Wednesday, May 27, 2015

2A Editorial

Here is a great pro-gun editorial.



Link Content:

Despite atrocities, guns serve to keep Americans safe, free

Gun rights advocate
May. 6, 2007 12:00 AM 

Next time you agonize over a gun-fired atrocity celebrated incessantly on Page 1 by a heartless and immoral press, remember, guns save lives, too. Guns protect people. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still free.

If you think a gun's only purpose is to kill, you're mistaken - a victim of relentless propaganda. Guns save lives. When a maniac goes crazy, you send in people ... with guns. It's the right thing to do.

Folks who think "they should take away all the guns" are actually pro-gun without realizing it. They're suggesting "they," the police, should have them all. Such people intuitively (but not consciously) understand the overlooked, irreplaceable value of guns. Remember, not every Black American or German Jew trusts police so implicitly. Say what? Give all those dangerous guns to ... who exactly?

The guns-save-lives part of the equation is universally and viciously excised by most "news" media and distorts your perspective, but never forget it. Earth is a difficult world of struggles between good and evil. Has been since Cain slew Abel. If guns went away, good guys would have to reinvent them. Paraphrasing George Orwell, you sleep peaceably at night because rough men stand ready to do violence in your behalf.

We now know well-intentioned gun-free-zone laws are a reckless fraud - disarming the innocent, empowering the ruthless. These laws protect criminals. Repeal them. Read the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act at, that is a rational approach: You should be free to create so-called gun-free zones but be liable for any harm they cause.

I'm a utopian pacifist. I pray for a planet steeped in peace, prosperity and enduring harmony, without weapons. But the four horseman of human havoc - angry, hungry, stupid and wicked - prevent this. We might solve hungry, but human nature must dissolve to banish the other three. That's not on the horizon. Until then, I say disarm everyone - bad guys first. When they're disarmed, talk to me.

Dimly realizing monsters aren't subject to legislation, politicians illogically target the innocent, instead. After an atrocity, they impotently lash out, seeking to disarm everyone who didn't do anything. That approach is hoplophobic: reflecting a morbid, irrational fear of weapons. Hoplophobes deny it.

If you could magically make all guns disappear, bad guys would make new ones. The Communist Chinese (who stole our A-bomb secrets) would make more and import them with the same ease drug runners keep our cities stocked. If you like the war on drugs, you're going to love the war on guns. Nations with gun bans suffer massacres, same as us.

A gun-free world is easy to imagine. Just look back in time. People used swords. That world was less stable and less safe than ours is today. Counterintuitive Man knows, "The more efficiently you can kill aggressors, even though they will rapidly adopt your tools, the safer everyone is."

Many lawmakers are clamoring for gun registration. At first blush, it seems marvelous. But how would writing your name (and mine) on a list help stop criminals? This focuses on the innocent instead of criminals. It commits resources away from the problem.

A database that large (80 million to 100 million honest gun owners), needs 22,000 updates daily just to follow people who move every 10 years. You need buildings filled with clerks tracking the innocent. It's no crime-fighting tool, it's a federal jobs program - and bureaucrats know that.

Here's why. Because the right to write (or own guns) - if you weren't on that official list - would automatically make you a criminal, without having done anything wrong. Politicians would control you regardless of your actions. And bureaucrats could refuse (or fail) to list you. It's not about crime control. It's about control. Canada learned, after wasting $2 billion, that gun registration lacks a crime-fighting component. Think: Does car registration stop criminal car use?

Governments, not street criminals, are the world's biggest murderers. The Notre Dame Law Review last May put the figure at 262 million last century alone ("Is resisting genocide a human right?").

That chilling statistic shocks Americans because "it could never happen here" (overlooking slavery, natives, early union riots). But the fact that most American homes are armed is why. Our arms restrain police and government in a way unknown in Uganda or Cambodia or Russia. We ignorantly take this for granted.

Toppling that balance by disarming ourselves is rolling the dice with your safety and the very fabric of our society. It's a terrible, anti-freedom, unconstitutional policy choice and should be rejected outright.

If America outlaws guns, the "officials" (and outlaws) remain armed, and we will have massively shifted power away from the citizenry. Don't.

