of the perverted idea that criticizing him is not in good faith(read raaaaacisssst) and you will not describe him for what he is. He is a usurper in the basest sense, a brigand, a thug, a Mafioso, a third word jeffe. He has advanced his coup d’ main and is daring you to speak about it. Give him what he wants but not in the way he wants it. Every utterance needs to be about Obama and his enabler’s lawlessness and dishonesty the fact that you all seem to isolate each case instead of building on each as a pattern is self-defeating. Build it brick by brick to the point that even the “democrats with bylines”(thanks Professor Reynolds) can’t credibly deny the existence. Being the partisans they are they will try but then point their bad faith and clear partisan hip. Once they sell their credibility out you will at least be on an even playing field. Also make sure you link the “Democrats” in congress as they were every bit as complicit in the abuses of the American citizen as the executive branch was. In fact in the IRS case they openly called for the persecution. Where is the denunciation and prosecution of these people?
Also part and parcel to the pulpit is to stop accepting the media narrative by accepting their premises. This was especially evident in the government shut down and so called default crisis last year where thr effort to stop Obamacare and negotiating a debt were defined by a mendacious media and accepted by the powers that be in the Republican party. Obama and his party were the aggressors as they were so insistent on screwing people like me that were willing to shut down their precious government to be able to do so. They did this with feckless acquiescence, both legislatively and rhetorically, of the DC Republican leaders who you just re-elected to the head of the party. It was more important for them to discredit those actually looking stop an incipient tyrant than to stop the tyrant.
Now we have so called executive amnesty.
This is again based on the duplicity of the ruling class and the advance of the false narrative that our immigration system is broken and the concurrent false narrative that the executive can change the legal relationship of the government to the people.
To the first point our immigration system is broken only you the extent the ruling class has affirmatively ignored and sabotaged it. They deny and demagogue this with cries of faux compassion as they have very little compassion for those of us who pay for this with increased taxes, lowered wages, higher prices and diminished services. They do this to the point where they say it’s too late and DEMAND we give them a mulligan. The fact that their bad faith is the genesis of the problem is glossed over by crony socialist who want to drive down wages and a cynical “Democrat” party and all its propagandists and pseudo-intellectual stooges that need to import clients to justify their demands for more power and more taxes. No one speaks for those of us that are harmed by this duplicity. We are browbeaten as being greedy for wanting to keep our hard earned pay while those who demand money to feed their egos are described as “good hearted”. This is another premise the GOP would dismiss if they actually were on the side of the American citizen.
Another is that we are a “nation of immigrants” if that’s the case then “birth right citizenship” is a null concept. I was born here. The fact that my ancestors came from somewhere else does not make me an “immigrant”. It is a phony concept invented by the left and their collaborationists in the gentry GOP to try and deprecate our claim to sovereignty in this place and time. Any time a republican use this phrase it has just that effect. It needs to be refuted every time it is used.
Another especially false premise is this idea that somehow this amnesty is akin to the “Emancipation Proclamation”. This is especially pernicious as it equates an order outside the powers of the Presidency i.e the authority to change legal status to a duly constituted power to conduct a war. It also grotesquely equates a people who were held against their will with those who voluntarily broke our laws and continue to break our laws every day they are here and are subsidized by the American people through higher local taxes. With all due derision to the mouthpiece for the invasionistas in the Republican party the Wall Street Journal these are net takers as is basically any household earning under $40,000.00 a year.
To the second point the idea that he can take any action that changes the legal status of anyone or act that congress has not acted on is purely an act of violence against the ruling order. If we were actually using proper English this would be described as a coup. The constitution enshrines inaction when consensus is not possible. By the way this not the first time Obama has done this; from eliminating the work provisions from welfare reform, to imposing the moribund Dream Act, to re writing the Obamacare statute to delay existing political problems or misappropriate funds for items clearly not in the statute, to appointing positions without senate approval , to rewriting and purposefully misinterpreting the Clean Air, Clean Water and Civil rights act to use as weapons, to making foreign agreement and conspiring to avoid the Senate for ratification . Again you act as if these are one offs. One builds on the other. They are of a piece. They speak to nature of Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform the United States”[from a prosperous functioning republic to a financially insolvent third world basket case].
That brings us to the third tool. Impeachment and removal
I know this idea makes you soil your pants but it must be left as an alternative. I know it’s inherent danger as it is a political not judicial remedy. It is an element that presumes the intellectual integrity and moral uprightness of the party whose standard bearer is being charged however in this case the violations of the basic law are manifest. It is not just amnesty but the dozens of transgressions leading up to amnesty and the usurpation of power from outright fraud, to abuse of power, to dereliction of duty, to the violation of the oath of office this is an accumulation of impeachable acts.
I know very well there is no longer even one national “Democrat” with the integrity to stand up to this thug let alone thirteen but if he is committing impeachable offenses he must be indicted. Put them on record as to their support for this coup d’main and make it plain that it is their goal to overthrow the constitutional order of small “r” republicanism with a half-baked rule of the elite that uses mob consensus and the unabashed wielding of force to legitimize their claims. Make it plain that elections do not make for legitimacy alone but that plebiscite plus adherence to the constitution is what gives legitimacy to the government. Once the rule of law has been torn asunder the principles of the Declaration of Independence become more poignant. Obama has forfeited this legitimacy as has his neo-fascist party. We cannot shrink from conflict but must fight it on our terms not their. The leadership of the Republican party has shirked this responsibility in favor of some contrived false one way collegiality that further encumbers the citizens with weight of this collusion.
I know what you really fear however because I have the same fear. That Americans have become so ignorant and corrupted by free stuff and the continuous swill churned out by our media, cultural and academic institutions which had been corrupted by “progressive thought” many years ago. You are afraid that the people may not recognize the pure evil Obama, his party, his cheerleaders and pet grievance groups seek to visit upon this country in the name of the twin perversions of “social justice”, ”income inequality” and the equally ambiguous and ill-defined notion of a top down imposed “fairness”.
But because you fear the outcome is not justification for inaction for what you are saying is America is lost without firing a shot.
You need to justify us returning the Republican party to power. You need to engage in actions that stop Obama and his henchmen not compromise with an obviously destructive and hate filled agenda.
Losing more slowly is still losing.
We won’t be fooled again.

