Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 10
by Neale Osborn
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
So now pediatricians are lying to try to get guns banned. Though they seem to be lying carefully."Where there are more guns in the United States, there are more people dying," happens to be a blatant lie, as outlined in the Pew study outlined in Rant #9. Gun crime down 49%. Non-fatal gun violence down 70%. Firearms free violence down 72%. Gun ownership UP across the nation. 37 states now cannot refuse to issue a concealed carry license unless you are a felon. 4 states now do not require ANY license to carry concealed. 3500 children drown each year . 500 die by gun. Ban the swimming pools first, pediatricians. THEY aren't Constitutionally protected.
Ever heard of Square.com? It's that nifty little device that lets you accept credit cards on your smart phone. Well, they just left "nifty" and went to "lefty". On May 9, they sent this update to the user agreement.
Part One, Section 6, states "By creating a Square Account, you also confirm that you will not accept payments in connection with the following businesses or business activities: [this section has been modified to add item number] "(23) sales of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury."
This means I will not obtain a "Square" device, nor will I pay them 2.75% of all sales, nor will I buy from someone using THEIR Square device. Let the free market be heard.
Not gun related, but.... How's that global warming going for you? Right now (Monday, May 13, 1131am EST) it is snow flurrying in my yard. I WANT MY DAMN GLOBAL WARMING—THEY PROMISED ME WARMER TEMPS AND I WANT THEM NOW!!!!!!! Another lie from the looney liberal leftists, designed to gain them more power.
Ya gotta wonder at peoples' intelligence. Do they REALLY think Iron Man showed up at their theater to battle with gun wielding tac team members, or is it more than likely a stupid stunt? Was the stunt stupid? Probably. Did anyone intelligent get scared? Nope.
Okay, I admit to a touch of torn here. Joe Biden, Vice-president and Buffoon in Chief, responded to a letter from a boy named Miles, who suggested that all guns should "fire chocolate bullets so no one would get hurt". Cute letter from Miles, cute response from Doltin' Joe. See the hand-written letter at the link. Of course you don't want to crush a kid by telling him how stupid chocolate bullets would be. And a Vice President, taking the time to hand-write a response to a 2nd Grader is always an "Awwww!" moment. But you gotta question the timing, since the letter apparently sat around a while before he answered it, as he acknowledges in the response. You have to wonder, as I do, if this is just something designed to distract the sheeple from Benghazi, the IRS and it's assault on the TEA Party and other conservative organization, the Justice department's subpeonas of AP reporters' phone records, and Obama's generally failing popularity. For today, I'll just call it a spark of humanity from the Village Idiot.
So I wonder why we should like this act? Giving a tax deduction for gun safes, trigger locks, and other "approved" methods of safe storage of your firearms seems cool. I mean, it sounds sorta alright, doesn't it? Well, until you read to the end. So what if the IRS is prohibited from using this as a method of backdoor registration? As we all know, and as has been proven quite forcibly in the last week, the IRS is an activist arm of the Democrat Party, which is also the party which sponsors most Victim Disarmament.... er Gun Control laws. Also, as pointed out in the article, most IRS data is considered "Public Information". Which means that, just as with concealed carry permits in NY and Conn, the press or other liberal anti-gun activists can easily access info on who owns a gun safe and publish it. Also, as we all know, what a law giveth, a new law can taketh away. No, count me out. If I buy a gun safe, and the one I buy happens to be an "approved for tax deductions" model, I'll skip the deduction. Privacy is more valuable than 5 or 10 bucks off the old tax bill.
Because some places I post this are not quite public, many of you will not have read this response of mine to a comment from a reader. I feel it appropriate that I post both parts here. In part, the poster railed about no one trying to ban guns, that we could all target shoot until we orgasmed, and we were all a bunch of "pussies".
WTF is this rant about? Here's a simple fact you overlook in your foul-mothed assault on the 2nd Amendment is that the founders only listed ONE of the Bill of Rights items as "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". I know that liberals (and those afraid of how THEY would act with a gun) feel they have a need to take weapons away from the rest of us. But the fact is you feel free to call us pussies for owning guns SOLELY because people like us defend your freedom to do so. you won't find very many pro-gun people advocating the limitation of one of the BoR enumerated rights. Oh, sure, there's a few religious whackjobs want to ban pornography. Idiots who support the USA Patriot Act and it's assault in individual liberties. But the number of anti-gunners assaulting the 2nd Amendment is far vaster.
As to your bald faced lie that no one wants to take away our guns, it is eactly that- a hitlerian style "Big Lie" so blatantly false it bears repeating- Your bald faced lie that no one wants to take our guns is proveably false. Diane Feinstein, as long ago as 1995, said "If I had the votes, I'd pass the law- Mr. and Mrs America, turn them all in. But the votes aren't there." Cuomo in NY has banned, outright, the ourchase and transfer of 160 different weapons. Hickenlooper in Colorado has done the same. Connecticut, the same. NJ is currently working on a bill to confiscate certain types of guns. Obama wants a law as strict as NY's for the whole country. In fact, Cuomo took exactly what Obama advocated for and got it passed here. Your goal, and the goal of ALL members of the victim disarmament crowd (the correct name for the "gun control" crew) is the eventual outlaw of personal arms. Just as with other totalitarians, before you can be safe as the dictators, you need disarmed victims. Well, guess what. As the number of guns in civillian hands has increased, and the number of armed citizens (with un-Constitutional licenses..... but I digress) has increased over the last two decades, violent crime rates have dropped. 49% over that period. 5% average drop per year.
For reasons you won't admit, you liberal victim disamers find it morally superior for a woman to lie dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose rather than have her re-loading over the bloody body of the rapist. Deny it all you wish. If YOU had to face the same restrictions on the 1st, 4th, 5th, or 9th Amendments you advocate for the 2nd, you'd be marching on DC with pitchforks and torches. You, and every single "gun control" advocate, are nothing more (or less) than blatant hypocrites. You claim to be pro women, yet deny women the right to defend themselves from rapists, muggers, and other criminals. You claim people have Constitutional rights that are not even enumerated, yet deny rights specifically listed and labelled "Shall not be infringed". Like it or not, your actions speak the truth- you hate freedom for others. And the only freedoms you support are ones that make YOU happy. You fear a free people, confident in their ability to resist aggression from any source. You do not even have my pity for your fear. Only contempt for your actions
Before I forget, I have hung around literally dozens of shooting ranges. Sold at or visited hundreds of gun shows. Run a gun shop. Repaired and restored guns for people for over 30 years. I know thousands of gun people. I know ONE who thinks of his gun as an extension of or replacement for his penis. I know of NO ONE who will "shoot until you collapse from an orgasm."
In fact, the only people except for that one mentioned (a Viet Nam vet who was WAY screwed up from PTSD, I might add) who think guns are penises are liberal gun haters. But let us pretend, for a moment, that you are correct. A gun is an extension of or replacement for a penis. Who is the sicker person- the person making that mistake, or the person trying to take that person's sexual organ away?
I feel that these are important points to keep in mind.
For once, I'm on the side of law enforcement....... sorta. I'm not thrillled by their reason for their lawsuit, but I'm sure as shootin' happy they filed it. Democrat and Republican county Sheriffs filed a federal lawsuit against the new Colorado assault rifle and magazine size limits because "There's no way we can enforce it" and "It will make compliance practically impossible for the citizens". I would have preferred they fought it because it violates the Constitution (which it does most egregiously) rather than for their convenience. But I'll take whatever court challenges we can get. Here's hoping they win.
I seem to have run out of gun related things to vent about. However, I HAVE decided to find a better way to carry my concealed pistol. The cargo pocket of my shorts works, but I'm gonna try a thigh mount tactical holster under a kilt. Not only will it conceal better, it might let me carry a better weapon. My slightly damaged fingers are a tad less nimble than they used to was. A magazine change is easier by far than a speedloader. Besides, if people are busy trying not to stare at the kilt, they will never notice the pistol at all!
Let's call this one a wrap. Next week, my friends (and you gun grabbing people, as well).
Whatever the case, it certainly isn't his hands-on management style, because even the sycophant Chris Matthews has noticed that Obama is usually AWOL from any actual occasions for work.
Pat Buchanan puts it this way:
No, this is not Watergate or Iran-Contra. Nor is it like the sex scandal that got Bill Clinton impeached.
The AP, IRS and Benghazi matters represent a scandal not of presidential wrongdoing, but of presidential indolence, indifference and incompetence in discharging the duties of chief executive.
The Barack Obama revealed to us in recent days is something rare in our history: a spectator president, clueless about what is going on in his own household, who reacts to revelations like some stunned bystander.
Consider. Because of a grave national security leak, President Obama’s Department of Justice seized two months of records from 20 telephones used by The Associated Press. An unprecedented seizure.
Yet the president was left completely in the dark. And though he rushed to defend the seizure, he claims he was uninvolved.
“What we have here, it appears, is a government out of control and a president clueless about what is going on in that government.”
While the AP issue does not appear to have legs—we know what was done and why—it has badly damaged this president. For his own Justice Department treated the press, which has an exalted opinion of itself and its role, with the same contempt as the IRS treated the Tea Party.
The episode has damaged a crucial presidential asset. For this Washington press corps had provided this president with a protective coverage of his follies and failings unseen since the White House press of half a century ago covered up the prowlings of JFK.
The Benghazi issue is of far greater gravity. Still, Obama’s sins here as well seem to be those of omission, not commission.
The president was apparently completely in the dark about the urgent requests from Benghazi for more security. Obama was also apparently completely out of the loop during the seven-hour crisis of Sept. 11-12, when Ambassador Stevens was assassinated, calls for help from Benghazi were denied and two heroic ex-Navy SEALs died fighting to defend U.S. personnel from the roof of that CIA installation.
No one seems to know where Obama was that night.
(Read the rest HERE.)
Monday, May 20, 2013
As a rule. Well, despite acting as Obama's catamite for the last few years, Big Media in the form of the AP has just been screwed over by its beloved Obama. Can he get away with even this, or has he gone a step too far? The press people's love for Obama may seem unconditional, but that's assuming Obama doesn't actually stab them in the back, which he has now done. Takimag ponders this:
One of the countless unsightly blemishes upon the human condition’s soiled visage is that people tend to only get outraged about injustice when it directly affects them.
Witness the American media’s reaction last week after the Associated Press revealed on Monday that the US Justice Department had been secretly collecting the news agency’s phone records for a two-month period in 2012.
Suddenly, the same mainstream press that for a half-decade had served as Barack Obama’s hagiographers, water carriers, bootlickers, lawn jockeys, shoeshine boys, livery drivers, toadies, stooges, and secret election committee…the same ones who’d dismissed all criticism of their big-eared saint as smelly hillbilly racism…the same ones who’d previously scoffed at the New Black Panthers case, Fast and Furious, and Benghazi as Republican-manufactured piffle…suddenly, it seemed as if Obama had flashed his fangs and bit them on the buttocks, leading them to act like teenage girls whose lover had cheated on them.
“Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug, and it would take superhuman levels of introspection and honesty for the press to admit they’ve been hoodwinked for the past five years.”
The sense of betrayal was profound. Those who seemed to have forgotten about Big Brother and civil liberties and constitutional overreach ever since George W. Bush staggered back home to Texas were smacked back into reality by the cold hand of governmental power.
All at once, it seemed to dawn on America’s journos that despite the Obama Administration’s long track record of aggressively prosecuting people who leaked government secrets to the press, it did not take kindly to whistleblowers—in other words, rather than blowing the whistleblowers, it was anally raping them.
(Well, that's explicit. Keep reading HERE.)
Anyhow, I'm here today to tell you that there's a lot more to Wagner than Thor, Odin, and flying battlefield women. One of his earliest works is Rienzi. A synopsis from http://www.naxos.com/:
|Rienzi, der Letzte der Tribunen (Rienzi, the Last of the Tribunes)|
Rienzi was Wagner's first significant operatic success, following the earlier Die Feen and Das Liebesverbot. The plot, with its championship of the citizens against the nobility, political partisanship with which the composer concurred, was calculated to appeal to Paris, but when no performance there proved possible, Wagner offered it to Dresden, where it at first proved impossibly long with a first performance that lasted some six hours. Later cuts reduced the work to more manageable proportions. The overture remains particularly well known, while vocal excerpts that may be heard in the concert-hall include Rienzi's declaration to the people of Rome Erstehe, hohe Roma, neu! (Arise, great Rome, anew!), Adriano's divided loyalties in Gerechter Gott! (God of justice!) and, best known of all, Rienzi's prayer Allmächt'ger Vater! (Almighty Father!), the theme of which is heard in the overture.
How about that? Rome and the Pope? Not what most of us think of when we think of Wagner. It gets more interesting. From a book by August Kubizek:
It was the most impressive hour I ever lived through with my friend. So unforgettable is it, that even the most trivial things, the clothes Adolf wore that evening, the weather, are still present in my mind as though the experience were exempt from the passing of time.
Adolf stood outside my house in his black overcoat, his dark hat pulled down over his face. It was a cold, unpleasant November evening. He waved to me impatiently. I was just cleaning myself up from the workshop and getting ready to go to the theatre. Rienzi was being given that night. We had never seen this Wagner opera and looked forward to it with great excitement. In order to secure the pillars in the Promenade we had to be early. Adolf whistled, to hurry me up.
Now we were in the theatre, burning with enthusiasm, and living breathlessly through Rienzi's rise to be the Tribune of the people of Rome and his subsequent downfall. When at last it was over, it was past midnight. My friend, his hands thrust into his coat pockets, silent and withdrawn, strode through the streets and out of the city. Usually, after an artistic experience that had moved him, he would start talking straight away, sharply criticizing the performance, but after Rienzi he remained quiet a long while. This surprised me, and I asked him what he thought of it. He threw me a strange, almost hostile glance. "Shut up!" he said brusquely.
The cold, damp mist lay oppressively over the narrow streets. Our solitary steps resounded on the pavement. Adolf took the road that led up to the Freinberg. Without speaking a word, he strode forward. He looked almost sinister, and paler than ever. His turned-up coat collar increased this impression.
I wanted to ask him, "Where are you going?" But his pallid face looked so forbidding that I suppressed the question.
As if propelled by an invisible force, Adolf climbed up to the top of the Freinberg. And only now did I realize that we were no longer in solitude and darkness, for the stars shone brilliantly above us.
Adolf stood in front of me; and now he gripped both my hands and held them tight. He had never made such a gesture before. I felt from the grasp of his hands how deeply moved he was. His eyes were feverish with excitement. The words did not come smoothly from his mouth as they usually did, but rather erupted, hoarse and raucous. From his voice I could tell even more how much this experience had shaken him.
Gradually his speech loosened, and the words flowed more freely. Never before and never again have I heard Adolf Hitler speak as he did in that hour, as we stood there alone under the stars, as though we were the only creatures in the world.
I cannot repeat every word that my friend uttered. I was struck by something strange, which I had never noticed before, even when he had talked to me in moments of the greatest excitement. It was as if another being spoke out of his body, and moved him as much as it did me. It wasn't at all a case of a speaker being carried away by his own words. On the contrary; I rather felt as though he himself listened with astonishment and emotion to what burst forth from him with elementary force. I will not attempt to interpret this phenomenon, but it was a state of complete ecstasy and rapture, in which he transferred the character of Rienzi, without even mentioning him as a model or example, with visionary power to the plane of his own ambitions. But it was more than a cheap adaptation. Indeed, the impact of the opera was rather a sheer external impulse which compelled him to speak. Like flood waters breaking their dikes, his words burst forth from him. He conjured up in grandiose, inspiring pictures his own future and that of his people.
Hitherto I had been convinced that my friend wanted to become an artist, a painter, or perhaps an architect. Now this was no longer the case. Now he aspired to something higher, which I could not yet fully grasp. It rather surprised me, as I thought that the vocation of the artist was for him the highest, most desirable goal. But now he was talking of a mandate which, one day, he would receive from the people, to lead them out of servitude to the heights of freedom.
It was an unknown youth who spoke to me in that strange hour. He spoke of a special mission which one day would be entrusted to him, and I, his only listener, could hardly understand what he meant. Many years had to pass before I realized the significance of this enraptured hour for my friend.
His words were followed by silence.
We descended into the town. The clock struck three. We parted in front of my house. Adolf shook hands with me, and I was astonished to see that he did not go in the direction of his home, but turned again towards the mountains.
"Where are you going now?" I asked him, surprised. He replied briefly, "I want to be alone."
In the following weeks and months he never again mentioned this hour on the Freinberg. At first it struck me as odd and I could find no explanation for his strange behavior, for I could not believe that he had forgotten it altogether. Indeed he never did forget it, as I discovered thirty-three years later. But he kept silent about it because he wanted to keep that hour entirely to himself. That I could understand, and I respected his silence. After all, it was his hour, not mine. I had played only the modest role of a sympathetic friend.
In 1939, shortly before war broke out, when I, for the first time visited Bayreuth as the guest of the Reichs Chancellor, I thought I would please my host by reminding him of that nocturnal hour on the Freinberg, so I told Adolf Hitler what I remembered of it, assuming that the enormous multitude of impressions and events which had filled these past decades would have pushed into the background the experience of a seventeen year old youth. But after a few words I sensed that he vividly recalled that hour and had retained all its details in his memory. He was visibly pleased that my account confirmed his own recollections. I was also present when Adolf Hitler retold this sequel to the performance of Rienzi in Linz to Frau Wagner, at whose home we were both guests. Thus my own memory was doubly confirmed. The words with which Hitler concluded his story to Frau Wagner are also unforgettable for me. He said solemnly, "In that hour it began."
August Kubizek was Hitler's roommate in Vienna in 1908. History is full of the damnedest things. An excerpt from Rienzi:
Saturday, May 18, 2013
"If the comment thread under that article is any indication, libertarianism is pretty much dead as a political movement."
Hasn't it always been so?
Yet the movement matters because it drains white elites(by their cognitive abilities).
But what sickened me reading some of the comments was how indoctrinated by cultural marxism they were.
The only thing really separating them and the left is economic issues. Basically.
What stood out to me was how how several of them were attacking the white working class(what a shocker) but of course, would they go after the black or latino working class with slurs like wetbacks(instead of 'white trash' or 'hicks')?
Of course not. Not only has whites disarmed their ethnic identity, they've even bought into the anti-white paradigm of the cultural left.
Culturally, they are self-haters. As long as they only attack their own people(which they try to forget/deny that they are part of as much as possible) but ONLY their own people, I will stand by that judgement.
It's one thing to try to pretend you're not white. It's quite another to specifically target the white working class for hatred in a way you wouldn't with any other ethnic group.
Trash is what they are.
And that leads me to an insight I should have had a long time ago, or rather, to a definition. I always announce myself as a libertarian nationalist to distinguish myself from the sillier sort of libertarian according to the notorious Venn Diagram. I say lots of things about how libertarianism, which is essentially the thoughts of the Founding Fathers refined and systematized a bit, has been contaminated by liberalism, and I stand by that. Consequently, the image most people have of "libertarianism" is that form of it that dominates the Libertarian Party and which is embraced by all too many self-identified libertarians. So, as I've said before, I give up, and yield the term "libertarian" to the naive neo-hippies all over the place and call myself libertarian nationalist. And, therefore, what the commenter says leads me to simplify the definition.
Libertarian nationalism = libertarianism - cultural marxism.
Can anybody improve on that?