Thursday, April 30, 2015

Racial Blinders

The dominant political philophies all have explanations for the Baltimore riots. And they're all pretty much wrong, because mentioning the elephant in the room is taboo. Neocons and/or Republicans are fond of pointing out that the Democrats have been running Baltimore since 1967, and that the riots are the result of Democratic policies. That's slightly true, but misses the big picture. Liberals and/or Democrats of course blame White racism and the fact that we haven't poured enough billions into the place. They're just completely wrong. Such spending has exacerbated the situation by rewarding past bad behavior. Libertarians, at least the ones with blinders on, blame the War on Drugs and police brutality, and that's true to a tiny extent as far as the drugs are concerned, and the police brutality is more of an effect than a cause. All of these theories are constantly harped on by the talking heads, and they all miss the point.

No, the reason is that Baltimore is a city dominated by Blacks. Paul Kersey explains. This is from

Baltimore Represents "Africa in America": Which is Why Mayor Rawlings-Blake Begged CVS to Build Store that Blacks Eventually Burned Down...

PK NOTE: Paul Kersey talks Baltimore with Jared TaylorPick up a copy of The City that Bleeds: Race, History, and the Death of Baltimore to understand how the civilization whites created in Baltimore has been driven out by the rising black population.

A black mayor.
A black police commissioner, in charge of a police department on the verge of being majority black (and dedicated not to serving and protecting the community, but tackling racism to build trust with the 65 percent black city).

A majority black city council, with a black city council president who found it in his heart to apologize to the black terrorists who burned/rioted/and looted the city (while flanked by black gang members).
One of the most shocking headlines you'll ever read: the merger of the black-run state of Baltimore with 

black agents of anarchy: is this an example of the private army/police force President Obama spoke of?

But it doesn't matter.

White people abandoned a city their ancestors built because of intolerable rates of black crime and dysfunction, and with the subsequent black takeover of the city any and all vestiges of social capital left as well. Save on April 27, when rival black gangs - Crips, Bloods and Black Guerrilla Family street gangs - united to protect black owned businesses after meeting with a black elected official and members of the black clergy. [Rival Gang Members Unite, New York Times, 4-27-2015]:
At the end of a march led by Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, local religious leaders met at New Shiloh Baptist Church on North Monroe Street with some of the young rioters. 
Most of the protesters had already left the church, but with about 50 people still in the pews, six or seven young men went to the front of the church, where they set out their frustrations and spoke about what they had done to shape the events of the night. 
Some of the young men wore bandanas to hide their identities. Several young men identified themselves as members of the Crips, Bloods and Black Guerrilla Family street gangs. One Crips member, who called himself Charles, said the gang members had taken to the streets because “there is only so far that you can push people into a corner. We’re frustrated and that’s why we’re out there in the streets.” 
He described how he and some Bloods members stood in front of stores that they knew were black-owned business, to protect them from looting and vandalism. He said they made sure no black youths, or reporters, were injured by rioters. 
Instead, he said, they pointed the rioters toward Chinese- and Arab-owned stores. 
Freddie Gray’s death, he said, had brought Baltimore’s violent gangs together. 
“I rolled over here on a truck and I was the only Crip, and everybody else was Bloods, and they didn’t do anything to me,” he said. “We’re together in this.”
An admission by a black Crip member that rival black gangs are united in the racial cleansing of Baltimore of any non-black person: this profound statement should be juxtaposed with the Baltimore City Council President being flanked by two black gang members as he apologized for calling them "thugs."

All that remained was the infrastructure white people built long ago, for a future far different than the one on April 29, 2015, when the black city leaders could not guarantee the safety of white Baltimore Orioles fans and the team played a game before an empty stadium.

With the invention of the mechanical cotton picker in the early 1900s, black labor became obsolete on farms in the south. So, blacks moved north seeking work. They flooded into Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore.

In 2015, the descendants of these black migrants labor is just as worthless as the value of the labor those black migrants had when they left the south almost a century ago.. [Baltimore Protesters Defy Curfew With Thousands Of Police, Troops Deployed, Huffington Post, April 28, 2015]:

The violence set off soul-searching among community leaders and others, with some suggesting the uprising was about more than race or the police department — it was about high unemployment, high crime, poor housing, broken-down schools and lack of opportunity in Baltimore's inner-city neighborhoods.
The city of 622,000 is 63 percent black. The mayor, state's attorney, police chief and City Council president are black, as is 48 percent of the police force.
"You look around and see unemployment. Filling out job applications and being turned down because of where you live and your demographic. It's so much bigger than the police department," said Robert Stokes, 36, holding a broom and a dustpan on a corner where some of the looting and vandalism took place.
He added: "This place is a powder keg waiting to explode."You read on sites like National Review or Breitbart that 65 percent black Baltimore represents a "failure of liberal policies": yet liberal cities with small black populations, such as San Francisco, Portland, Austin, and Seattle are thriving.

But a once proud city - the birthplace of the United States National Anthem - is now a black dystopia, with a burned-out CVS a representation of the Visible Black Hand of Economics, considering it took extraordinary measures by the black government of Baltimore to convince CVS to invest in West Baltimore. [Baltimore mayor defends riot response, The Hill, April 28, 2015]:

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) on Monday night activated the National Guard in Baltimore andsuggested Rawlings-Blake had held up the process.
"When the mayor called me, which quite frankly we were glad that she finally did, instantly we signed the executive order," Hogan said.
Rawlings-Blake defended her handling of the crisis, and lamented the toll that the unrest had taken on her city. She noted that one of the fires gutted a West Baltimore CVS that had been seen as a crucial addition to the community.
“I spoke to someone here who knows how hard we fought to get a CVS to invest into this neighborhood,” she said, noting that the drug stores is the only place some people can pick up prescriptions nearby.
“Everybody know we have a city with great needs, and there are many that are struggling. What happened last night made sure that more people are struggling.”
The mayor said over the weekend that the city has been trying to walk the line of keeping the peace and allowing people to protest. She added that in the balancing act, she wanted to “give those who wished to destroy space to do that. ”But blacks didn't need any "space" to destroy what was left of the civilization whites long ago built (and abandoned because of the intolerable rates of crime by blacks and the incivility high numbers of black neighbors brought to the community), as they've been doing it since the black riots of 1968.[Crowds Scatter as Baltimore Curfew Takes Hold, New York Times, 4-29-15]:
Near the burned-out CVS, Robert Wilson, a college student who went to high school in Baltimore, said: “With the riots, we’re not trying to act like animals or thugs. 
We’re just angry at the surroundings, like this is all that is given to us, and we’re tired of this, like nobody wants to wake up and see broken-down buildings. They take away the community centers, they take away our fathers, and now we have traffic lights that don’t work, we have houses that are crumbling, falling down.”Mr. Wilson said he had seen someone on television say, “This doesn’t feel like America." 
“And I’m like, ‘This is America!’ ” he said. “ ‘They just don’t want you to know!’ ”
Mr. Wilson, 65 percent black Baltimore is no longer America: it's Africa in America, where the skyscrapers long ago erected by white men believing in a brighter future now stand to mock the deteriorating conditions of a city completely controlled by blacks.

You wake up to broken-down buildings because blacks fail to maintain the buildings/homes whites abandoned because of black crime; community centers go away because the 65 percent black city lacks the tax base to sustain them; no one takes away any fathers, with black males possessing free will to either leave a pregnant woman or commit a crime that puts them in jail; traffic lights don't work because no funds our available for the Department of Transportation because of the 65 percent black city lacks the tax base to fund it; and the houses are crumbling and falling down because they were built to shelter white people, not the descendants of obsolete farm equipment from the south whose criminality and inability to assimilate to western civilization drove whites to rebuild the city in the suburbs.

With white people abandoning the city their ancestors built, and building new, thriving communities in Baltimore County, why couldn't individual black people collectively create a community where CVS would be begging to invest in, instead of the black leadership of the city begging CVS to "pretty please" open up a store...?"

No, white flight didn't decimate Baltimore businesses: the white abandonment of Baltimore and subsequent black demographic majority in the city created an uncomfortable environment for commerce that only plexiglas can alleviate.

Businesses continue to open up in heavily Democrat Portland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, & San Fransisco, but these cities do not have the liability of a large black population as Baltimore does: nor is there a real fear a black riot will cause the Mariners, Rockies, or Giants baseball games to be played before an empty stadium...
Go to the original post here to read lots of comments:
I include a bonus picture of the Riot Enabler-in-Chief, for you to pass around.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

The African Mega-Diaspora

There are a lot of Africans moving into Europe, legally and illegally, and the most spectacular manifestation of this are boatloads crossing the Mediterranean. The usual gang of liberal idiots think all this is just fine, and that Europeans and other White people have a 'duty' to give their own countries up to accommodate the African sprawl. This is because liberals, despite their rhetoric, really, really hate science and math because they're so full of facts and depressing conclusions, so they'd much rather have feel-good narratives than actual analysis of such messes.

Some have blamed our intervention in Libya, etc., for causing the refugee problem. Well, that might add a trickle to the flood, but the reason is the African fertility rate. There are currently over a billion Africans, and their outrageous birth rate means that, with no changes. it'll be over 4 billion by the turn of the century. So if Africa can't support even one billion, that means that over three billion will have to go live in Europe and America over the next few decades. And, BTW, their fertility rate won't change much in their new homes. If anything, the improved medical services will increase their birth rate.

Over at, Steve Sailer writes:

Africa on the Brink

The governments of Europe are confronting an epochal choice in the Mediterranean. Do they allow Europe to remain on course toward inundation by the African population explosion, inevitably turning Florence into Ferguson and Barcelona into Baltimore?

The conventional wisdom is that it’s unthinkable to stop the African tsunami. Veteran public radio correspondent Sylvia Poggioli assured gullible NPR listeners on Monday:

This is a human tide that cannot be stopped,” she says. … Europeans have to start providing legal channels that will allow them to seek asylum here. This is a humanitarian crisis, says Mascena, that cannot be solved by use of force — or by leaving these desperate human beings bottled up in Africa and the Middle East.

Or will Europeans adopt the sensible policies of Australia and Israel that have succeeded at turning back Camp of the Saints-style invasions by boat?

The Sub-Saharan African population bomb is the most obvious long-term problem facing global peace and prosperity. We’ve been lectured for decades about climate change, but the staggering fertility rates among black Africans have been largely hushed up over the last quarter of a century. We’re supposed to assume the problem will solve itself without any white people ever being so crass as to mention that it’s even a problem.

While birth rates have dropped in much of the world, they remain staggeringly high in much of Africa south of the Sahara. The simplest measure to work with is the total fertility rate, a projection of babies per woman per lifetime. While many countries have dropped below the replacement rate (for example, Iran is at 1.85), there are 35 countries in black Africa with total fertility rates over 4.0, compared to only four elsewhere on earth.

The highest TFR is seen in desert Niger at 6.89 babies per woman. You could argue that Niger in the southern Sahara is an unimportant wasteland, with only 8 million people back. (Oh, wait, that was back in 1990. Now it’s up to 18 million.)

Even more worrisome are giant Nigeria (177 million people) at a TFR of 5.25, Ethiopia (97 million) at 5.23, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (77 million) at 4.80.

And that’s assuming that chaotic Congo is actually counting its vital records properly. UN demographers recently discovered that they had been understating the current total fertility rate in Africa by 0.25 due to shoddy record keeping by African governments. Thus, two years ago the United Nations Population Division released a shocking update to their population projections, revising the forecast for the continent of Africa upward to 4.2 billion in 2100 from 1.1 billion today.

That is about a half dozen times greater than the population of Europe.

Africa is almost certainly not going to add over three billion residents over the next 85 years. Something else will happen instead, ideally a decline in African fertility to sustainable levels rather than mass migrations or a rise in the death rate.

Africans will attempt to decamp en masse to Europe and to other first world countries, such as America.

If Africans aren’t allowed to get away with that, however, they might actually deal with their own fertility excesses, just as almost everybody else outside Africa has more or less done.

The problem is that this reform needs to happen soon. Due to the phenomenon of “population momentum,” even after the Total Fertility Rate falls to the replacement rate, the population keeps growing for about another 40 years.

It’s not impossible for black cultures to learn to show some self-restraint. The total fertility rate in Barbados, for instance, is only 1.68, and in poorer Jamaica it’s 2.05.

Even dystopian Haiti is down to 2.79 from 3.80 at the time of the earthquake in 2010, although with little thanks to the enormous number of NGO charities that white people run on that densely populated and deforested Caribbean country to keep the Haitians fed. After the 2010 earthquake, I looked for foreign charities boasting online of providing contraception to Haitians, but could find almost none. Apparently, that would be racist, even though a lower population growth rate clearly ought to be the highest priority for that impoverished land.

It’s important for naïve white people to understand why black Africans aren’t terribly inclined to limit their own numbers, at least not without strict immigration restriction and constant hardheaded prodding by Westerners to undertake family planning.

Europeans used to be less naïve about African proclivities.

Read the rest here:

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

The Beatrix Potter Fallacy

I'm thrashing around here trying to think of a word for a concept. The Shaw quote in the quibcag sort of captures it. It's the notion that other people and other groups are exactly like you and your groups. I've been hearing people ask 'Where are their parents' in the middle of this Baltimore mess. The implication is that the ghetto rioters have families much like one's own. Well, mostly, they don't. They don't have fathers, and their mothers are usually outrageously young and ignorant, and very often hooked on some damn thing or another. So asking where their parents are calls Ward and June Cleaver to mind and that doesn't apply at all. Taking this concept to ridiculous extremes, I'm reminded of children's books, like Peter Rabbit, wherein animals have human characteristics. They wear pants, have brothers and sisters and parents who give them advice and take care of them. They talk, of course, and have motivations and relationships just like people. So maybe we can call it the "Beatrix Potter Fallacy." This manifests in many ways, even without going outside the human race. We gladly invite Muslim immigrants into the West, assuming they're already like us, in that they'll consider principles and laws more important than religion and blood, and will assimilate just fine. They won't and don't.  And we assume that other ethnic groups are Just Like Us In The Important Ways, and just need a little talking to and understanding to fit right in. That's not the case.

And a favorite manifestation of this fallacy is that homosexuals are Just Like Us, and want to have nice nuclear families and chastity and loyalty within marriage and mow their lawns and go to PTA meetings, etc. Wrong. Homosexuals are quite different. And that leads me to a reprint here from The Libertarian Alliance. It reinforces my theory that British libertarians are just like American libertarians, except that they have common sense instead of political correctness.

What does it mean to be “gay”?

D.J. Webb
Is being “gay” a version of the family? How should people be gay? Should they get married, adopt children and try to live out a fantasy family lifestyle? Is this in fact what a society that chooses not to discriminate against homosexuality should seek to encourage?
We are meant to admire Elton John, who has “married” his “partner”, David Furnish. The couple now have two children, brought into the world with the assistance of a surrogate mother. Other similar “married” gay men have adopted children. This fully recreates the heterosexual life experience in a gay form. This is at least one version of how to be gay.
Another version is the George Michael approach. George Michael has stated in the newspapers that he cruises for sex with strangers on Hampstead Heath in London. He claims that he can have anyone he wants on the Heath.
Interestingly, the two versions of the gay lifestyle have clashed. Elton John has encouraged George Michael to seek help for his “sex addiction”, as well as for his taking of drugs. In 2009 George Michael countered,
Elton just needs to shut his mouth and get on with his own life. Look, if people choose to believe that I’m sitting here in my ivory tower, Howard Hughesing myself with long fingernails and loads of drugs, then I can’t do anything about that, can I? People want to see me as tragic with all the cottaging and drug-taking… those things are not what most people aspire to, and I think it removes people’s envy to see your weaknesses. I don’t even see them as weaknesses any more. It’s just who I am.
It seems undeniable that George Michael’s approach of seeking to have sex with as many good-looking strangers as possible is what has hitherto been the “gay” lifestyle. George Michael hasn’t “married” his partner and hasn’t procured children. I lost the thread of what the singer was up to around 2012, and don’t know if he still haunts Hampstead Heath. As an extremely unattractive man, he may well find that his status as a singer will not always, as he gets older, secure him the physical activity with the most attractive young men that he may still crave.
I think it undeniable, however, that most gay men in their 40s and 50s would rather be having frequent sex with as many 18-21-year-old men (“twinks”) as possible, rather than posing as “married men” with “children” in tow.
The Elton John style fake family seems to me to be a freak show—one that even more freakily is what the British Establishment is recommending as the ideal life for gay men.
More recently, there have been a number of news stories showing that an older generation of gay men are “turned off” by the new politically correct developments in gay culture. The fashion designers, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, caused uproar when they criticised the attempt to create “same-sex families” along the Elton John model. The Dolce and Gabbana statements—“no chemical offsprings [sic] and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed” and “the only family is the traditional one”—illustrates perfectly the fact that there is no consensus among homosexual men on creating an artificial family-like gay life.
The fashion designer Giorgio Armani has joined the fray, criticising effeminate or overly obviously gay dress styles, saying “a homosexual man is a man 100%. He does not need to dress homosexual” and “when homosexuality is exhibited to the extreme—to say, ‘Ah, you know I’m homosexual,’—that has nothing to do with me. A man has to be a man”.
It seems there is a culture that is an acceptable part of the multicultural political project that is identifiably gay. A way of dressing. A hairstyle. A musical preference. A less manly mode of behaviour. This culture can be incorporated into the general attack on family values by means of gay marriage, gay adoption of children, by the mainstreaming of the gay identity.
But most of this amounts to taking the homosexuality out of being gay. It is becoming a culture—largely a young person’s culture—and an identity. But at its most fundamental, being “gay” should be about having sex with men. It is possible to enjoy sex with men, even exclusively, and not share the cultural aspects of “gay identity”. Who cares about the hairstyles and the music? If it isn’t about sex, then this culture is a synthetic creation of the political and media class.
Real homosexuality is incompatible with the family, because homosexuality is about sex, not love. I don’t deny that gay men do fall in love with each other—but shorter relationships are statistically more common in the absence of any real family relationship. And, yes, gay men do love attractive young men—but they love all of them, and want to have sex with all of them. Large numbers of sexual partners is what being homosexual has really always been about. A monogamous family-style gay life is really for unattractive gay men.
The family is an entirely different concept to homosexuality: it creates a cocoon within which sex, but also reproduction and the upbringing of children, can be conducted. A 50-year-old man knows the 18-year-old females no longer find him attractive. He has a wife—who will have lost her looks—and he has children and probably grandchildren. He would be losing a lot by foolishly chasing after young women. The family provides a way for him to reconcile himself to his ageing self and his declining sexual activity.
Being gay can be tolerated by society at the margins. There can be a small number of people who don’t have real families, and hanker after sex until they can no longer gyrate, without disturbing social order. Whether such people can find a way to be happy as septuagenarian homosexuals with no children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren, is largely their business, and in most cases likely to be an unhappy affair. In reality, heterosexuality is a greater and more palatable concept, simply because of the way it provides a network of relationships as a compensation for sexual activity for older straight men. Real homosexuality has nothing similar to offer—other than the plastic families of Elton John and his ilk.
Be that as it may, it seems clear that the family-like gays do not speak for the entire homosexual community, and are even seen as freakish in some parts of the homosexual population. The danger is that the political adoption of homosexuality as a cultural cause will spoil the real content of gay life. By going mainstream, the sex is taken out of the sexuality—and then it becomes the plaything of the political elite. Libertarians should therefore oppose the political gay cultural project and lend their support rather to men who like to have sex with strangers in saunas, in dark rooms in gay clubs, in specialist sex clubs, and other similar venues.

The original is here:
Quibcag: Illustration by Miisu

Lynch Law

It's just her first day on the job, and Loretta Lynch has already done a magnificent job of being the first Black female Attorney General. I don't want to jump the gun, here, but is it too soon to give her a Nobel Peace Prize? Not only does she clearly deserve it, but it might make the Baltimore rioters so proud of being Black that they'll stop rioting. Read more about the amazing Loretta and the wonderful job she's done HERE. And Baltimore Mayor calls for the destruction of Baltimore here:

Monday, April 27, 2015

Hillary Ad Nauseam

If there were no Hillary Clinton, it would be necessary to invent her. For the Republicans, that is. I really wish she would implode or otherwise go away soon, because, as some pundits have pointed out, she's using up all the oxygen in the room. What they mean is that she's distracting attention away from some really cool candidates people need to know about. What I mean is that she's distracting attention away from the basic hideousness of the other candidates. Seriously, just what differences, other than cosmetic, do you detect between her and the latest Bush? None, really, and that goes for all the other Democrats and Republicans so far, with a partial exception in the case of Rand Paul.

We're all so busy pointing out the horrors of Hillary, we don't have time to point out that her foreign policy is virtually identical to that of all the other candidates (again excepting Paul, to some extent). Her open borders advocacy is horrible and treasonous, of course, but so it that of all the other declared candidates, no matter what they've had to say lately. Interestingly, Rubio sounds like he's against open borders when he speaks English, but quite the contrary when he speaks Spanish.

I've even let her use up too much of the oxygen on this blog, because she's such an easy target. I'll try to do better.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Moll Flanders, or Neale's Weekly (and very late) Gun Rant For 4-19-2015 (and the preceding weeks)

Lotsa good stuff this week, but I gotta go make a living. Enjoy.
The illustration is from Kantai Collection (艦隊これくしょん Kantai Korekushon, lit. "Combined Fleet Collection")
Neale's Weekly (and very late) Gun Rant For 4-19-2015 (and the preceding weeks)
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

I'm going to start this off with Mama Liberty. But first, an apology. For those who've cared enough to ask, Pop is now in Hospice care, and I've been traveling the 600 mile round trip twice a week to help care for him, PLUS working like a dog trying to get the farm up after a brutal winter (Where the HELL is that "Global Warming" we've been promised? I keep farting and driving my truck, yet the winters are getting COLDER!!!!) and these little missives have fallen to the wayside. Needless to say, I have not devoted the time I normally do to this one. SO please take what you get, and send a few kind thoughts to Pop for an easy transition. MOST of what is going to be here comes from my two stalwart helpers, Gunny Gene, and TJ Mason. Thanks, guys. Now, to Mama (who sent this on several weeks ago, and has kindly let me know she's there for me if I need her—Luv ya, ML) [Link] It's her novel, Consequences, a most excellent read. (I need to re-read it, since I first read the rough draft, months ago). It's a free e-book, download it NOW!!!!

Every choice and action has consequences. Utopia is not an option. 

"It" finally happened. The value of the US dollar was at last recognized by the entire world as a negative number and much of the world economic structure that had depended on it collapsed in flames. The container ships stopped arriving and very real threats were made by creditor countries. Very few people could continue to produce much of anything with no cash and no credit possible, so tax revenues vanished. The government could no longer pretend to "borrow" and the printing presses fell silent. And when the checks stopped coming to the millions of welfare recipients, pensioners, government employees at every level... 

The manure actually hit the oscillating wind machine and all hell broke loose. The cities burned and the violence of millions of desperate and angry people became the norm. Since most had never learned to restrain themselves, let alone prepare for hard times, soon there was none and chaos reigned. 

Consequences is the story of a small group of people who had foreseen this possibility and prepared for it. They have to deal with this chaos, and they are prepared to use as much violence as necessary to defend themselves. As always, there are unintended complications and our heroes must first go out into the holocaust of imploding civilization to rescue some of their own—who had not quite prepared enough.

I really loved the rough draft, and I'm sure you'll love the finished copy.

As those with a brain to think, and eyes to read already know, I'm not a fan of the NRA. But lately, a blatant (and VERY hypocritical) story about the NRA's policy at their yearly gun show and convention has been circulating. It seems they are accusing the NRA of following state and federal laws regarding firearms sales and carry at the convention, and saying the NRA is violating the rights of gun owners.[Link] As is the custom (AND the law) the NRA has made vendors at the sale remove the firing pin or otherwise disable all guns that are for sale, and is requiring all out of state purchasers to have their purchases sent to an FFL holder in their home state. THIS IS FEDERAL LAW IN THE CASE OF SHIPPING THE GUNS, AND STATE LAW IN REGARDS TO DISABLING THE GUNS AT THE SHOW. But that doesn't stop victim disarming anti-Constitutionalists from lying. They CLAIM the NRA is disarming their conventioneers because they don't trust their own members armed, while demanding easing carry laws everywhere else.

There's an old saying that, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." 

Presently, there is a bit of fiction sweeping through the media and left wing blogs pointing out supposed hypocrisy by the National Rifle Association. 

The best we can tell, the lie seems to have originated with a woman who has become an expert at making fools out of the mainstream media, Shannon Watts of Michael Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action.

Follow the link, and see where this leads.

A "Well Armed American" story with a caveat—You might well face criminal charges if you actually engage in your right to defend your property the way this man did. [Link]

Keep in mind every state has different laws on the books.So what worked in this story might not fly in your home state. 

That's why it pays to know the law so you can act within it when someone tries to turn you into a victim. 

When Bert Leasure caught two men stealing from him he did something most Americans dream of doing. 

He took the law into his own hands, chased the criminals down, and executed justice to make sure these dirtbags didn't get away with breaking the law.

Follow the link to read what he did (NO, you anti-gun asswipe, he didn't kill anyone). So far, he has not had any charges filed against him.

Remember this awesome Daddy? We mentioned him a while back, and at the sentencing of his son's molester, he had some words for the animal (who received 25 years in jail for his sexual assault on the 11 year old boy AFTER his wonderful beat down by Dad) [Link]

As the video notes, dad wasn't charged in the beating. Frankly, we doubt he'd have been charged if he killed Frolander. The overall result, leaving Frolander alive, may end up being worse for Frolander though. 

Frolander's sentencing was last week and he got 25 years. Dad explained after the sentence was passed why he let this animal live. "He's going to learn in the next 25 years why I let him live."
If he's not put into protective custody, Frolander won't live to serve out his sentence. And, what "life" he has in prison won't be good. He can expect to be beaten and raped on a daily basis. He will most likely end up in PC for that very reason. Protective custody is no picnic either, it's typically 23 hours in a 6x9 cell with one hour out. If Frolander survives that, he's not likely to be in any sort of mental state to "reintegrate" into society in 2040.

One couldn't wish for a more suitable punishment.

I find it another example of "Darwin Rules" that idiots would actually storm a GUN SHOP! But that's exactly what happens in this "Well Armed Americans" vignette.[Link] Sadly, one of the owners died, but three of the criminals were severely wounded.

On the afternoon of January 9, numerous robbers allegedly stormed a Shawnee, Kansas' "She's A Pistol" gun store; three were shot and left in critical condition. According to Kansas City's KCTV 5, the incident took place 2:30 p.m. local time. The male co-owner of the business, his wife, and the other co-owner were all in the business when the robbers came in. The male co-owner was shot and three of the robbers were shot. Of the four total, three were listed in critical condition.

He died defending his wife and employees. All in all, a victory for the brave John Biecker, one most men would be willing to accept in defense of our beloved ones. Raise a drinking horn Valhalla for me, John.

One would think Texas would be the one state where gun rights rule, but it isn't. However, Governor Abbot is preparing to move Texas forward—maybe not to Constitutional carry, but at least to adding open carry to the rights permitted to Texans. [Link]

The Texas state Senate has given final approval to Senate Bill 17, a measure that would allow Texans to carry handguns openly in a shoulder or belt holster. The bill passed on a 20—10 vote, with yes votes from every Republican and no votes from every Democrat, except the one who was absent. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been a vocal supporter of the measure.
"Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, was the only senator to speak against the legislation on Tuesday, a day after the proposal was hotly debated before it was given tentative approval. Whitmire said the bill would be a "great mistake."
The measure by Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, would join Texas with most other states in authorizing open carry of handguns—as long as the person has a state handgun license. Currently, about 826,000 Texans have a concealed handgun license, nearly 3 percent of the state's population.
The bill would be effective on Jan. 1, 2016. Texans can already carry long guns, like rifles, openly. Estes said Texans with handgun licenses "have been vetted and trained, and can decide what is best for them. I have great confidence in our license holders that they will do the right thing." "

Note that the bill STILL requires one to purchase permission from the state prior to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights, so this is by NO MEANS a perfect solution. But it IS a step in that direction.

It seems to me that this is proof that carrying might well protect you from this asinine "Knock Out" game that is still running rampant. Link. After all, "players" in the "game" don't actually want to risk their OWN health and safety in order to "play.

On July 31, a Neptune Beach 15-year-old walked up on a man who was alone, minding his own business. The teenager asked the man if he had a Glock. The man, confused, told the boy that he wasn't carrying a weapon. That was all the teenager needed to hear. He punched the stranger in the face, making him the latest victim of the "knockout game," a dangerous pastime that involves knocking out innocent and unsuspecting strangers. Several victims have been killed as a result of the game, and the Neptune Beach victim didn't want to see that happen. He drew a knife after being attacked, a move that was apparently enough to send the teenager and his compatriots running. 
* * * * *

Of course, the Neptune Beach incident isn't so much a warning about the Knockout Game as it is a reminder of the kind of situation you can find yourself in on any given day. You don't have to live in Bed-Stuy to run up against violence. No one wants to walk around in a world where they could be attacked at any moment, but that's the world we live in. True, if you are cognizant of your surroundings and don't go out of your way to antagonize people, the chances of running into a violent conflict are slim. But don't make the mistake of believing they are nonexistent.

15 years old or not, that little bastard forfeited his right to breathe when he deliberately verified that his victim was defenseless.

Not that I DO read The Atlantic magazine, but I sure as shit won't read it now. Apparently, like most media these days, they don't respect the Bill of Rights (EXCEPT, of course, for the 1st Amendment). [Link]

Though published on April 1st, there's no indication that the ludicrous ramblings of The Atlantic's column on concealed carry laws was meant as an April Fools' joke. Nevertheless, the reasoning used by the columnist and his insistence that law-abiding permit holders pose a threat to society could only convince a fool that we should roll back our Second Amendment freedoms.
According to the liberal magazine, concealed-carriers put police officers in danger and lead us to a culture where we must "fear our armed neighbors." Apparently, the columnist believes—as many anti-gun liberals do—that people can only be armed if the law gives them explicit permission to carry a weapon. That this is proven wrong on a daily basis is of no consequence. As long as we don't know the guns are there, it doesn't have the social ramifications these liberals so fear.
They fret that concealed carry laws put Americans in fear of saying the wrong thing or insulting the wrong person. After all, they could have a gun. Once again, though, they could have a gun whether or not the laws permit them to carry one. And while no one really wants to live in a world where you could be shot for insulting someone, maybe that tension could help us improve civility. Personally, the fact that loose gun laws might lead us to be more careful with our words...that's not a social consequence I'm going to spend too much time crying about. And, judging from what I've seen, it's not going to happen anyway.
What are you going to do, the columnist asks, "if you become a target for would-be George Zimmermans?" Hmm, well, I suppose I'll refrain from physically attacking people and pounding their heads into the concrete. I don't know if that will keep me safe from every would-be shooter, but it will definitely keep me from winding up in the unfortunate shoes of Trayvon Martin. If we're going to cite specific cases, let's be honest about the specific facts.
Finally, The Atlantic sneers at the NRA's argument that Americans are responsible for their own personal safety. According to the columnist, the police response times in Aurora and Newtown prove that law enforcement can arrive on the scene with extraordinary speed. And indeed they can. They got to the movie theater in Colorado within 90 seconds and they got to Sandy Hook Elementary in three minutes. And yet, look how many people were maimed and killed during that miniscule window of opportunity.
Neither James Holmes nor Adam Lanza, by the way, were permit holders. Neither the Aurora theater nor Sandy Hook Elementary allowed guns on site. Still, somehow or another, these murderers managed to carry out their deeds. Strange how that works.

One must wonder exactly where the brains of the reporter for The Atlantic are located. My guess is, he keeps them in his ass.

For years, now, the banks have been required to file "SARs" (Suspicious Activity Reports) if you do anything the government considers suspicious—like take your money out of the bank in sums greater than $10,000 at a time. Or if you take out $5000 cash twice in one week. Supposedly, this will help stop terrorism. (Feeling safer yet?) Now, the government appears to be going to the next level. [Link] Banks are being told to call the cops on you for engaging in such "suspicious activity" as withdrawing as little as $5000 cash. And for good measure, the bank ought to seize your money (temporarily, of course) until the government can "justify" letting you have your property by "Proving that you will use your money for approved purposes."

In an ongoing effort to stop terrorism, the government has now instituted a new policy for all banks.One that, if not complied with, could send bank executives to jail.
The new program is asking banks to notify the government of large cash withdrawals—and is even asking banks to seize your money so they can investigate what you might be doing with it.
How crazy is that? 

* * * * *

"[W]e encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem, who may be able to seize the funds, initiate an investigation, or take other proactive steps."
So what exactly constitutes 'suspicious activity'? Basically anything.
According to the handbook for the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council, banks are required to file a SAR with respect to:
"Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more..."
It's utterly obscene. According to the Justice Department, going to the bank and withdrawing $5,000 should potentially prompt a banker to rat you out to the police.

If this type of behavior doesn't bother you, you have something severely wrong with you.

One wonders where doctors and cps get their brains—I think it's from the meat counter. Wouldn't it have been easier (and FAR more humane) to check the lady's claims BEFORE committing her? [Link]

"In this day and age the state will try and make money off you any way they can.
Even going so far as to lock you up for telling the truth as they try and diagnose you with a disorder you don't have.
These kinds of cases are few and far between, but they do show how powerful and unjust the U.S. government can be.
Recently, a woman was held against her will because she told police Obama followed her on Twitter. (Not that that's a good thing, but I digress.)
After detaining her for 8 days they released her and asked her to pay over $13,000 for the trouble."

Yup—they hospitalize, drug, and coerce this poor woman into signing an affidavit that the truth ISN'T true for telling the truth—like many politicians, Obama follows many constituents' social media accounts. And to top it all off, they try to make HER pay the bill for THEIR criminal assault on her rights and body.

Our sole Quote of the Week—

"I believe that there aremore instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual andsilent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."-- James Madison

Here's hoping I have time to do this again next week.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Revising Old Movies

Greg Cochran is always saying something interesting. Below, he points out a difference between old movies and new ones, and boy, is he right!  This is from Westhunt.

I was watching Charade the other day, not for the first time, and was noticing that the action scenes with Cary Grant (human fly, and fighting George Kennedy) really weren’t very convincing.  Age. But think what it would be like today: we’d see Audrey Hepburn kicking the living shit out of Kennedy, probably cutting his throat with his own claw – while still being utterly adorable.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Guess Whose Birthday it is!

Who was the default bad guy before Hitler? Really! I mean, surely it wasn't Kaiser Bill. Maybe Napoleon? I don't know, but he definitely holds the title for now.  And it doesn't make sense at first glance. By any measure, and no matter what body count you accept, Mao, killed a lot more people than Hitler ever did or wanted to. And Stalin likely did, too.

Of course, those two were communists, and those who tell us what to think are a little bit fond of communism and communists, truth to tell. You know, the kind who think Che posters and t-shirts are way cool.

And keeping the hate going for Hitler has some results that our betters like just fine. For one thing, the hate meme keeps us from thinking just what was going on with communists and fascists back then. We're taught that many bad people became fascists because the wanted to be mean. Actually, for the most part, people became fascists because they saw the movement as the only thing that was effective against communism.

Another advantage to teaching everybody to hate him is that they won't listen to or read anything that contradicts that hate.

Colin LIddell goes a lot deeper into this question. This is from


Today is the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler. In his lifetime he was a remarkable and misunderstood man – Machiavellian in his seizure of power, yet surprisingly un-Machiavellian in his use of it. But it was only in death that he became something altogether more unique than just another scrambler and fumbler after the orb of power.

Posthumously he underwent the opposite of an apotheosis, and became a symbol of ultimate evil, a necessary hate figure and fetish of taboo for the post-war Liberal West. You realize this when you travel or live beyond the flubbery boundary of the Western Liberal bubble. Partly in reaction to his exaggerated status as the icon of evil in the hegemonic West, but also because of a more objective view of the man, Hitler is viewed in a much more ambivalent and tolerant way by the rest of the World.

Africans, by necessity not among the most squeamish people on the planet, tend to see him as a totemic figure; Hindus as a manifestation of the kind of universal forces that exist beyond good and evil, and as the decider of their liberty from the colonial British; for Muslims he is the eternal foe of the global Jew and his post-colonial Palestinian colony. In the East, too, he is viewed as a potent yet tragic figure, rather like someone out of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

That is already about 90% of the world’s population who don't automatically get palpitations at the mere mention of his name. We can assume that in Orwell's fictional reality the inhabitants of Eurasia and Eastasia were similarly immune to the figure of Emmanuel Goldstein.

It is only in the West – and those states that crib shamelessly from it, like Putinist Russia – that Hitler is the unique, supernatural manifestation of the "all-evil," the great Satan, the hole that keeps the rest of the donut in one piece. In short, Hitler is to the soft totalitarianism of the Liberal West what Emmanuel Goldstein is to the hard totalitarianism of Oceania in George Orwell's 1984. Read and compare:
"Winston's diaphragm was constricted. He could never see the face of Goldstein without a painful mixture of emotions. It was a lean Jewish face, with a great fuzzy aureole of white hair and a small goatee beard – a clever face, and yet somehow inherently despicable, with a kind of senile silliness in the long thin nose, near the end of which a pair of spectacles was perched. It resembled the face of a sheep, and the voice, too, had a sheep-like quality. Goldstein was delivering his usual venemous attack upon the doctrines of the Party – an attack so exaggerated and perverse that a child should have been able to see through it, and yet just plausible enough to fill one with an alarmed feeling that other people, less level-headed than oneself, might be taken in by it. He was abusing BIG BROTHER, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, he was crying hysterically that the Revolution has been betrayed...."
Who can read this and not notice the general similarities with the image of Hitler prevalent in the West? Like Goldstein, he too is presented as someone demented, evil, odd-looking, yet plausible to those we are encouraged to look down on. He too is demanding things that we are supposed to no longer want simply because he demands them – such as racial solidarity and a sense of our own superiority.

Orwell’s bogeyman is twinned with conventional, common sense freedoms – "he was advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought" – to bring them into disrepute with the intelligentsia of Oceania. Our Hitler, by contrast, is kept constantly alive and paired with the racial and ethnic interests of Whites and the fact of White supremacy in order to make these loathsome to us.

Just like Winston, our diaphragms are supposed to heave and constrict, and beads of sweat form on our fevered brows. The degree to which they do will be one marker of the strength or otherwise of the Liberal West and its soft totalitarianism.
Quibcag: The fascist girl is, I believe, from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Liar, Liar, Pantsuit on Fire

I have nothing to add to this essay. Summed up perfectly. It's from Café Hayek.

Why Is This Politician Taken Seriously?

by DON BOUDREAUX on APRIL 16, 2015
As regular readers of this blog know, I’m allergic to almost all politicians – and my allergy is non-partisan.  So on those occasions when I single out a politician for ridicule, I must not be interpreted as believing that he or she is uniquely scurrilous and contemptible.  With that preface….
Hillary Clinton is much-criticized for many things – pretty much all properly so.  I’m a bit surprised, though, by the relative rarity these days of critical mentions of her false claim, in 2008, that in 1996 on a trip as First Lady to Bosnia she had to dodge gunfire.  When her lie was exposed, she excused herself by having her 2008 campaign folk explain that she “misspoke.”
So here’s a simple mental experiment.  Suppose you’re on the board of a successful corporation and the President & CEO of that corporation is about to retire.  You, as a board member, must help select the outgoing president’s replacement.  A seemingly sane candidate comes in one day for an interview and he announces that he was once in the midst of sniper fire.  That candidate then explains the hectic efforts that he and his companions took to avoid being mowed down, giving you the impression that his life was then in serious jeopardy before his fortunate escape from the attack.  You’re impressed by the man’s adventure!  You soon learn, however, that the candidate’s tale is a lie.  There’s not a shred of relevant truth to it.  You call the candidate and inform him that you have it on solid authority that no gunfire incident ever happened to him.  There’s a short pause.  He then replies, confidently, “Oh, yeah.  I misspoke.  Sorry about that!”
Do you need any further information about this candidate to immediately and unconditionally strike him off of the list of possible successors to the outgoing president?  Can this candidate possibly have any superior qualities that offset your certain knowledge that he is either a bald-faced liar or bat-poop nuts?  Surely not.
Let’s face it: no sane person misremembers being in the line of sniper fire when, in fact, that person never was in such a predicament.  That’s not the sort of non-event that a sane person comes to believe he or she actually endured.  How many of you, Cafe patrons, have ever recalled being in the line of sniper fire only to remember later that such a recollection is completely mistaken?
Now suppose that some of your colleagues on the board aren’t fazed by the discovery of this candidate’s phoniness or insanity.  Indeed, a couple of your board colleagues say “Sure, that little tale is unfortunate, but we must overlook it because his genitalia make him ideal for the job!”  Do you reassess your opinion of the candidate, or do you conclude that your colleagues either are up to something no good in their support of this candidate or are themselves also bat-poop bananas?  Surely the latter.
If you don’t like this just-concluded mental experiment, try this one: your 25-year-old daughter brings home her new fiancé.  The fiancé tells you that he was once in the midst of sniper fire and had to scurry to escape.  You then discover that it’s a lie.  How do you feel about your daughter’s future happiness?
Why is Hillary Clinton taken seriously by any serious person?

Saturday, April 18, 2015

The Hillary Constituency

Sent in by Dave Holle: HILLARY 2016

Friday, April 17, 2015


Make it stop! Make it stop! It burns! It burns!

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Children, Hate Speech, and Voting

Not much to add here. This is literally true. Liberals in general do support campus speech codes, and many justify it with the arguement that eighteen-to-twenty-two-year-olds are not adults yet, and are not mature enough to be subjected to free speech. And yes, there are movements among liberals, most recently in San Francisco, to lower the voting age to sixteen so that more left-wing politicians can get elected. They'll tell you it's because younger people are more open-minded, but of course the real reason is that they're more ignorant and naive, and are much less inclined to thing before acting. And before some social justice warrior indignantly writes in to say the two groups of liberals aren't completely congruent, I'll point out that yes, some liberals agree with the one position but not with the other. However, the two groups certainly overlap.  As for the illustration, it's Nagato Yuki-chan of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu) again, and she looked so good in the last quibcag, I decided to use her again.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Unholy Matrimony

When you want to think about what words actually mean and what logic really is, you can't do better than C. S. Lewis. Even when he doesn't convince you to change your position, you've learned a lot from him. Here he helps us set 'gay marriage' in perspective.

This is from Iron Ink.

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

Today, with Sodomite coupling (“marriage”) we have reverse-engineered Lewis' account. The account should now tell the story about a man who ordered Cow Urine and Chicken fesus from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the Cow Urine he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied “Cow Urine is only cow’s milk.” After eating the Chicken poop he commented on the tastiness of the poop. Again the waiter responded that Chicken poop is really the same as chicken eggs.

A person at the next table observed all this in incredulity and shouted to both waiter and customer, “You two are insane. You don’t know the difference between what God has meant for garbage and what He meant for nourishment.” At this the waiter and customer along with much of the rest of the customer clientele, who was also dining on Chicken shit and Cow piss, arose to denounce the man who pointed out the insanity of the waiter and customer. They denounced the intruder as being a urine-ist and from suffering from fecalphobia. They insisted that he was a “hater” and demanded to know where his compassion was. They quoted scripture to him about the evil of judging. They insisted that all restaurants, in the name of fairness and equality, be forced to sell Chicken shit and Cow piss to all who wanted to buy it from them as a breakfast entree.

With the normalizing of sodomite “marriage” we are insisting that grotesque garbage is in fact the very same thing as Marriage. We are insisting that we call that which is destructive to human flourishing to be the same as that which is nourishing and refreshing to human thriving. We are in even worst shape then the waiter and customer in Lewis’ original parable. In the orignal parable the customer was at least eating and drinking the proper production of Cow and chicken, even if Lewis’ waiter was trying to draw an equivalency between nourishment and refuse. What we are doing instead is consuming the refuse while insisting that offal garbage is the same as nourishment.

And the really odd thing … the thing that is breathtakingly bizarre is that many in the Church are telling us that we ought to join in the celebration of a grotesque impossibility thus giving our whole hearted approval to the equivalency of someone dining on chicken shit and cow piss all the while insisting that it is really eggs and milk. It is ministers in the Church who want us to call and support a grotesque impossibility as the same thing as “Holy Matrimony.”

Actually, neither C. S. Lewis, nor Lewis Carroll could have ever conceived of this scale of utter madness.
Quibcag: Illustrated by Nagato Yuki-chan of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu), who is certainly logical-looking.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Abortion and Ideology

I've said this before, but some things have to be said over and over again. A political ideology is a little bit like a scientific theory. It's not an end in itself, and its very purpose to is explain reality. Therefore, if the theory/ideology contradicts reality, something is wrong with it.

One of the elements of a lot of ideologies is an attitude towards abortion. My personal ideology is not black-and-white in this connection. I think abortion is a relatively unnatural and intrusive thing, but sometimes such things are called for. Basically, I'm over there with Margaret Sanger, and I want dysfunctional people to have all the abortions they want, because otherwise, there will be more dysfunctional people, which we don't need.  On the other hand, I want functional people to avoid abortion for the most part, because we need more functional people.

It drives me crazy when the 'right wing' tries to condemn abortion because it is popular among our more dysfunctional minorities, and points out that Sanger wanted such people to dwindle in number in favor of more advanced people. Yes, she did, and that was a good thing.

For me, though, it's not a matter of it being a 'right.' Maybe it is, but it's a right that should be exercises sparingly. Like a lot of things, it's a good thing when it's used for a good purpose, a bad thing when used for a bad purpose. When it improves the gene pool, hooray.  When it diminishes it, alas.

Well, all this was inspired by the below, written by Matt Bailey:

Perhaps the single best example of suicidally putting ideology over reality for emotional reasons is the spectacle of Conservative and some Libertarian opposition to legal abortion. Not only does trying to ban a desired service like abortion massively increase the intrusiveness of government, the statistics regarding terminated pregnancies make it clear that the Right essentially wants to force welfare recipients to produce more future parasites, prison inmates, and Democratic voters. Arrant madness. Even if one were unaware of the statistics, one could easily reason that intelligent women with some concept of future consequences are already using the many kinds of effective birth control available and very rarely resort to abortion. Thus most terminated fetuses are genetic copies of an individual who could not figure out "advanced" technology such as condoms, and who wishes to avoid having a child so much they are willing to have the fetus sucked right out of them. Whoo boy, that's a great parenting prospect there! And of course, as this little article points out, the timing of the otherwise inexplicable drop in violent crime after the 1980s is perfectly explained if one considers all the little bastards who DIDN'T get born because of Roe vs. Wade.…/files/99_0927_crimerate_bw.pdf
Quibcag: The illustration is Ayuka Oka, from Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu)., because she's good at catching everybody's eye.