Yes it's long. But damn, it's good.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Selling Conservatism

Bill Whittle is at it again.  His speech at Restoration Weekend was stellar Whittle.

He's right about having a vision.  Before you can achieve anything, you have to have a vision of it.

My visions started small.  First, I decided that I wanted to get an Associate degree in Business Administration, because I like money.  I'm not a fanatic, but I do like money - I like the things that it buys, I like the security of having money in the bank, I like being able to pay my bills.

At each plateau, I re-set the dream.  With my Master's, I didn't so much want the degree, as I wanted the Computer certification, and the extra money (about $4000/year) that came with it.  About 1/2 way there, I found a new dream.

I started blogging after 9/11.  I wanted to help other people see the world the way I did, and I thought writing would make that happen.  Although my impact is relatively small, I keep at it, because, every once in a while, I get feedback that says, "I agree with you - I thought I was the only one".

A lot of us live - and work - in Liberal/Leftist enclaves.  We're surrounded by those who swallow the SLBS - Standard Leftist BS - whole.  We tamp down our outrage at Leftist over-reach.  We sit politely in staff meetings as Leftists abuse their positions to promote their causes.  We, sometimes, live with Leftists (or Liberals), and bite our tongues hard enough to pierce them.

So, on the rare occasions that we get positive feedback, we savor it, slowly.

My vision has changed.  I dream of a time that Conservatives, Libertarians, and other non-Leftists can speak their minds freely.  To get that dream, I have to do my part, and help build a critical mass.

In the words of Tweety Bird, "I have a Dweam!"

Bar The Doors And Don Your Bullet-Proof Vest!

Our beloved Ace of Spades has suggested an ingenious rejoinder to Barack Hussein Obama’s imperial presumptions:

Yesterday we saw a number of ideas floated about how to respond....rescission, lawsuits, de-funding and withholding votes on nominees to name a few on the table. There's one idea I'd like to add that is in many ways symbolic but that would focus the nation on the seriousness of this problem, do not invite Obama to address a joint session of Congress to deliver the State of the Union address.

The Constitution simply requires that "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Nothing requires that he do so in person. The modern in person State of The Union dates back to Woodrow Wilson but Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon all gave written reports as was the custom from Thomas Jefferson to Wilson.

And Presidents don't simply show up whenever they please to address the Congress, they must be formally invited. That's where Boehner and McConnell can strike a blow for the legislature...simply don't invite him.

Brilliant, especially given Obama’s penchant for making everything into a campaign appearance...but we must ponder the possibilities:

  • Obama hates to be balked.
  • He might, conceivably, try to force his way in, with Secret Service backing.
  • It would therefore behoove Congress to prepare to prevent him from doing so.
  • That would require an augmentation of the Sergeant-At-Arms’s forces on hand.
  • It would also be wise for the members of Congress to wear protective gear: body armor.

Lead might fly. Individuals might be wounded or killed. But the properly prepared would have at least some reason to worry less, having less likelihood of being harmed. Do you think Obama would be among them?