Knowing maniacs can erupt, you should consider arming yourself. This month, drive to a range. Practice. Learn. Do your part to help make America safer and stronger. Empowerment, not ignorance - it's the American way.

Alan Korwin, who lives in the Valley, is the author of seven books on gun law, including "The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide" and "Gun Laws of America." He can be reached at his Web site,

Good Question

"If ‘immigrants’ are the driving force of a booming economy, why aren’t their home countries booming?"


The Problem is Stupidity

The problem is stupidity. No question about it. Humans are too stupid, in general to be in charge of the amazing technology and weaponry they have developed.

How does that happen? Geniuses develop the stuff. Regular people, who don't have a clue, are controlling it. That is not a good thing.

Iran will have nukes if we don't watch out. They didn't 'develop' them. They are buying (and stealing) the results of the work of foreign geniuses.

So we'll have primitive mental deficients in control of nuclear bombs.

The intelligence of the human population falls into a range that is represented as a "bell curve". On a graph, the line starts at the bottom curves up in the shape of a bell until it reaches its apex (where the clapper would be attached) and mirrors the ascent as it moves back to the bottom of the chart.

The result is a curved line in the shape of a bell. The low, flat, flared sections on the left and right extremes represent the severely retarded and geniuses respectively, the exact center point on the curve is the Mean, the precise center between the two extremes. One half of the population falls above the Mean in IQ...we might say 'above average in intelligence'...and fully one half of the population falls below the Mean...or 'below average in intelligence'.

Think about that: Fully ONE HALF of the human population is "below average in intelligence". If you think about it for a moment, this is perfectly obvious, of course—given the definition of MEAN and AVERAGE. But if you've never really given it much thought in this context, it's a rather disquieting revelation.

That being the case, and this being a democracy....the implications really are rather staggering.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Fellow "Gun-Nut" Quotes

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state".
 --Clair Wolfe

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
 -- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
-- Robert A. Heinlein, "Beyond This Horizon", 1942

…a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...
 -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.
-- Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report

(Those) who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right (are) courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.
-- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
 -- L. Neil Smith

A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
-- John R. Lott

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.
-- Jeff Snyder

Degeneracy of Modern Liberals

I wrote this years ago. Still hunts...

The degeneracy of the Modern Liberals is almost breathtaking. And they seem to have no idea they are being consumed by the corruption. They stand stiff-necked and proud of their betrayal of all things good, and stand shoulder to shoulder with evil the likes of which our ancestors fought and died to eradicate.

If we don't eradicate Modern Liberalism, we too shall fall. As great as America is, it cannot withstand this assault of pure evil from within. Great empires cannot survive their own disease of spirit.

And make no mistake, Modern Liberalism is a disease worse than any the planet has ever known. The Plague and AIDs are sniffles by comparison.

The Black Death and AIDS attack only the body, Modern Liberalism conquers and destroys the soul. A fate, literally, worse than death.

Living in Modern Liberalism's Capital, California, is like living in the movie, Night of the Living Dead: They are everywhere...minds blasted, drooling, shuffling in unison to the inhuman call of masters black and bloated with corruption; issuing grunts, cackles and bleats without intelligence or understanding, devouring everything healthy, bright and beautiful, gnawing on the bones of our past, tearing down sacred traditions and institutions, creating a dark chaos where once there was order and light; preferring the graveyard to the garden.

And like the phantoms in your nightmares, they will never tire, never stop the chase; never give up until they have eaten our souls, too.

Unless we stop them once and for all. Whatever it takes, stakes through the heart, silver bullets, holy water, sacred fire...we'd better figure it out, and soon. Or the whole planet is going to be turned into their preferred real estate.


Friday, May 22, 2015

A Parable*

Once upon a time, two women were walking down the street of a American city. Suddenly they were attacked by a Mugger, who killed and robbed one of them, and was just about to slit the second woman's throat when a Hero appeared, fought off the Mugger and saved her life.

The Mugger was a determined sort, however, and continued to try to get to the survivor, so the Hero placed himself between them.

After a little while the second woman recovered from the attack, and stood up to find the Hero in front of her, continuing to repulse the Mugger's repeated attempts to kill her. Standing in the pool of her dead friend's blood, she began to curse the Hero, accusing him of being brutal and uncivilized, of making the Mugger angry, of continuing the cycle of violence.

She began grabbing the Hero's hands and tripping him from behind, making it difficult for him to fight, and tossing broken bottles, rocks, garbage can lids, and even her nail file to the Mugger who used them to wound and weaken the Hero defending her.

And when the Hero was finally defeated, and lay dying at her feet, the gloating woman spit on him and looked up at the Mugger expecting him to be grateful and thank her.

But, being a Mugger, he slit her throat and robbed her.

The End

*...of the Left and Islam

Rangers vs Special Forces

Original Link
The Chief of Staff of the Army asked his Sergeant Major, who was both Ranger and Special Forces qualified, which organization he would recommend to form a new anti-terrorist unit. The Sergeant Major responded to the General's question with this parable: If there were a hijacked Boeing 747 being held by terrorists along with its passengers and crew and an anti-terrorist unit formed either by the Rangers or the Special Forces was given a Rescue/Recovery Mission; what would you expect to happen? 

Ranger Option

Forces/Equipment Committed: If the Rangers went in, they would send a Ranger company of 120 men with standard army issue equipment.

Mission Preparation: The Ranger Company First Sergeant would conduct a Hair Cut and Boots Inspection, while the officers consulted SOPs and held sand table exercises.

Infiltration Technique: They would insist on double timing, in company formation, wearing their combat equipment, and singing cadence all the way to the site of the hijacked aircraft.
Actions in the Objective Area: Once they arrived, the Ranger company would establish their ORP, put out security elements, conduct a leaders recon, reapply their camouflage, and conduct final preparations for Actions on the OBJ.

Results of Operation: The Rescue/Recovery Operation would be completed within one hour; all of the terrorists and most of the passengers would have been killed, the Rangers would have sustained light casualties and the 747 would be worthless to anyone except a scrap dealer.

Special Forces Option

Forces/Equipment Committed: If Special Forces went in, they would send only a 12 man team (all SF units are divisible by 12 for some arcane historical reason) however, due to the exotic nature of their equipment the SF Team would cost the same amount to deploy as the Ranger Company.

Mission Preparation: The SF Team Sergeant would request relaxed grooming standards for the team. All members of the team would spend a grueling afternoon at a quality spa ensuring physical abilities would be honed.

Infiltration Technique: The team would insist on separate travel orders with Max Per Diem, and each would get to the site of the hijacking by his own means. At least one third of the team would insist on jumping in HALO.

Actions in the Objective Area: Once they arrived , the SF Team would cache their military uniforms, establish a Team Room at the best hotel in the area, use their illegal Team Fund to stock the unauthorized Team Room Bar, check out the situation by talking to the locals, and have a Team Meeting to discuss the merits of the terrorists' cause.

Results of Operation: The Rescue/Recovery Operation would take two weeks to complete and by that time all of the terrorists would have been killed, (and would have left signed confessions); the passengers would be ruined psychologically for the remainder of their lives; and all of the women passengers would be pregnant. The 747 would be essentially unharmed, the team would have taken no casualties but would have used up, lost, or stolen all the "high speed" equipment issued to them.

* * *

Laughed my ass off.


Slow Learners

I wrote this in 2007. Have we figured it out yet?

I've decided that the "debate" between Conservatives and Liberals has to be recast. We Conservatives are losing because we refuse to speak the truth. We are always trying to be gentlemanly, perpetuating the falsehood that Liberals are well-meaning, but merely misguided, stupid, emotional, immature, adolescent, silly utopians who haven't grown up or grown wise.

I have been guilty of that mistaken notion until recently. But no more. They're Tyrannists. They actively support, encourage, promote and champion tyranny.

Just as there was no honest parallel between the Nazis and the competing political parties in the early 20th century, so there is no honest parallel between the Liberal-Left and Conservatism.

The Liberal-Left are the enemies of freedom. Never doubt it. They are not good, honest, patriotic citizens that just happen to have a different political philosophy than Conservatives. They are evil operatives, attempting to overthrow our way of life and institute tyranny, which they call Utopia. Like Stalin. Like Hitler. Like Pol Pot. Like Mao. Like Castro. Like Idi Amin. Like the Islamofascits. Like Kim Jong Il. And like the FNG (F**king New Guy), Hugo Chavez.

To them Utopia means they wield total power, and enslave the millions to serve them. "Utopian" is the touchy-feely word for Tyrannist.

They call themselves "liberals", "progressives"...sugar coated terms that hide their real intent. They are enemies of freedom. They are the enemies of mankind. And if we don't see that until it is too late, we will be just like the West Europeans who found themselves ruled, controlled and slaughtered by Nazis; or the East Europeans & Russians, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Cubans by Communists; the Iranians and Africans by Islamofascist Imams; the Iraqis by Saddam; the Ugandans, by Idi Amin; the North Koreans by Kim Jong Il.

All these tyrants are the matter what they are called. Their obsession is for total power to dominate, control and exploit others.

The Left are monsters of the same stripe. They foster, support, work for, and whenever they get enough power, enforce tyranny. They have extinguished any doubt about this by their behavior in those places where they have, indeed, gained such power: our Universities. They have instituted rules that are unjust, oppressive, biased, unfairly administered. They demand and allow only the "right" kind of words, actions, and thoughts. They are the ultimate infringers of freedom. They rule and control their little kingdoms with absolute, shameless and arbitrary power. And they do it boldly, self-righteously, without apology.

And they would do that to the entire population if they had the power. Through our courts they have already infringed upon our freedoms to a scandalous extent. They have created thought police with "hate crimes", they have punished merchants for making legal products, they bring and win frivolous lawsuits that bankrupt prosperous companies. They seize private property to enrich their powerful contributors. They have disarmed the citizens of municipalities and entire states in direct contradiction to the Constitution of the United States. They have created such complex and absurd webs of laws and regulations that any citizen will be in technical violation of one of them...and at their mercy should that be convenient or useful. They have perverted science to outlaw behaviors of which they disapprove. They have made it compulsory for those who work...the support the indolent, the criminal, the vagrant, and the slothful.

They have made religion almost as illegal as smoking. They have made pornography art. They have made murder a "civil right" and the execution of murderers a vice.

They have twisted the truth to foster their agenda, i.e., murderous savages are "freedom fighters"; liberators are occupiers; Islam is a religion of peace; Christians are dangerous; Mexican sneaking illegally into our country are "oppressed". Citizens guarding our borders are racists, bigots and vigilantes; teachers are underpaid; government control is more efficient than the marketplace; Liberals are more enlightened and kinder than Conservatives.

But the biggest lie of all is that Liberals are for Freedom and Peace. They are for violent and oppressive violation of all that we hold dear. They are not for freedom, but tyranny...tyranny by and benefiting themselves. They are not for peace. They are for the total oppression of the entire population by any means necessary to ensure their ambitions of total and complete power.

And the Liberal Democrat media is their propaganda machine.

They are the enemy.

They do not respect law, order, justice, democracy, liberty, honesty, courage, honor, duty or faith. They are self-serving, ambitious, power hungry criminals and liars, collaborators and traitors.

I'm sick to death of pretending otherwise. And as of this moment, I refuse to do so any longer.


Good Dog

Peacemakers & Terrorists - Evolving Plan

"How To Negotiate With Terrorists"

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of a line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker introduces himself. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks, "why did you kill my friend?" The terrorist kills him and rapes his wife.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "Stop that!" The terrorist kills him, rapes his daughter and kills his wife.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "I'll pay you $1000 if you stop attacking us." The terrorist agrees to the deal, takes the $1000, and kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker appeals to the United Nations. The United Nations says the peacemaker is at fault. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker now has a gun, and threatens to use it. Other peacemakers start chanting the old 60's whine, "Can't we all just get along?" The peacemaker hesitates. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker tries to convince his peacemaker friends that the terrorists aren't going to respond to negotiations, but they insist that if he kills the terrorist it'll just make the other terrorists mad. The peacemaker reluctantly agrees to try negotiating again. The terrorist kills him., his entire family, and his neighbor's family.

A heated debate now ensues between the peacemakers who want to be nice to the terrorists and the peacemakers who believe that there can never be peace until the terrorists are all dead. While they are debating, the terrorists kill 15 more peacemakers.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks himself, "Which is more important: being liked by everyone, or protecting my family?" The terrorist pulls a knife to kill the peacemaker, but the peacemaker pulls a gun and kills the terrorist first. The United Nations condemns the peacemaker's use of unproportional force. Many of his peacemaker friends turn against him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker apologizes for what his friend did to the other terrorist. The terrorist kills him, his entire family and his neighbors, and threatens to destroy the city as soon as they develop a bigger weapon.

A peacemaker refuses to meet at the line because every time a peacemaker goes to the line the terrorist kills him. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line and fires rockets into the peacemaker's town. The United Nations condemns the way the peacemaker provoked the terrorist by refusing to come to the line and meet with him.

Generations pass and not much changes until one day when the son of a peacemaker decides that the old strategy simply won't work. He walks up to the left side of the line a little early. As the terrorist approaches the right side of the line the peacemaker shoots him. Another terrorist approaches to replace the first, and the peacemaker shoots him too. This scene plays out several more times. Then a terrorist approaches carrying a white flag, but he also has weapons. The peacemaker shoots him. A terrorist next approaches with a ceasefire resolution from the U.N. The peacemaker shoots him also. A large group of terrorists approach and the peacemaker shoots them all and drops a nuclear bomb on the city they came from. The peacemaker continues killing the terrorists until the terrorists are all dead.

There is finally peace on earth and the United Nations takes the credit."


The Gunslinger

Thursday, May 21, 2015

My Hero

A long time ago, on a continent far, far away, there roamed a cruel and murderous horde. Invaders, marauders and plunderers, they were the enemies of civilization.

They worshipped an irrational, and tyrannical creature named Allah, and venerated a degenerage sexual predator and serial killer, Mohammed, who wrote a "holy" book justifying his own licentiousness, bloodlust, greed and megalomania. They were called Turks by the people they slaughtered and enslaved. They were the curse and scourge of Western civilization. We know them as Muslims.

There arose in that time, a hero who fought these barbarians. He was reviled by enemies as brutal, cruel and ruthless. But these very qualities enabled him to turn back the tide of the destroyers of civilization that was attempting to swallow Europe in its cold, black maw. Legend holds that he died in the last battle of his solitary campaign to arrest the advance of the enemy, a punishing campaign that gave the dithering West the time to wake to the danger, and raise an army which ultimately forced the marauding horde back to their behighted homeland.

As a beneficiary of his courage, victory and sacrifice, I claim this hero as my patron spirit in the fight against his age-old, and our common, enemy. I believe as he did, that to win against a hate-filled, murderous, honor-less enemy, one must be more cruel, more merciless, more barbaric, more ruthless, and more terrifying.

Few would argue that Vlad the Impaler qualified on all counts.

This hero, Vlad Tepes, has been reviled by his enemies, misunderstood by history and underappreciated by his beneficiaries. He understood to fight them, indimidate them, terrify them, and vanquish them.

I declare him the Patron Saint of the West in the Islamic War.

All Hail, Vlad the Impaler! Champion of the West! Vanquisher of Islamic hordes! May we embody his spirit and prevail!

The Gunslinger
Stand and Be True

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not interested in the "facts" of Vlad's life...I'm interested in his legendary defense against the expansion of Islam into Europe. If Moslems can claim Mohammed is a prophet, I can claim Vlad is a hero.

(Original published February 15, 2007)

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Cities Most Likely to be Targets

The Telegraph has published a list of the cities that are most likely to be the targets of mooslim terrorists.

Notice they don't say, "countrysides", or "villages", or even "towns".

They say "cities".

Two things instantly occur to me.

First, I know none of these cities are in the USA, but still, it's a global phenomenon that Liberals/Progressives/Welfare fairies/Leftists/Statists/Government Apparatchiks/Bureaucrats/Communists/Fascists/Non-Assimilated Immigrants/Thugs/Gangsters/Criminals tend to congregate in cities.

(No, there was no gleam in my eye just then.)

Second, just in case it hasn't dawned on anyone who is NOT one of the above:  GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE CITY!


Øbama's "Lottery Winners"

Another Favorite Author, Ben Shapiro had something to say about Øbama's irresponsible and absurd use of "Lottery Winners" to describe people who have worked hard and long to build businesses and create wealth.

Here it is in full (because I no longer trust links to live past the day after tomorrow)


Barack Obama's 'Lottery Winners'
by Ben Shapiro
May 20, 2015, 6:00 AM

Last week, President Obama held a summit on poverty at Georgetown University. There, he explained that unrest in major American cities could be traced not to lack of values, but to simple lack of cash — and that lack of cash, he suggested, could be attributed to simple lack of luck. “The top 25 hedge fund managers made more than all of the kindergarten teachers in the country,” Obama stated. “You pretty much have more than you’ll ever be able to use or anyone in your family will ever be able to use. There’s a fairness issue involved here.” He added that we should confiscate wealth from those people and redistribute it to “early childhood education” — one of the greatest government boondoggles of all time — because that’s “where the question of compassion and ‘I’m my brother’s keeper’ comes into play. And if we can’t ask from society’s lottery winners to just make that modest investment, then really this conversation [on poverty] is just for show.”
This is evil masquerading as generosity.

First, the simple fact that some people earn lots of money while others earn not as much does not implicate “fairness.” Your earnings result from the number and value of voluntary transactions seeking your skills, services or goods. It is not unfair that those who understand how to manage billions of dollars on behalf of those who do not earn more than kindergarten teachers; there are far more people qualified to teach kindergarten than to manage money, which is why kindergarten teachers generally hand over their pension funds to money managers.

Second, Barack Obama’s subjective view that some people have too much money reeks of monarchic arrogance. President Obama’s net worth currently stands at nearly $7 million. He sends his children to the most toney private school in Washington, D.C. He and his wife enjoy taxpayer-sponsored vacations that would make Middle Eastern potentates blush. They also enjoy the favors of Hollywood celebrities who earn as much as hedge fund managers, but never seem to receive the same “you’ve got enough” Soviet-style central planning routine from the Obamas.

Third, President Obama should not invoke Biblical phraseology without understanding both plain meaning and context. Obama’s own half-brother, George, lived as of 2008 on less than $1 per day. And when it comes to Biblical interpretation, the context for “my brother’s keeper” comes from Cain and Able: Cain suggests that he need not watch over his brother shortly after killing him out of jealousy for Able’s hard work and better sacrifice. Today’s Cain is the modern left, which seeks to slay its brothers for the great crime of working harder and sacrificing more.

Finally, Obama’s allusion to rich Americans as “lottery winners” insults the intelligence.
Warren Buffett did not play the lottery. Nor did Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. They worked hard, produced great products and enriched millions of lives. True lottery winners produce nothing; generally speaking, those who buy lottery tickets are disproportionately poor and spendthrift, and often end up broke again after winning the lottery. The only real lottery winner in this discussion is Obama himself, who has produced nothing and somehow lucked into the most powerful position on the planet.

America does not need wealth redistribution. It needs a values conversion. No poor person has a child out of wedlock thanks to the evils of rich people. No poor person drops out of high school because a rich person forced them to do so. Poverty can sometimes be chalked up to luck on an individual level, but it can’t be chalked up to luck on a mass scale. And wealth can’t be chalked up to luck, either. To do so is to impoverish our own values at the expense of our future.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Yes, There Are More....

I can't help it. These are so good:

Thank You. Seriously.

"Pigs Are Superheroes"

Link Contents & "Lottery Winners"

I feel kinda bad copying and pasting Thomas Sowell's entire article "Just Asking" without permission, but in going back over my blog recently, revisiting posts of years ago, I find that many of the links are broken. And those broken links render my important, masterful, insightful, wise, interesting, incomparable, dazzling commentary moot.

I am not pleased. order for my comments with regard to Mr. Sowell's article to make sense in another 10 needs to be here.

Apologies all around...

With regard to the "you didn't build it" business Øbama uses to intimate that business people can't take credit for building their business because they used public roads and bridges....may I just ask why all the rest of the people using those same roads and bridges haven't started and run successful businesses?

Doesn't seem like use of the roads and bridges was the deciding factor here. But that the special ingredient was WHO was using those roads and bridges and WHAT they were using them for?

This complex distinction has not yet been grasped by the pResident.



Link Contents:

‘Just Asking’

In a recent panel discussion on poverty at Georgetown University, President Barack Obama gave another demonstration of his mastery of rhetoric — and disregard of reality.

One of the ways of fighting poverty, he proposed, was to “ask from society’s lottery winners” that they make a “modest investment” in government programs to help the poor.

Since free speech is guaranteed to everyone by the First Amendment to the Constitution, there is nothing to prevent anybody from asking anything from anybody else. But the federal government does not just “ask” for money. It takes the money it wants in taxes, usually before the people who have earned it see their paychecks.

Despite pious rhetoric on the left about “asking” the more fortunate for more money, the government does not “ask” anything. It seizes what it wants by force. If you don’t pay up, it can take not only your paycheck, it can seize your bank account, put a lien on your home and/or put you in federal prison.

So please don’t insult our intelligence by talking piously about “asking.”

And please don’t call the government’s pouring trillions of tax dollars down a bottomless pit “investment.” Remember the soaring words from Barack Obama, in his early days in the White House, about “investing in the industries of the future”? After Solyndra and other companies in which he “invested” the taxpayers’ money went bankrupt, we haven’t heard those soaring words so much.

Then there are those who produced the wealth that politicians want to grab. In Obama’s rhetoric, these producers are called “society’s lottery winners.”

Was Bill Gates a lottery winner? Or did he produce and sell a computer operating system that allows billions of people around the world to use computers, without knowing anything about the inner workings of this complex technology?

Was Henry Ford a lottery winner? Or did he revolutionize the production of automobiles, bringing the price down to the point where cars were no longer luxuries of the rich but vehicles that millions of ordinary people could afford, greatly expanding the scope of their lives?

Most people who want to redistribute wealth don’t want to talk about how that wealth was produced in the first place. They just want “the rich” to pay their undefined “fair share” of taxes. This “fair share” must remain undefined because all it really means is “more.”
Once you have defined it — whether at 30 percent, 60 percent or 90 percent — you wouldn’t be able to come back for more.

Obama goes further than other income redistributionists. “You didn’t build that!” he declared to those who did. Why? Because those who created additions to the world’s wealth used government-built roads or other government-provided services to market their products.

And who paid for those roads and other government-provided services if not the taxpayers? Since all other taxpayers, as well as non-taxpayers, also use government facilities, why are those who created private wealth not to use them also, since they are taxpayers as well?

The fact that most of the rhetorical ploys used by Barack Obama and other redistributionists will not stand up under scrutiny means very little politically. After all, how many people who come out of our schools and colleges today are capable of critical scrutiny?

When all else fails, redistributionists can say, as Obama did at Georgetown University, that “coldhearted, free-market capitalist types” are people who “pretty much have more than you’ll ever be able to use and your family will ever be able to use,” so they should let the government take that extra money to help the poor.

Slippery use of the word “use” seems to confine it to personal consumption. The real question is whether the investment of wealth is likely to be done better by those who created that wealth in the first place or by politicians. The track record of politicians hardly suggests that turning ever more of a nation’s wealth over to them is likely to turn out well.

It certainly has not turned out well in the American economy under Barack Obama.

Quote of the Day

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. Few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once!"

Alex Kozinski

WTF is going on here??

Well, here's the story: Øbama Limits Military Gear to Cops.

And here's the horrifying dilemma: I AGREE WITH HIM!

You may have some idea how that makes me fee: like I have worms in my mouth.

But there it is. Øbolo has actually said/done something that I like.

I feel sick.

But wait, let's examine the question.

What was his criterion? Was it because he doesn't believe the State should have so much power over citizens?


Was it because he doesn't believe the State should have all the guns and the people none?


Was it because he believes that the State works for the People....not the other way around?


Then what???

Is it because he thinks that marauding, rioting, out-of-control blacks shouldn't be intimidated by white cops with good weapons?

Yep, that would be it.

Of course what's funny about it, is that his intense racism has caused him to embrace a policy that essentially contradicts his larger agenda, which is creating a Super State that owns and controls The People.

Weird how things work out.

And I feel better. Turns out he is, as always, without a decent bone in his body, or a loyal moment to the principles of America. But by accident he has, because of one of his many false and ugly passions, fallen into the "error" of actually helping the American people stay free.

God, when it finally dawns on him, that's going to keep him up at night...


Monday, May 18, 2015

The Anti-Gun Male

I just found this brilliant, insightful column....written in 2002, by  Julia Gorin, about the Anti-Gun Male.

Give it a read.

"In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment."