Sunday, June 30, 2013

Economics for College Students (Simplified version of Economics for Dummies)

From Don Wright:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?

Neither could I.

Pass this on!

Wha' Choo Talkin' 'Bout, Fool? And in Which Language are you Talking about it?

In the above scene from the forthcoming blockbuster, Django II: The Revenge of the Creepy-Assed Cracker, Zoe Soldana portrays still another multilingual super-articulate genius, Rachel Jeantel, who is fluent in English, Ebonics, Creole, Spanish, French, and God alone knows what else.  Here, she confronts creepy-assed cracker defense lawyers and demolishes them with her lightning verbal wit.
Is Jaden young and innocent-looking
enough for the role?
There is no word yet whether Jaden Smith will be available to portray Trayvon, but Michael Rooker is reportedly taking a crash course in conversational Spanish in preparation for his role as George Zimmerman.

But, seriously....

This fantasy (I hope it's a fantasy) was inspired by a commenter over at Steve Sailer's site. Plus the fact that I heard that John McWhorter had argued that Rachel Jeantel was "articulate."  What?  I respect McWhorter, who has done some very good work on linguistics, and I feared that he'd gotten a tad too defensive (he's Black) about the whole thing, but I went and read what he had to say in Time magazine, and it turns out that most of what he said was innocuous and obvious to anybody who knows anything about linguistics.  Most helpfully, he says that she speaks a Black dialect, and that the dialect's grammar differs from standard English, and that she therefore isn't as inarticulate as she sounds to most
"¿Dónde está la Raza cuando lo necesito?"
of us.  Fair enough.  She is, however, pretty obviously hostile and not any too bright, and dialect doesn't explain that.  Hell, I speak a nonstandard dialect. And she clearly isn't able to switch registers.  Well, go HERE and read what he has to say. The most interesting thing is the origin of the word "cracker."  I'm a bit relieved that McWhorter hasn't bent over completely backwards, like so many others have.  Do note that one of his commenters says,

Miss Jeantel is testifying in her third language. She speaks Creole, Spanish, and English. I bet she's the only person in the room who is fluent in three languages, which makes her effectively more intellectual than anyone else there, and probably a long site more so than any of the lawyers.

Which is really dopey.  Any human being brought up in multilingual circumstances can learn several languages fluently, and has nothing to do with being "intellectual."  This is exactly the sort of thing McWhorter is good at pointing out.  Odd that one of his readers doesn't understand it.

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Fighting Dirty in Colorado

There's a recurring theme about these things.  Whenever a Good Guy comes up with a plan to oppose the Bad Guys by using the Bad Guys' tactics against them, some armchair general says, "We're better than that."  That's why we lose.  When the left is unhappy, they send thugs out to riot in the street and defecate on cars. When the right is unhappy, it holds orderly demonstrations and cleans up after itself. And then congratulates itself on how well it behave as it loses the argument.  Don't get me wrong.  All things being equal, I believe in fair play and all that it implies. But fair play only works when you have some kind of consensus about it.  The Geneva rules only work when they're enforced.  And the left, count on it, has no rules.  They'll do absolutely anything at all to win and not even blush about it.

Glaivester has a suggestion about how to deal with Democrat voter fraud.  Needless to say, many Republicans will say "we're better than that," and gear up to lose.  I think Glaivester is right.  From his BLOG:


They Fight Dirty, You Fight Dirty

Note: Please, if you like this idea, re-post it. A message to Republicans in Colorado:

Democratic Governor Hickenlooper just signed a bill that would facilitate election fraud, despite the protest of every Republican in the legislature, and the Secretary of State.

These bills tend to discourage Republicans, because they see the allowance of massive voter fraud as benefiting Democrats and worry that the Democrats will no longer have to listen to voters because they can manufacture votes.

I say, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

In any future election, if you have an opportunity to cast extra ballots, or if you have an opportunity to get an out-of-state relative to cast a ballot, or any other chance to get fraudulent votes for Republicans, take it.

If the Democrats want to make election fraud a civil right, then Republicans should commit as much election fraud as they can get away with.

It's like publishing the names of the newspaper employees of that paper that was publishing the names of gun owners. Fight fire with fire.

Any time that there is a Democrat-supported law facilitating voter fraud that Republicans can use to their benefit, they should. After they get in power, they can restore integrity to the process.

That is all.

Friday, June 28, 2013

I Dare Call It Treason, What About You?

It was amusing the other day when the feckless, back-stabbing gigolo John Kerry called Snowden a "traitor."  Maybe it takes one to know one.  Will Snowden be Secretary of State some day?  By Kerry's definition, he's off to a good start.  If you don't know why it's funny for Kerry to call people traitors, just Google John Kerry Treason.  You'll find plenty.  Which brings us to John McCain.  Now, while I have no evidence that John Kerry's dad was a traitor, it's on record that McCain is a traitor and the son of a traitor.   His treason just went over the top with his enthusiastic support of the Amnesty Bill.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg.  McCain breathes treason.  He seems to have a knee-jerk propensity towards treason.  It comes naturally to him, while other Republicans, like Rubio, have to work at it. Guy Somerset shows the breath-taking scope of McCain's treasonous activities:

Judas McCain

John McCain may be the most treasonous man who ever lived.

McCain must contend with Hitler, the Marquis de Sade, Benedict Arnold, and others to claim this crown. But John surpasses them all.

Some believe Hitler betrayed his people by leading them into conflicts they could not win. But at least Adolf had the ambition (or excuse) of reunifying historic borderlands. There is no evidence he ever entertained serious notions of attacking South America, central Africa, or conquering the Arab world. Not so John McCain, who has called for military intervention in each.

John jokes we should “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” that Venezuela should be forcefully instructed in practicing democracy, and he fully supports any means by which America can exert destructive influence over central Africa.
“Judas betrayed the greatest man in history. McCain betrayed the greatest nation in history.”

McCain’s wife was notoriously captured on camera kissing and holding hands with another man at a rock concert. His second daughter actively promotes an anti-American regime. His youngest child is a foundling from East Asia. Thus John belies commitments to faith, family, and blood all from the seat of his own home. Is there greater treason? When a man cannot control his own household’s affairs it is of vital concern when he presumes to control a nation’s destiny. When he self-effaces his own genetic heritage it begs the question what he has in mind for the greater body of Americans.

Even worse is McCain’s history as a turncoat. Many who were in co-captivity with him in Vietnam claim he switched sides when his comfort demanded it.

At various times, much to other prisoners’ chagrin, McCain has denied being interrogated by Soviet agents. But documents released in 1991 show McCain was engaged in approximately twenty interviews with communists where he was described as “exceedingly cooperative.” Evidence also indicates McCain made approximately thirty-two propaganda tapes for the North Vietnamese. No other soldier seemed to crumble to such an extent or with such evident zeal.
(Read the rest HERE.)

L. Neil Reminisces

Dancing girls.  What more can I say?
I remember LBJ, and L. Neil Smith is right about him.  He was about as evil a person who's ever had the office of the presidency.  Lincoln may have done more damage domestically, and Wilson more damage internationally, but Lincoln had a mess to deal with, and the World War would have gone on no matter what Wilson did.  But LBJ took a fairly stable (by current standards) domestic situation and relatively simple international situation and made the absolute worst of a moderately okay situation.  LBJ drafted me, and you young'uns might find this hard to believe, but a few months later, it was absolutely refreshing to have the bastard replaced by Nixon, who was a Greek philosopher king by contrast.

You Knew I Was A Snake
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

For reasons far too complicated to explain, I have been without the Internet for much of the past week. And to increase my sense of isolation from my fellow goodguys, the miserable statist cowards who run a local radio station I won't name finally found an excuse to take the one guy off the air who had (and presumably still has) the oysters to stand up to the bullies and thugs of the Obama regime, Colorado Division.
Nevertheless, it has been impossible to avoid hearing about and seeing the ... well, "scandal" is too small a word for what's going on. It's like describing what happened at Hiroshima as a fireworks display.
Obama's government is rotten at the core, where it appears that an illegal alien with a completely fictional background was set in power by a criminal gang of Marxists and their accomplices and hangers-on. Taking advantage of massive corruption that had already permeated the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, and the federal judiciary, they began working on a long-range agenda that, if fully carried out, could end in the extermination of nine tenths of the human race, ostensibly in the name of arresting global warming and saving lovely Mother Gaia from a species that is regarded by the most psychopathic among its own, as no more than a kind of skin disease on a ball of dirt.
If that strikes you as insane, you're absolutely right. If you believe that it's impossible, I urge you to take a good, hard look at recent Cambodian history. Exactly the same sub-species of demented vermin that were in charge there and then are back in charge here and now.
But what has impressed me most (maybe "appalled" would be a better word) is the utter astonishment with which all the revelations—of the government's illegal spying, ideological biases in the enforcement of taxation, and other deeply criminal activities—have apparently been received. It looks, at last, like the thrill is gone; all Chris Matthews is left with is the last two drops he couldn't shake or dance away.
And yet, unless they're newborn babies, or hermits dwelling in some unknown caverns in New Guinea or Tierra del Fuego, nobody living on this planet today is entitled to a single nanosecond of surprise. What we're dealing with here is a government and if the last hundred years of unabated butchery and slaughter have proven nothing else, it's that governments are worse than anything they pretend to protect us from. They are worse, in fact, far worse, than anything you can imagine.
The Founding Fathers knew it was a snake when they took it in.
I'm just saying.
And if saying that gets me on some government list of individuals to be watched (on the absurd assumption that I haven't already been on that list for years) that simply demonstrates that what I'm saying is correct.
But—and this is important—it is nothing new.
When I was only a third of my present age, and knew only half of what I know now about politics, I was astute enough to understand that Lyndon Johnson's war in Vietnam was immoral and illegal, serving no purpose other than enhancing his power and prestige and that of his cronies, and filling the coffers of corporations that supplied him with things, not only to beat people up and kill them, but to ruin their land for generations to come. More bombs were dropped on that little country than were dropped all around the planet during World War II, and each of those bombs cost money that went in somebody's pocket.
Incidentally, especially if you're one of my handful of readers on the left, it is important to understand that there is a difference—moral and legal—between companies that supply the Second Amendment right of individual Americans to own and carry weapons (an essential positive element in preserving and maintaining civilization), and the monstrous, amoral corporations that feed the wholesale destruction of civilizations.
But as usual, I have digressed.
What I'd intended to write about is the fact that, in the 1960s, during the Vietnam War, nobody who opposed the prosecution of that war expected any kind of privacy whatever, or any safety from government surveillance.
I don't know what people learn about Lyndon Baines Johnson these days. I was there: he was a bad man, as bad as bad men can get, as bad as any chieftain of the Mafia, as bad as any dictator or usurper in history.
Johnson and his collectivist henchmen spawned the so-called "Great Society", with its evil, family-destroying "War on Poverty", a welfare scheme of historically unprecedented proportions which was in reality nothing more than a plantation breeding program intended to produce a perpetual supply of Democratic voters—at the involuntary expense of an increasingly drained and deliberately impoverished Productive Class.
It is pretty widely accepted by historians that Johnson, an East Texas politician with a Chicago way of doing things, murdered his way into Congress, where he became butt-boy to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In the fullness of time, he became Senate Majority Leader, and finally forced himself somehow onto the Presidential ticket of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Some of the same historians are at long last beginning to believe that Johnson—who was pretty much ostracized by the rest of a mostly Northeastern administration that, despite its family roots in the deep sleaze of Prohibition-era bootlegging, and questions about trading with Nazi Germany, saw itself as vastly more cultured and refined than the Texican Veep—had Kennedy murdered, too, so that he could become President.
The idea seemed obvious to many of us at the time, and, under the rhetorical doctrine known as "Occam's Razor", which asserts that the simplest explanation is usually the best, made a lot more sense than the myriad of much more complicated theories that found their way into circulation after Kennedy's assassination. There was an off-Broadway play called MacBird that couched the notion in the style of William Shakespeare.
Like any would-be dictator, Johnson feared and hated the American tradition of private gun ownership, and did what he could to destroy it. (Kennedy had largely been pro-Second Amendment.) With Johnson's encouragement, the shady Senator Thomas Dodd, who exactly like so many gun-hating politicians, later left government "service" under a cloud of corruption, had the Library of Congress translate the body of Nazi-era German firearms laws, and used them to draft the 1968 Gun Control Act, the second federal assault on the right of the individual to own and carry weapons after Roosevelt's National Firearms Act of 1934.
Naturally, like any illegitimate ruler—like Joseph Stalin, for example—Johnson had many real enemies, and paranoiacally imagined he had many more. He had his own enemies list, which included Singer Eartha Kitt, who used an invitation to perform at the White House to lecture the man about his war—and had a very tough time ever finding work again. Johnson's FBI and other agencies infiltrated anti-war organizations until, it was joked, there were campus peace groups that consisted of nothing but federal agents, reporting on one another.
Between Vietnam and the drug war (which, contrary to popular belief, was not invented by Pat Nixon or Nancy Reagan) nobody ever lifted a telephone in those days, without taking into account the likelihood that somebody besides your mom or your girlfriend might be listening. We were all aware—probably thanks to some postal worker who wisely retained his anonymity—that Johnson was having the mail X-rayed and its contents sorted out by puzzle experts well before computers.
I have always believed that this kind of thing continued after that particular war, that particular administration. I don't believe that Nixon did anything his predecessors or his successors didn't do. He just made the wrong enemy, who arranged for him to get caught at it. And that makes me wonder who Barack Obama's most powerful enemies are.
Almost entirely absent from any conversation you'll hear, either in the establishment media, now turning like feral curs on Obama, or in alternative media that sprang up in response to their failure, is any notion of how to do away with this totalitarian nonsense once and for all. Remember, there is no emergency clause in the Constitution, no provision for martial law, or for the suspension of the Bill of Rights. Anyone who tries to act as if there were, is a criminal and a traitor, under federal laws already long established, but seldom ever enforced.
A real answer lies in my award-winning book Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis, a weapon I fashioned for you and our fellow Americans to get our country back. It is also at the bottom of each piece of e-mail I send. It's something that should have been included in the Bill of Rights to begin with, but which I suspect Alexander Hamilton and those who thought like Hamilton had a hand in omitting.
It is this:


Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Under this law, every Senator and Congressman who voted for the Patriot Act, whether he read it or not, would be behind bars. Every snooper in the CIA, FBI, NSA, or any other alphabet agency would be their cell-mates. The renditioners would be renditioned, and the torturers—well, the test of real civilization is what it does with torturers.
Isn't it?

If you want to do something for individual liberty, for yourself and for America, circulate this penalty clause as widely as you can. Send it to every official and demand it be passed into law. Believe me, they are all such low, crawling, craven finger-in-the-wind cowards that the effort alone, whether it ever passes or not, will have an effect.
Join and contribute to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, not the only trustworthy gun group (I also like Gun Owners of America) but the only organization dedicated to preventing the next Holocaust.
Last but not least, buy, read, and recommend Down With Power which includes a simple program for restoring peace, freedom, progress, and prosperity to a nation being deliberately destroyed by socialists. Make it the kind of unwelcome bestseller that John Ross's Unintended Consequences became, despite the best efforts of those socialists.
Yes, it will contribute to my family coffers, but that's what free-market capitalism is supposed to be all about—and I can cause a hell of a lot more trouble than I do now if I have the money to do it.
Choose a path and take it—your grandchildren will thank you.

World War ?

If NBC can edit 911 tapes, I guess it's okay to edit movie posters.  The threat of this, of course, by the Revs Al and Jesse, is why we're having a trial at all, and this threat is still available in case the jury makes the mistake of finding Zimmerman innocent.  This is all about making self-defense against thugs like Trayvon illegal.  Al and Jesse have been silent about this incident, of course, but can you imagine their squeals of outrage if the woman had been armed and had killed the son of a bitch?  They'd be agitating for a trial for her.  Can you doubt it?

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Ladies in Combat Again

Did I ever mention that feminists are idiots?  They are. And the only thing more idiotic is someone who listens to a feminist.  And feminists, and the idiots who listen to them, think that girls belong in military combat units.  The fact is, of course, that girls don't belong in men's armed forces at all in any capacity, much less combat.  Military women belong in women's armed forces, and very few of them would fit there very well, either.  I know this because, on top of common sense, I've actually been in the military.

Now, I enjoy goofy little stories about teenage girls fighting wars as well as the next otaku, as in the illustration here from Girls und Panzer, (ガールズ&パンツァー Gāruzu ando Pantsā), but even while I enjoy it, I know it's all make-believe, like Bugs Bunny or the Democratic Party Platform, and I know better than to take it all literally.  But feminists take everything literally, due to their unique brain structure, and they've succeeded in maybe permanently bollixing up the military along with everything else.  Pat Buchanan says:

The Pentagon’s Surrender to Feminism

“The Pentagon unveiled plans Tuesday for fully integrating women into front-line and special combat roles, including elite forces such as Army Rangers and Navy SEALs.”

So ran the lead on the CNN story. And why are we doing this?

Did the young officers leading troops in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, returning with casualties, say they needed women to enhance the fighting efficiency of their combat units and the survival rate of their soldiers?

Did men from the 101st and 82nd airborne, the Marines, the SEALs and Delta Force petition the Joint Chiefs to put women alongside them in future engagements to make them an even superior force?

No. This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology.

This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men.

But if this were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?

In the history of civilization, men have fought the wars. In civilized societies, attacks on women have always been regarded as contemptible and cowardly. Even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle, but old men and boys.

“You don’t hit a girl!” was something every American boy had drilled into him from childhood. It was part of our culture, the way we were raised. A Marine friend told me he would have resigned from the Corps rather than fight women with the pugil sticks used for bayonet practice at Parris Island.

National Association for the Advancement of Creepy-Assed Crackers

Here's one to pass around.  Enjoy:


Marc Rich is dead.  Did you know who he was?  Most people don't, or if they do, all they know is that he was some kind of big shot donor to the Clintons, and that Bill Clinton pardoned him at the last minute before he left office.  Sleazy, sure, but only the tippy-tip of the iceberg.  Marc Rich was one of those scavengers who looted Russia.  This sort of thing is no surprise to some of us, but to those on the Confused Right, it's hard to reconcile condemning Slick Willy for this pardon with all those "I stand with Israel" icons.  Steve Sailer tells us all about it:

Marc Rich and the Rape of Russia

The death of metals and oil wheeler-dealer Marc Rich in Switzerland, who was pardoned by Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001, has led to some rather bland notices in the newspapers, such as this one in the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times' version is a little more forthcoming, but fails to mention his sizable role in the Rape of Russia in the 1990s.
One reason nobody remembers this is because, despite the convenient alliteration, the Rape of Russia isn't a thing, not in the way that, say, the Rape of Nanking is a thing. The plundering of the ex-Soviet Union in the 1990s, which was egged on by the Clinton Administration, Wall Street, Harvard, and other highly respectable American institutions was misreported at the time as a triumph of the free market. And now it's mostly being forgotten. (Read the whole thing HERE.)

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Marriage — Two Ideas from the Left

It'll never work out.
The left hates tradition — customs, religious principles, folkways of all kinds. The left's own tradition is to "question" all such things and advocate the opposite.  Specifically, marriage has a lot of traditions/rules/customs.  For just about forever, in Western civilization, marriage has been monogamous, heterosexual, and between those of the same or similar races, ethnicities, religions, etc.  So of course violation of any or all of these norms is a great accomplishment for the left.  A guest post from Annette Rf, who said this on FaceBook:

I have something to say that will piss some of you off, and maybe you will unfriend me. That's OK, because if you don't agree with me on this, I want to be unfriended by you. But here it is:

Have ANY of you noticed that the SAME people encouraging support of "gay marriage" also urge you to support interracial marriage? BOTH of these perversions are a product of the LEFT. You might not see it because you have been conditioned by the media to accept interracial relationships, but historically in this country they have been seen as just as perverse and unnatural. Just as God created separate genders, He also created separate races. Do you wonder WHY the Left has encouraged BOTH interracial sex and homosexual sex?

Because *they want you to disappear, White man/woman!* The more Whites that are homosexual (and its mostly Whites who are), the less White children will be born. And the more the media and society can convince you, White man, to be happy with your daughter marrying that ghetto thug (or even the black investment banker), the less White children will be born. THEY WANT YOU DEAD, WHITE MAN. WHEN WILL YOU WAKE THE HELL UP AND SEE IT?

Encouraging interracial relationships has been a tactic of the communists since the 1950s. WHY DO YOU THINK SO MANY WHITE COMMUNISTS HAD BABIES WITH BLACK COMMUNISTS IN THE LATE 1950S AND EARLY 1960S? AND GUESS WHAT THE NAME OF ONE THOSE RED DIAPER BABIES WAS? I'll give you ONE guess (though he has gone by various names in his lifetime).

White man, you sat by and let these Leftist scum take your culture, your race, your faith, your heritage and finally your entire country away from you. They knew the best way to get rid of the White man was to convince his daughters to marry their sons, because then the babies would NOT BE WHITE. Oh stop lying to yourself, saying, "But they're half White!" Yeah, so what? Do you think anyone notices that? Mulattos are always...ALWAYS...regarded as black, by both blacks and whites. Get with the program, White man!

THINK, White man! The Left has hated you for CENTURIES. They want revenge...for all the centuries of "colonialism", "oppression of indigenous peoples"....they hate us even for the GOOD we have done for them (hospitals, clinics, schools, churches, etc) in the Dark Continent. And its not only blacks that hate us, oh no! They ALL do, in varying degrees, trust me on that one. Now, finally, they have found a way to brainwash you through the media, and they have been doing this since the 1950s. Hell, even 1950s musicals had some leftard brainwashing shoved in there...remember "You Have to be Carefully Taught" from SOUTH PACIFIC? Yeah! They were doing it to you EVEN BACK IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF THE 1950S, WHITE MAN! Remember all those movies where Clark Gable ran off with the "Indian princess", acted like an Indian and adopted them as his people? HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT FROM LETTING YOUR IMPRESSIONABLE WHITE DAUGHTER SHACK UP WITH A GHETTO NEGRO, GET UGLY TATTOOS DOWN HER ASS, GET HER HAIR CORNROWED, AND TALK GHETTO? HOW IS IT ANY DIFFERENT? The liberals laid the groundwork for what we see today, White man! Have you ever noticed that it is usually only the trashiest, most low class White girls that take up with blacks? Oh, once in a while a pretty one does, that's to shake your stereotype. But remember, even if they are not ugly on the outside they are usually stupid or dull-witted on the inside. SOMEthing is missing in them for them to do that. ASK YOURSELF WHY THAT IS. Good trees do not bear bad fruit, White man! WAKE UP!

Wait for it.... Neal Osborn's Gun Rant Number Fifteen!!

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 15
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Barack Obama, salesman extraordinaire. Smith and Wesson (as with ALL firearms manufacturers) is currently experiencing a boom year for gun sales. As usual, MSNBC has deliberately tried to word the title in an inflammatory way. "Gun sales shoot to record high for Smith & Wesson despite violent year" The record high is ACTUALLY because people are buying to get their guns before the feared attempts to destroy the 2nd Amendment gather more steam.
Game, Set, Match. This is how you stop crime. An armed good guy against an armed bad guy. One carjacker out of the picture. Be warned—it is unclear if the perp survives. You may be watching a scumbag die, so excercise caution.
Ze thought police are vatchink you, people. Be careful, or you, too, could face jail time. Jared faces up to a $500 fine and a year in jail for "obstructing an officer". Funny thing is, the officer's report mentions no threats of violence or violent actions. Jared, you might remember, is the then 14 year old boy thrown out of school for a NRA T-shirt that says "Protect your Freedom". According to the cop, Jared " when Jared refused to stop talking, that hindered his ability to do his job, hence, the obstruction charge. "
Awwww, poor little liberals can't handle the truth. George Kollitides, the president of Freedom Group, manufacturers of the Bushmaster rifle that whack-job used to kill 20 kids and 6 adults, has quite correctly refused to take any blame for the actions of a deranged individual. In fact, he said that the ONLY thing that could have prevented the killings was his mother locking up the guns, or armed guards at the school. After being castigated for that, he ALSO pointed out that the killer (who would like me to mention his name) could have used a car to run down a school yard of kids.
"It's very easy to blame an inanimate object. Any kind of instrument in the wrong hands can be put to evil use. This comes down to intent—criminal behavior, accountability and responsibility," Kollitides told the Washington Times.
In his view, he added, "only two things could have potentially stopped (the killer): his mother locking up her guns and an armed guard. Even then, he could have driven his stolen car into a playground full of kids."
He correctly pointed out the asininity of blaming an inanimate object for the actions of deranged people. Twit-diots ranting about background checks in response to his comments forget his mother passed background checks for each gun, and owned them legally. HE stole the weapons from her and murdered her before going on his spree. The outrage over his simple, truthful statements is based solely on emotion, without one single shred of common sense attached. I also note that his mother is NEVER included in the number of victims of the shooting spree.
Yet again we see that Chicago cannot understand the facts, even when the facts are there for all to see. After their most violent weekend of the year to date, Chicago STILL doesn't acknowledge the value of citizens with guns. Yet the only SOLVED shooting of the weekend involved a dead shooter hit by a cop's bullet. Now imagine if every one of the street shootings had an armed good guy on scene—perhaps there might have been better deaths—the deaths of the criminals, in addition to or instead of the deaths of forcibly disarmed civillians.
So MSN is trying to call a rifle "too effective" and too easy to use, even an "inexperienced shooter is the equivalent to a military sniper". Now, I don't really think a rifle needs a WiFi server, an Ipad mini, and USB ports. Or a built in ballistics computer. But that is irrelevant. A gun can have whatever the owner is willing to pay for. Personally, I like an M1A or M14 rifle, a nice scope is a nice touch, and a few 20 round mags. However, banning a rifle for being "too effective" is a really neat way to go about back-door banning—all you have to do is call it too effective, and my Ruger 10-.22 is on the trash heap. Let me make it clear, the article does not come right out and say "We need to ban this rifle because it is too effective, too easy to use." No, they just say things like
The weapon is already raising concerns that it could be used for evil. "It's also incredibly dangerous, since now inexperienced shooters can be as accurate (as)—or more accurate (than)—trained military snipers from almost a mile away," Koetsier writes. "The potential for terrorism and targeted assassinations is obvious." What do you think? Is TrackingPoint's new rifle a hunter's best friend or an assassination waiting to happen?
It sure as shit sounds like a weasel-worded advocation for banning due to how good the weapon is. We certainly need to keep our eyes on this one.
I've heard (from the Huckabee Report) that the reason this occurred is because the town has no police force due to fiscal difficulties, though the linked story doesn't mention the fiscal side. Now, to the story. In Clackamas County Oregon, in the neighborhood of Jennings Lodge, the townsfolk have gotten sick of piss-poor response times from the sheriff's department. Apparently, the Sheriffs spend most of their time serving the City of Portland, not the suburbs and outlying parts of the county. So they have taken the intelligent step of getting training in the use of firearms, specifically handguns, and getting themselves CCWs (not that CCWs are Constitutional, but I digress), and begun defending their neighborhood. Signs are springing up saying "This is a Glock Block. We don't dial 911". There are middle aged women who had never shot before getting training and then carrying everywhere. While the Daily Mail is not a particularly 2nd Amendment friendly rag (as evidenced by the emotionally inflammatory use of "vigilante) in the title), the article is almost sympathetic to the townsfolk. I wonder if this is a trend. We have the Armed Citizen Project training and arming lower-income single mothers in depressed areas of Houston, and planning to move on to more of Texas and Arizona, with plans to expand to Chicago and New York in the near future. Of course, the ACP is issuing shotguns for HOME defense, not handguns for concealed carry.
Connecticut sends 140 jobs to South Carolina. In the wake of the Newtown shootings, Connecticut's knee-jerk reaction of banning certain types of semi-automatic weapons and limiting magazine sizes has cost the taxpayers a fairly large chunk of corporate taxes AND 140+/- taxpayers. PTR Industries, manufacturers of a very nice "assault" rifle, estimates the time to complete=ion for the move will be 3 years.
PTR Industries' CEO said the move, which will take place over three years, will bring 140 jobs to South Carolina and was predicated by tightening gun laws enacted by Connecticut legislators following the Sandy Hook shootings. [Source]
Colorado State Senate President John Morse (mentioned in an earlier rant for his facing a first-ever for Colorado recall election) has compared gun ownership to a disease.
"The gun lobby argues that we need more guns ... and managed to convince Coloradans that we will lose our guns even if we impose reasonable restrictions on firearms ... only a cleaning of our whole society can remove this sickness from our souls. Cleansing a sickness from our souls doesn't come easily. It's gruesome."
What is REALLY gruesome is the belief that posessing the means of self defense is a "sickness on our souls", while preventing the posession of the means of self defense is "reasonable". Well, I hope that Morse and Hickenpooper get what they truly deserve—removal from office, and, if everything goes well, some major lawsuits from their mis-represented constituents. Please read the edit in the commentary under the photo—the "quote" on the picture is a compilation quote. The ACTUAL quote I reference above is where the compilation came from.
It's not DIRECTLY gun related, but this... person makes me fear for America's future. Now, we ALL know the Miss America Pageant ain't exactly selecting for brains. What it's selecting for is usually in front of the brains, and often lower. And I confess, I have rarely seen a Miss America who actually appealed to me. I like a more natural looking woman, and she's GOTTA have a brain (and little or no PC about her!). But I cannot believe that A) this brain dead bimbo LIKES the government spying on her because it somehow makes her feel "safe", B) she DOESN'T think this encroaches on her privacy, and C) the audience applauded this, as the article called it, Orwellian approval of destroying our Constitution. I may write colloquially on occasion, I may use slang, pejoratives, or profanity in my articles, but that does not mean I have no brain. I do so wish this had not only read the words of Benjamin Franklin, but been capable of comprehending them.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Though often misquoted (even by yours truly), this is the actual quote from the written letter. And Old Ben hit the nail on the head.
Well, it's Saturday afternoon, and I need to get this out of my computer and on the way to y'all.

Reaffirming Affirmative Action

Is there any limit to the craziness of Affirmative Action?  Evidently not.
The Supreme Court can look us all in the eye and say palpably evil and stupid things, as we all know. Any and all voting rights/affirmative action statutes should have been knocked down to begin with, of course, if the Court is really into equal protection under the law.  Clearly, it's into nothing of the kind.

Affirmative action, of course, is the exact opposite of equal protection, and lays down the rule that whatever trendy minorities there are will receive preference in everything from education to employment to justice, and all the stuff in between.  They shuffle the minorities around a little now and then, including homosexuals and Muslims, making tortured definitions of what constitutes being "Hispanic," and pretty much assigning heterosexual White Christian males to step back and let everybody else cut in line.

Some of us are too young to remember life without Affirmative Action, so here's a summary of what the whole thing means and why it was instituted and why it still exists, and the interesting fact that it will apply to all the illegal aliens the politicians want to give amnesty to, from Steve Sailer:

The Abolition of Racial and Ethnic Preferences

The N-Word Again

I just watched Paula Deen prostrate herself in front of that great arbiter of morality, Matt Lauer, and I can't help wondering... Is it okay if THIS LADY uses the N-word?

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Yearning to Breathe Free, and F*** Whitey

Yearning to breathe free.
Tom Sowell reminds us that there isn't an abstract creature called "immigrant," but, rather, thousands and thousands of people who want to come to the United States, of all different kinds, from savage Somalis with no economic skills, to German engineering PhD's, to Korean businessmen, to psychotic Chechen murderers, some of whom would be a great addition to the country, some of whom would be a large net loss economically, and some of whom would be absolutely toxic and dangerous. They're all the same to the likes of Chuckie Shumer and Lindsey Graham.  Sowell writes:

Thomas Sowell: Immigrants aren't an abstraction

One of the many sad signs of our times is the way current immigration issues are discussed. A hundred years ago, the immigration controversies of that era were discussed in the context of innumerable facts about particular immigrant groups. Many of those facts were published in a huge, multivolume 1911 study by a commission headed by Sen. William P. Dillingham.
That and other studies of the time presented hard data on such things as which groups’ children were doing well in school and which were not, which groups had high crime rates or high rates of alcoholism, and which groups were over-represented among people living on the dole.
Such data and such differences still exist today. Immigrants from some countries are seldom on welfare, but immigrants from other countries often are. Immigrants from some countries are typically people with high levels of education and skills, while immigrants from other countries seldom have much schooling or skills.
Nevertheless, many of our current discussions of immigration talk about immigrants in general, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world. But the concrete differences between immigrants from different countries affect whether their coming here is good or bad for the American people.
The very thought of formulating immigration laws from the standpoint of what is best for the American people seems to have been forgotten by many who focus on how to solve the problems of illegal immigrants “living in the shadows.”
A recent column in The Wall Street Journal titled “What Would Milton Friedman Say?” tried to derive what the late Professor Friedman “would no doubt regard as the ideal outcome” as far as immigration laws were concerned.
Although I was once a student of Professor Friedman, I would never presume to speak for him. However, he was a man with the rare combination of genius and common sense, and he published much empirical work as well as the analytical work that won him a Nobel Prize. In short, concrete facts mattered to him.
It is hard to imagine Friedman looking for “the ideal outcome” on immigration in the abstract. More than once he said, “the best is the enemy of the good,” which to me meant that attempts to achieve an unattainable ideal can prevent us from reaching good outcomes that are possible in practice.
Too much of our current immigration controversy is conducted in terms of abstract ideals, such as “We are a nation of immigrants.” Of course we are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of people who wear shoes. Does it follow that we should admit anybody who wears shoes?
The immigrants of today are very different in many ways from those who arrived here a hundred years ago. Moreover, the society in which they arrive is different. The Wall Street Journal column ends by quoting another economist who said, “Better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country.”
But the welfare state is already here — and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds.
We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.
Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.
Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long.
Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it?
“Comprehensive immigration reform” means doing everything all together in a rush, without time to look before we leap, and basing ourselves on abstract notions about abstract people.

Coy Mathis — The Saga Continues!

Even Toddy thinks this woman is nuts.
The craziness that I reported on before HERE and HERE continues, and now has the stamp of approval from the "Colorado Rights Division," which is probably a pretty flamboyant-looking thing itself.  What we have here is a nutcase woman who's decided her son "identifies as" a girl, and wants everybody in the known Universe to be forced by law to humor him (His mother, of course, prefers "she."), and to hell with what they might identify as. From CNN:

Transgender first-grader wins the right to use girls' restroom

By Ed Payne, CNN

(CNN) -- A transgender first-grader who was born a boy but identifies as a girl has won the right to use the girls' restroom at her Colorado school.

The Colorado Rights Division ruled in favor of Coy Mathis in her fight against the Fountain-Fort Carson School District.

Coy's parents had taken her case to the commission after the district said she could no longer use the girls' bathroom at Eagleside Elementary. In issuing its decision, the state's rights division said keeping the ban in place "creates an environment that is objectively and subjectively hostile, intimidating or offensive."

The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund praised the ruling that was filled under Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act. Michael Silverman, the group's executive director, called the ruling "a high-water mark for transgender rights."

This is the first of it's kind ruling in the country regarding the rights of transgender students. No court, no tribunal has ever said what the Colorado Division of Civil Rights has said today which is that trangendered students must be treated equally. They specifically referenced the outmoded concept of separate but equal and told us that separate but equal is very rarely equal and it is certainly not equal in Coy's case.

Coy's mother, Kathryn Mathis, said she's pleased that Coy can return to school and put this behind her. The first-grader has been home schooled during the proceedings. (Read the rest and see a video HERE.)

DailyKenn Is Back On Line!

Kenn doesn't look anything like this, of course, so we'll just pretend
that she's his assistant, okay?

The great alternative to the Drudge Report is back!  I had no idea why he'd been offline, but now I find out he had surgery.  Go HERE!  He posts:


A twenty-day stay in the hospital after emergency brain surgery has kept off line.

I'm  now home and contending with the grogginess of meds, but plan to begin posting on June 25.

On June 4th I was trimming hedges when I fell from the ladder. A severe headache prompted me to go to the hospital for a CATSCAN. I anticipated being given two aspirins and sent home to sleep it off.

Instead, the physician told my wife and me that my brain was hemorrhaging. He instructed my wife to call my siblings and children and have them meet her at the Med Center where I was promptly air-lifted for emergency surgery. The prospect for survival was not good.

As it turned out, the final goodbye never happened.

Surgery involved two procedures. A large section of my skull was removed to allow swelling and 'brain drain' (my term, not their's.) The scalp was reconnected with staples. A tube was inserted in my head allowing brain juice (again, my term) to collect in a container dangling on my chest. A few days later the removed section was retrieved from the freezer and replaced. The surgeon declined my request to video record the second procedure. Sigh.

Stitches prompted my sister's 7-year-old grandson to observe my head looked a lot like a baseball. That, in turn, prompted me to be grateful he wasn't toting a bat.

Recovery lasted 20 very long days. The time was filled by staring out the window which was preferred to staring at the wall which was preferred to watching TV. I was punctured about five times twice a day for blood samples, fed meds with disregard for time of day or night, and feasted on orange sherbet. Throughout the ordeal I was tethered to an IV drip which accompanied me wherever I went.

Thanks are offered to dozens of friends and family members who graciously spent hours at the foot of my bed conversing between my feet. A visitation from the pope, sad to say, was declined. My son, however, flew home from France. He presented me with a cap he purchased in Ireland which I wore nearly every waking hour (and most non-waking hours) to distract my penchant for scratching the itchy incision. My wife made the trip every day.

After the first surgery, physicians upgraded my condition from death to intense therapy. They anticipated months teaching me to walk, climb stairs, etc. That plan was scrapped after a few days of walking the halls with a therapist. After two weeks I was again upgraded from 'yellow socks' (must be accompanied by nurse or therapist) to 'brown socks' (can walk alone). One lap around the ward took 7.5 minutes, or 8 laps for me and my IV-drip 'date' per hour.

The after affects are grogginess due to meds and weakness from being stuck in a hospital bed most of the time. Besides the incision scar, I'm sporting a burr haircut for the first time in fifty years, and a beard.

With one exception the hospital staff members were excellent regardless of ethnicity.

Next challenge: Paying the bills!

The Zimmerman Railroading

If you want to keep up with the Zimmerman trial, of course there's no point in watching the networks, or PBS, and just a little point in watching the prissy pseudo-conservatives at Fox News, who honest to God can't say "Trayvon" without adding "unarmed teen" every bloody time.  No, what you want to do is go to Nicholas Stix every day.  He'll keep you informed.  Here's what he reported yesterday:

Day One in the George Zimmerman Trial: Is the Fix in?

George Zimmerman’s bloody, broken nose, in a photo taken the night Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense

George Zimmerman: The real victim. The bloody wounds that Trayvon Martin inflicted on the back of Zimmerman’s head, when Martin repeatedly slammed Zimmerman’s head into the pavement, while trying to murder him (State Attorney's Office)

Would-be murderer Trayvon Martin about a week before George Zimmerman killed him in self-defense

Post #110 on the Trayvon Martin Hoax (see list at end of article)

By Nicholas Stix

During opening arguments today, Judge Debra Nelson might as well have put a gag in defense attorney Ed West’s mouth.

When prosecutor John Guy delivered his own opening argument, a slow, portentous, pretentious, lie-laden plea to emotion, no one interrupted him. But when George Zimmerman’s defense attorney Don West rose to give his opening, he was immediately met with constant objections from Guy, making it impossible for West to develop any rhetorical rhythm—which, of course, was the point— every one of which Judge Debra Nelson sustained, maintaining in all but the first case that West was saying things he was only permitted to say in his closing.

At one point, after machine gun-style objections, West was so frustrated and hog-tied that he just stood there, unable to speak. Judge Nelson was doing the equivalent of gagging him.

It is customary to grant both sides great latitude in presenting their opening and closing arguments. And the People were granted complete license. But the defense was granted none.

Last month, during George Thomas’ Knoxville Horror re-trial for murder and other crimes against Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, my partner David in TN remarked thatThomas defense attorney Steven Johnson’s opening sounded like a closing. But the prosecution team of ADAs Takisha Fitzgerald and Leland Price respected Johnson’s right to mount a vigorous defense of his client, as did presiding Judge Walter Kurtz. Thus, Johnson was permitted to deliver a closing-style opening, unmolested. Conversely, Judge Nelson and the prosecution are denying George Zimmerman the right to a vigorous defense. (Keep reading HERE.)

Monday, June 24, 2013

The Nuncupatory N-Word

Cartoon by BALOO

Nuncupatory on this blog so far, that is.  But it's not nuncupatory over at
Nicholas Stix, where we're reminded of the Fall of Dr. Laura, (and she couldn't even cook) or at
Glaivester, where he explains the strategy I haven't worked up enough nerve to follow yet.

Immigration and the Left

Feel free to pass this graphic around.
Despite what they say, just about the entire political class is in favor of amnesty first of all, and then more and more and more immigration, legal and illegal.  And you can extend that to the whole MAG (Media, Academia, Government).  Now, they all want it for their own grubby little reasons, but they all say it will just improve the bejeezus out of the economy and everything else, to have unlimited hordes of uneducated, unskilled, Third-World immigrants pouring in over the border.  It seems that even an idiot could figure out that when you have an oversupply of a commodity (unskilled labor), the price (wages) of that commodity falls.  When it falls far enough, unskilled Americans can't afford to take the unskilled jobs, because they can get more money from welfare, so that's what they do, and they get zero work experience, and stay unemployable forever.  Then the immigrants catch on to the deal, they go on welfare, and then we need to let a few million more uneducated, unskilled, Third-World immigrants in, and the cycle continues.  Make no mistake about it, people.  If you are a worker, or would like to be a worker, amnesty is going to hike your taxes and cut your pay.

The left, of course, couldn't care less about actual working people. They think of them as a bunch of nasty Archie Bunkers who ought to lose their stupid jobs.  Serve 'em right.  Racist bigots.

But not all leftists hate the American working class.  My favorite leftist, Robert Lindsay, says this:

Left Support for Mass Immigration: The Role of Bullying

Hizzle writes:
Don’t know how you feel about linkage, Rob, but this is an interesting fellow whose post is very related to the anti-worker social pathologies of the Left:

It’s not really true that the Left is anti-worker. They think they are pro-worker. They are just blinded fools, that is all.

However, there is a type of White Far Leftist who does seem to hate US workers. They repeat the lies that US workers (especially White workers) are fat, lazy, rightwing and crappy workers. They say we need to import millions of illegals because US workers are such crappy workers.

These types are actually rare, but I did meet one once. He was an “anarchist” in his 20′s. He found out how I felt about illegals, and he went fullon nutso at me, screaming and yelling. He called me “fascist.”

This is the type of bullying they do to their fellow Lefties and liberals. If you are on the Left, most of your friends are also on the Left. Probably a lot of Lefties (especially liberals) are dubious about mass immigration (especially illegal immigration), but the other Lefties simply browbeat and harangue them about immigration until they fall into line. If they continue to be non-PC on immigration, most of their Left-liberal friends will scream and yell at them, calling them “fascist,” “reactionary,” and “racist’ and you don’t knuckle under, they simply end their friendship with you in a really mean and cruel way.

Further, they go around telling all your friends on the Left what an evil fascist racist you are, and then you lose even more friends. Left-liberals are very fanatical about politics and they will actually end friendships over political issues. They will remain friends with a conservative because they think they are hopeless, but they will end a friendship with a heterodox Leftist who wanders off the plantation. Most people don’t like to fight, especially with their friends and allies, and having your ally friends break up with you in a very mean and vicious way is painful, and most folks will just chicken out and avoid it by going along to make peace.

Also, liberal-Leftists are very susceptible to name calling. We hate being called reactionaries, fascists and racists by our fellow Lefties, so those terms are very effective at bringing us into line. It is still painful for me to read the things Lefties say about me on the web – it really hurts my feelings when they call me racist, I have to admit it.
(This is from Robert's blog HERE.  I go check it periodically.  It's refreshing to read an old-school leftist who doesn't run with the herd.)