(Apropos of the above, remember this episode? They weren’t ready to prevent him from forcing his way in. Verbum sat sapienti.)

(Cross-posted at Liberty's Torch.)

Women Leaders on How They Start Their Day

This is oh-so precious!

When you and I wake up, we resist the pull to consciousness.  We hit the snooze button, and only reluctantly shuffle into the kitchen.  We pull out cereal, make the coffee, and, maybe, watch the news. We operate on autopilot, for the most part.  The more energetic of us may even do a few crunches, pick a healthier breakfast, perhaps leave early for the office.

Not for some of THESE ladies.  They are the creme of 'da dames, the future leaders of tomorrow.

Not for them cereal, it's "quinoa" cereal - just so you understand that they are Gluten-Free (insert copyright symbol here).  They don't just do a few exercises, they "do an hour or so of 3rd or 4th series ashtanga yoga".

Another -  "6:43 Alarm goes off. No snooze. Pull on John Eshaya sweatpants and clogs.
6:50 Make coffee (fair trade); microwave Zen Bakery muffin (vegan) First breakfast."
What the heck is First breakfast?
"7:15-7:45 Make breakfast for family. When producing or directing, I rarely made it home in time to cook dinner so I shifted the focus to breakfast. I make buttermilk pancakes, eggs in a frame, and for over a decade, we have Crepes Thursday. I make the batter the night before (so the flour absorbs the liquid) and then customize for each family member with fresh-toasted pecans, nutella, marshmallows, and bananas."
Other women in the article are more normal - they have to detach their kids from their games/entertainment, prod them out of bed, remind them to brush, and walk/drive the younger ones to school.
Go read it - the first few are a hoot.

I am now officially linked

I have the widget installed at my wordpress, and I am sure that there will be many things I'll want to share to, and from, here.

Any chance to expand our voice is vital.

We have but three options. Peacefully convince the enemy to abide by their OATH, 1776v2.0, or slavery. That simple.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Oh, My Stars & Garters!

So gratifying to be part of this group.  It's rather difficult for a generally law-abiding citizen such as myself to think of being associated with Outlaws, but I'll do my best.

For those who don't know me:

I'm a science teacher - secondary, primarily Physical Sciences (Chemistry & Physics).  Before teaching, I worked in offices (mostly Accounting depts.), and as a computer programmer, database specialist, and corporate trainer.

As a result, for most of my working life, I've been surrounded by men.  I like them, enjoy their ways, and am comfortable interacting with them.  You might say that I've observed the male in his native habitat, and learned his language.

That's why the #Shirtgate thing upsets me so.  Yes, the scientist could have avoided the entire mess, if he'd just worn a standard shirt and tie combo.  But, that's NOT who the geeks in tech ARE.  They revel in their nonconformity, and use their quirky dress to signal their membership in the club.

Frankly, the women complaining are confirming the most stereotypical memes about women - that they are tech-ignorant, they care only about clothes and other superficial things, and that they are super-touchy and prone to focus on slight injuries to their self-esteem.

How could they NOT be so awed about Matt Taylor's accomplishment that they ignored the shirt?

A Triple From Glenn Reynolds

Our beloved Instapundit remains one of the Blogosphere’s most valuable jewels. Today he hits a three-bagger (or a natural hat trick, if you prefer hockey) with the following citations, all of which concern male-female relations and the “angry ugly girls:” i.e., the gender-war feminists.

1. War On The Male Genitalia.

Here’s the story. Please read it all. A small taste:

They’re not called the family jewels because they are ordinary. They’re not referred to as stones because they’re impervious to injury. No, they are both extraordinary and surprisingly fragile. So, sorry notsorry if we give them some breathing room when we sit, if we don’t smash them betwixt our legs on public transit. But as the horizon of “male privilege” is constantly expanding, giving the old wedding tackle ample space is now a crime against humanity.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) announced on Monday that a new campaign addressing courtesy on public transportation will come into effect by January. One of the targeted behaviors is ‘man-spreading’ — the act of spreading one’s legs so far apart that other passengers are forced to squish their own together.

Or, if you prefer a more nuanced description, one of the most infuriating and outright ridiculous display of male privilege and machismo in existence today. As Mic’s Derrick Clifton succinctly put it, ‘Hey, bro, you’re not that well-endowed.’

What I find most striking about this excellent piece is the following:

...might I direct your attention to Frank T.J. Mackie. Yes, he is an extreme caricature, one meant to mock your enemies.

If you haven’t seen the admittedly weird movie Magnolia, starring Tom Cruise, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Jason Robards, please do so. Frank Mackie, played by Cruise, is an ultramasculine counterpoint to the gender-war feminists, the leader of a cult who encourages his followers to see women as exploitable bodies only, and purports to be able to teach them how to act on that view. I can’t describe him more compactly than that, so please see the movie.

It’s an open question whom the Mackie character was meant to mock, but entertainment can be like that. What we have before us, however, is a trend in sociology (inter-gender relations subdivision) that will evoke Mackie’s attitude and the consequent behavior in many thousands of men who would, in a more civilized society, have been as deferential and courteous to women as any woman could possibly have wished.

Incentives matter. Eventually, feminists, bless their pointed little heads, will learn that...hopefully before they become extinct, thence to be found only in anthropological textbooks.

2. “Victim-Blaming”

There’s a tremendous amount to be said on this subject, but perhaps one article will suffice for now:

Don’t drink so much. "Stop victim-blaming."
Watch your drink. "Stop victim-blaming."
Walk in well-lit areas at night. "Stop victim-blaming."
If colleges cannot suggest basic common sense measures to protect students — which help guard against crimes that aren’t rape and help men as well — without being accused by the feminist chorus of blaming victims, what can they say?

Indeed. The whole thrust of the “Stop victim-blaming” trend among feminists is to remove the weight of responsibility for their personal behavior from women’s shoulders. This is so plainly idiocy that one must ask, “Are these women stupid as well as ugly and socially graceless?”

The very same advice, given to young men, is utterly ordinary and noncontroversial. But then, we already know what delicate hothouse flowers women the eyes of the very same feminist activists who insist that they’re men’s equals in all things.

(Hey, it’s a special! Two lies for the price of one! Grab ‘em while they’re hot!)

3. “Geeks On Strike”

Dr. Helen Smith, Reynolds’ beloved wife, prompted by an inquiry about “Gamer-Gate” and “ShirtStorm,” cites a relevant passage from her recent book:

The “strike” theory is generally correct, I think. The problem is that games and porn are entertaining, inexpensive, easily accessible, and reliable. Women can be entertaining, but they’re expensive, inaccessible for most men, and from the male perspective, shockingly unreliable. I would say that porn has raised the bar somewhat—it’s bound to be seriously annoying when Little Miss Real Life won’t give head when Jane Pornstar is twice as hot and is cheerfully performing all sorts of acrobatic stunts. And if you think about it, is a real woman who is average and only wants to have missionary-style sex once a week, minus a week for her period, actually any better than a wide variety of gorgeous porn stars catering to every bizarre fetish the Japanese can imagine and available on demand? It’s not quite so clear once you put it in those terms. The biggest communication problem is that most women see “relationship” as a positive thing. Most men see it as an ambiguous thing. So, when the selling point of Little Miss Real Life over Jane Pornstar is “relationship,” you can see where it’s not going to be very appealing. I don’t think there’s much of a “fuck you” element, though. The guys who think that way tend to be the players, particularly the Sigma players. A lot of the guys who opt out aren’t particularly angry at women, they just don’t see much point to pursuing involvement with them.

Every word is gospel truth, but the part I flashed on more or less immediately was:

Women can be entertaining, but they’re expensive, inaccessible for most men, and from the male perspective, shockingly unreliable.

Well, yes, but you could say the same about Lamborghinis, and we certainly don’t stop desiring them for those trifling reasons.

In truth, a lot of wishful thinking takes place in just about any young man’s mind, whether he’s Alpha, Beta, or Omega. As a longtime proponent of the “Shove it up your ass, bitch” school of male-female relations, the hostility of any woman – or women – has never troubled me, which might have something to do with my current choice of mate. But the typical “geek,” a sociological subgroup to which I superficially belong, allows himself to dream of “her:” the attractive, intelligent woman who will value his abilities and assets more than she deplores his lack of first-string-quarterback status...hopefully, far more.

Yes: “she” might exist. But it would be best not to delude oneself about how likely one is to encounter her. Life generally proves simpler for those of us who confine our dreaming to the wee small hours.

(Cross-posted at Liberty's Torch.)

Friday, November 21, 2014


Welcome, my friends, to a show that must not ever end: The traditional American willingness to speak one's mind regardless of what others might think.

The League exists to defend the freedom of speech against the assaults of the contemporary would-be censor: he -- more often she -- who uses screaming and vituperation to "shame" others out of dispreferred opinions, especially opinions on politics, society, and culture.

I have founded the League with that mission in mind and no other. If you choose to join, leave any sensitivities you might harbor at the doorsill. To readers: Should you choose to delve into the offerings here, be prepared for anything. We don't set out to offend, but neither do we fear it.


Francis W. Porretto

And here's my favorite rendition of our Theme Song, for openers: