More trees

Yup, especially that last link in Billy's post.

The Donks not only don't like skirting the issue of who they really are, they are proud (somehow, it really boggles the mind as to why) to announce it to the world.

This reminds me of the scene in A Few Good Men, when Jack Nicholson is sitting on the stand, and is just pregnant with the need to tell the whole court, hell, the whole nation, exactly what he'd done with the code red thing. Smugly self-satisfied that everyone will just have to like it and deal with it.

I've got news for the leftists, and most definitely for Ronald Aronson, just keep it up, OK? I really want you assholes to keep this shit up. If you want to know why, it's plainly said this way; you will end up taking it on the chin when all is said and done. Why is that? Well, let's just say that I couldn't agree more with Billy's take on that Aronson piece,

"The Cold War" is not "over", socialism is not "dead", and the Democrats will be an unprecedented disaster.

If anyone doesn't believe me, just wait for those schmucks to commence with their hardline socialist programs after "retaking" the Congress next week. What will be the first item on their list? Increase welfare checks? 'National' health insurance? 'Living wage' BS? Gun control? All of it will eventually be implemented, and more. Count on it if the Donks wrest control over both houses and then somehow manage to get the White House in '08.

Anyone know of any good deals on 7.62 NATO surplus?

Seeing the forest, and the trees

What gets me riled more than just about anything else is when some uber-leftist wants to make some sort of point by illustrating just exactly how much Dubya sucks.

Well, tell me something I don't know, asshole!

The fact that Dubya has done some stupid shit isn't what concerns me as much as the rather arrogant notion that the Donks seem to think that they can, or would do, much better, if we plebians would simply hand the reins over to them. Furthermore, as Billy Beck points out, we haven't come to the end, yet, boys and girls, and I am trying my damnedest to keep the busy-bodies away from the levers of power.


Oh, and Billy's comment about this thing just getting on a roll, well, that, I think, is an understatement.

Want more proof?

My blog reading brought me here, which led me to Mr. Zakaria's question at the WaPo.

I have long contested that there is a divide in this country, and that it is getting wider each day, moving toward a rather inevitable conclusion. Judging by the responses in the comments section, I have little to disuade me of this conclustion. This is a cultural schism we are witnessing and it will eventually manifest itself in a full scale civil war of sorts, complete with appropriate carnage. (not advocating here, just observing)

This type of thing always leads to me grinding my teeth at the stupid, thinking that they have some sort of 'opinion', which made me do more of my weird searches (I do this a lot, try Too stupid to have an 'opinion'), I found this.

I liked this bit;

Robert Brandon, a Duke University philosophy professor, is one liberal who has at least made an effort to explain why conservatives are seldom seen in academia. "We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire. Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican Party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia."

Let's you know what he thinks of conservatives, or anyone else who may have a different opinion than he. A distinct lack of diversity is what they really want here. Make no mistake, this guy is branding people. There is a clear lack of tolerance in his stance, and conformity is the absolute demand that his type will institute on us all, if ever he were to obtain the reins. You see, it's the dumb Deltas who need the smart Alphas to design society for them.

Fucking poxy jerks. Keep pushing, motherfuckers. Just keep it up.

Screw it. If the Donks get back the Congress, we'll see just what they are really made of. In their pursuit of the Marxist Utopia, they will force things upon this nation that will leave no doubt about what they are really after.

Time to check the ammo stocks. Again.

Example of why this is going to be a shooting war soon

I occasionally ramble through leftist blogs, kinda my version of "slumming" ala Great Gatsby.

I check out this idiot from time to time, because frankly, he never disappoints me with his dipshit "opinions" and links to other, similarly mendacious, idiots, where I ran across this quote:

"Most of all, I find it humiliating to live in a country where Henry Kissinger can go outside without being spit on by hundreds of concerned citizens."

Charming, isn't it.

Tell me, why is it that when the Libs do something similarly stupid, we who don't approve (I caution the use of such terms as conservatives, Republicans, or the much derided neocon, as they are not descriptive of my allegiances) are told to go hide under a rock and threatened with punishment for voicing our justified opinions to the contrary, but when the left doesn't approve of certain actions, well, all bets are off. They believe they can do absolutely whatever it is that they want, by god, including the aforementioned, and clearly advocated, physical humiliation(s).

Yesterday, while looking through the archives at Gates of Vienna, I noticed an important post, titled Visualize Industrial Collapse. I read through the post, which is now over a year old and noticed something. It seems that we (that would be those of us who are, er.., equipped, let's say) aren't the only ones who are thinking about this coming conflict. There is definitely a hardline leftists, and defeatist, vein of these folks out there.

Then seeing others talking about it. I just didn't think there were that many others out there like me with the whole list thing going on.

Guess it pays, or will pay, to be organized.

And most of them are unintended

I read the link by Tam at VFTP earlier in the morning, but Billy's title just did it for me. Maybe it's because it reminded me of one of my favorite books. Similar subject matter and all.

It's scary to think that Feinstein, Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of that heap of shit in Congress (one of many, I might add), once they wrest control of it, will be using these exact same laws against those who they demonize in the "gun culture". The no-knock raid is going to be getting a lot of use in the ensuing years methinks, if the Donks win this next round in a of couple weeks.

It will all turn out very badly.

Time to move west, young man.

Trying hard not to laugh at this,

The War on Guns: Gegen Waffengewalt Versprechen

but when Codrea says stuff like,

"Let's hope the brainwashed little droolers are wearing their bibs."

it's damn hard not to. He's is right about it of course, and those of us who realize what a vacuous waste all of their effort is also realize that we are on the minority side of the statistics with regard to the information flow (i.e., government programming of the minions). Not the best of situations, but we've been behind the eight-ball on this issue since...forever, so nothing really all that new.

Repeat the lies, and soon enough it will be the truth, right?

H/T to Jeff Soyer at Alphecca.

Book review, 1st Edition

First things first. I simply loved Enemies, Foreign and Domestic. It was a timely novel, written by an erudite individualist who is clearly fed up with the incessent nanny-stating collectivists who are out for total control of everything that we Real Americans stand for.

That being said, I can give Mr. Bracken's second novel in his EFAD trilogy a warm recommendation. That is to say, I liked it, but my reaction to it was not as strong as it was to the first book. Not sure why this is, other than to say that the character interaction wasn't quite as believable, yet the characters themselves were plenty believable.

There were more than a few passes at characters who happen to be former POTUS, actors, and radio "personalities". I also happened to rather like the characterization of the switch-hitting college professor; I loved the scene where he buys the farm, it made me laugh, in a gross kinda way.

There were a few good history lessons in this book, as there was in the last, and it seems that the author has done his homework on the New Mexico landscape, as the descriptions of the terrain I found to be right on.

I thought the plot progression a bit slow at times, and the final escape was late in its arrival. I also wanted a bit more confrontation between the heroine and the bull-dyke IRS/Homeland Security agent toward the end. This would have given the character the proper prominence that she seemed to "deserve" in my opinion.

Generally, I also liked the bit of edge that was added to Ranya's character, it gave her a more human approach. She was date raped, and knew it the morning after. She happened to find some RU486 in the medicine cabinet of her rapist, so she took it. No questions, no remorse about it, though the book touches on the "sin" she would need to later answer for. The sheer rage that she demonstrated on her wanton lesbian keeper at the "political re-education" camp was a fantastic scene. It gave her some weakness, a fault, that she was missing in the first book, though I can imagine that this was the intended result the author was after.

I give Mr. Bracken high marks for his sophomore effort here, and I am anxiously awaiting the final installment of his trilogy, Foreign Enemies.

Just a thought

While going through my mail this morning, I run across one of those mileage rewards programs (this one through Delta Air Lines Rewards), asking me to 'redeem' my miles and choose several from their list of magazines.

I'm not usually up for these kinds of gimmicks, and since I fly so infrequently, I tend to let miles lapse on these programs (Boo-frickin'-hoo) and shred them before tossing them in the trash. This time, for god-knows-what reason, I looked their list over. There was exactly ONE magazine on the list that interested me, and I already subscribe (real shocker), but what struck me as odd was something else, the inclusion of both Out and The Advocate, and the descriptions of each as being alternative lifestyle magazines. Not that I really care, but I figured that these days the gay community would be filing lawsuits via the ACLU if their 'lifestyle' were portrayed as anything other than 'mainstream'.

I'm sure the bedwetters will make the connection at some point and get their knickers in a bunch over it. Wait and see.

So funny, it's almost laughable...

that anyone, save Short Il Dong, or whatever his name is, could take this seriously.

There are just a few points to be made here:

First, and most importantly, Kim Il Dong is certifiable. Nobody can argue this point. It's important, however, because it effects the rest of the decisions and conclusions that can be made about the situation hereafter.

Second, because he is mad, Shorty can not make rational decisions. He knows that the rest of world views him this way. This makes his ridiculous gestures at using a nuke, in any capacity, on whomever, look like the proverbial nutcase-with-the-finger-on-the-button rogue that he is. Again, he is using that to his advantage, and will continue to do so until he is no longer surrounded by the floodlights of the international media. He loves this as well.

Third. He can not resist the temptation, now that he actually has the capability to do so, with the idea of detente with the United States. His ego is flying high.

Fourth. It was a move he had to make. Mostly, I think, because of what George has repeatedly said about NorK (axis of evil and all that), and the overwhelming evidence of what happened to the last dictator (think, dude with the mustache). He isn't wanting to go down that same path, and this was his ticket, or so he thinks.

He isn't going to do a damn thing with his bomb(s). He is insane, but he realizes the stakes, and he knows he's on the losing end of it. So, we are simply at a stalemate with him, until he runs out of friends (China isn't going to back him too seriously, lest they jeopardize their cash cow, as Tam so eloquently pointed out). And since they have limited land (read, resources here), he will just keep the status quo for as long as he can hold out.

Nothing but some saber rattling here, move along.

Putting it succinctly

I've been meaning to link to DirtCrashr's excellent post for a few days, but have been tied up with more pressing concerns than blogging.

I hadn't even bothered to see what all the uproar was about when he posted, but have since seen the footage of the animals doing their fecal throwing act, and I have to say, if I would have been on stage when this took place, there would have been at least of few of those cretins leaving on a gurney.

Dirt is short, to the point, and spot on with his observations about the way they frame everything they touch. It's always about their sniveling perspective, and never anything else. They view themselves as being the only ones capable enough to understand the situation or subject, whatever it may be, and therefore should be able to dictate to all others about what to do, how to think, and most definitely, how much funding is allocated to the "problem", since that is always the case with the leftards.

I've been reading a lot of fiction over the last few years, and most of it is a sort of what I call 'The New Orwell Order', in that it is loosely based on the extreme logical conclusions after the implementation of liberal politics and agendas. Some of it is simply absurd. Other things, many things, are far easier to accept as not only being possible, but probable. This latest tidbit at Columbia is only a sample of what those possibilities are. With the self-deluded concepts that these people attach ideologies to, and politically correct thinking the absolute order, can anyone imagine the speech that was being given by the Minuteman Project, under an extreme liberal President and Congress, being a criminal offense and somehow labeled as "hate speech" or some other non-sense? I can. What happens then? SWAT teams?

Not only do I think it is possible, I think it probable. The overriding problem with that, of course, is that not only is that suppression of free speech, but the leftists believing it OK to jail and prosecute people for such acts, all within the moral context that they've laid out within their own heads. That is scary. For them, it is willful neglect, and since they haven't the ability to think clearly, much less rely on anything remotely resembling a conscience, I'm keeping them under close surveillance and at arms length or greater, with my other hand on the pistol. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Keep yer powder dry.

I'm wondering, how tall is Olbermann?

Olbermann is delusional.

Lying? At about 4:00 minutes into his tirade, Olbermann spews forth, "The premise of a President, who comes across as a compulsive liar," taken, admittedly, out of context, is beyond hypocritical there Keith.

Perhaps you were asleep from about 1993 to, say, around January of 2001? Do you remember that fat guy named Clinton?

Perhaps you would like to do as Billy Boy did and deflect the argument? Maybe you want to talk about the Constitution and how Bush has, "savaged the very freedoms that he claims to be protecting,"(4:25) and how your boy never did anything like that. Uh, yeah, sure. Keep repeating that line to yourself. Someone is bound to believe it.

Olbermann is a chump. He is an asshole. He is clearly a partisan hack, and he always will be. He has no idea about how many times in the last dozen administrations the Constitution has been attacked with a hatchet, and used as bumwad, yet he insists, and frames it as such, that Bush is the sole criminal here. Idiot.

So, I ask again, how tall is Olbermann? The reason? I am wondering what kind of reach he has. He's a former sportscaster, he'll know what I mean, and the real news is that he isn't the only one who can dispense the cheap shots.

Why I have no confidence in the general populace

Whilst over at Kim's, doing my usual reading, I notice a link (doesn't show in the permalink, for some reason) to Professor Eugene Volokh's place. So, being interested in what he might have to say about the latest shooting sprees at the victim disarmament zones, I click over there, only to be subjected to responses such as these in the comments:

"Professor Volokh poses a false dilemma [How, may I ask?]. The question isn't whether any gun regulation can eliminate all gun crimes, but whether some regulations might reduce the number of them (and without reducing whatever deterrence and self-defense advantages that an armed citizenry provides).

In that respect, yes, there are some gun restrictions that can have some impact on some types of crime [Are you fucking serious when you say this, dude?]. Maybe nothing would have stopped this guy, but waiting periods can potentially stop some who would kill in the heat of passion. Restrictions on the sorts of guns that can be purchased can potentially stop some would-be multiple murderers from attaining enough firepower. Licensing, registration, a permitting process, background checks, and other regulatory hoops could each deter some criminals. (And the "black market" point is also not a definitive argument, as even if illegal guns are available there, that doesn't mean that they will be as easy to obtain or that some people who cannot get the guns legally will not attempt to or be able to obtain them on the black market.) [Guess this guy has never read anything about Prohibition or about a little place called a "speak-easy"]

I don't endorse all these things-- both because I think the Second Amendment confers an individual right and sets some baseline of protection of the right to bear arms, and also because I think in some cases the reduction in the ability of law abiding citizens to own a gun for self-defense outweighs whatever the effectiveness is of the particular regulation. But the issue is not whether a gun regulation will prevent all gun crime or even any particular crime-- it's whether it will prevent some crime, and if so, is it worth the cost (and does it comport with the Constitution)? " Dilan Esper [my emphasis, not his]

and this, by some dude calling himself, oxymoronically, logicnazi

"I suspect that many rampage killers are law abiding citizens until they snap. If they don't have a gun around when they snap or only have a limited capacity gun they might not shoot anyone else or shoot fewer people. For instance a limitation that required guns to shoot only one or two bullets before being reloaded would greatly reduce the number of people a rampage killer could execute."

[I ask, where is the logic?]

or this,

"NRA's position, unless it's changed, is that law-abiding citizens ought to have machine guns even IF the police don't.

It's really, really hard to take seriously contentions that Americans are insufficiently heavily armed." Harry Eagar

[Jesus, again with the complete lack of knowledge about the whole issue of NFA '34 and class III firearms]

There are others there that I'd cite, but these just jumped out at me. This is just constipated thinking and blind ignorance of what is and what isn't, and what has and hasn't been done already, in an effort to reduce the availability of guns to criminals.

The most restrictive piece of gun control that we, as a nation, have ever passed is easily the Gun Control Act of 1968, Period. The reasons were many, some a knee-jerk, but some of it, I will concede, was necessary. In GCA '68, we denied everyone the ability to buy guns through the mail, with no special licensure (FFL and C&R only). That is the avenue that Oswald used in the Kennedy assassination, by purchasing an Italian 6.5 Carcano bolt action military surplus rifle and ammunition. It created the FFL system that we now have. It created the Form 4473, that we use to this day. All of this was done in an effort to vet a potential buyer on whether he would commit an atrocity like the ones we have recently endured. Even many hard-core gun enthusiasts, such as myself, do believe that it was necessary. Other aspects of that law are just asinine, with arbitrary limits applied to import firearms that make NO sense, in any context.

Some of this may have made timely access to a gun, for some, more prohibitive. Most of the above mentioned items, regardless of efficacy, should still be in place today, in my opinion. I hate the idea of the damn Gummint being able to show up at my door some day and start asking questions about a gun a purchased 20 years ago, and (for sake of argument) no longer own. That is the sad fact, however, and I know what my responsibilities are and I am aware of the liabilities involved. That is why I will not engage in any kind of private sale of any of my newly purchased firearms. That leaves a paper trail, straight back to me. Not something I am too willing to 'splain in court, criminal, nor civil.

I ain't goin' there, but there are plenty of those out there that are plenty willing. There are many guns on the black market, (whether one chooses to believe this or not is a matter of personal arrogance, as far as I'm concerned) and there will always be.

Some just do not have a good grasp of history. That is rather obvious. Some are just willfully ignorant. Again, obvious. Others, unfortunately, can't think, which is a far more serious problem. Oh well, not much I can do about it, except hope for the next apocalypse.

Where's the ammo? (as he walks away)

Observations

In my wanderings of the 'net the other day, I run into the above linked tidbit, OK, not a tidbit, more like lengthy, detailed, first-person observations of our "differences" with regards to life, religion, philosophy...hygiene.

It's actually quite funny, in a I-can't-believe-it kind of way.

Read it all. Circumspection with the drinking of your coffee is advised.

Spoiler alert! The gist of it - There ain't no way out of this in any kind of peaceful manner.

Who has an answer for this?

First, a pervert takes hostages, apparently has a problem with control of his sexual desires, then kills one of the girls he's taken as a hostage. That was last Wednesday.

Two days later, an another apparently disturbed person, this time a student (not that this is new in any way), walks in and shoots his principal.

Interestingly, I mentioned to my wife on Saturday morning when I woke up that it was going to be a good day. She asked me why, to which I responded that at least there wasn't going to be another school shooting, since it was Saturday.

Only to see this BS, TODAY!

I almost can't believe it. Shocking doesn't even begin to describe it.

I am beginning to think that some of the more extreme measures that some folks have been suggesting get implemented, and a certain law repealed. It couldn't get any worse than it is already.

The next few days should be very interesting, methinks.