Wednesday, December 31, 2014
At times, the committee report—as it defends the intelligence community’s performance during Benghazi—flies in the face of evidence. It relies heavily on witnesses who have previously given inaccurate information or testimony: then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Here’s a news flash: Alan Gottlieb, along with his Second Amendment Foundation, is all for giving up your Second Amendment rights.
BTW, this is Kit singing the National Anthem at the 13 December I Will Not Comply rally in Olympia. Gave me shivers when I heard it in person.
Look to the defiant gun owners refusing to register their property in Connecticut, or to others refusing to comply with Bloomberg’s I-594 initiative and numerous other examples of principled and moral civil disobedience, a time-honored American tradition. Consider what your role in this growing phenomenon will be, along with the attendant risks, and then make a decision and follow your informed conscience.
Don't worry about this. According to a reader who commented on another post, they've got everything under control in Maryland and don't need anymore help.
(See also: "The Heavy Lifter.")
A perhaps unrelated historical definition -- Judenrat: (plural Judenräte) "Jewish council" (German) - Usually referring to a group of Jews who enacted the German laws in the ghettos.
"SAF files federal lawsuit challenging I-594." Uh, huh. But here's the revealing part:
Today’s filing puts an end to speculation about legal action, and also answers complaints from some gun rights activists that SAF was essentially going to “roll over” and do nothing. SAF insiders had been keeping quiet about their legal strategy, lining up plaintiffs and doing their homework. That takes time.“We’re not trying to stop background checks,” Gottlieb said in his press release. “We’re taking action against a poorly-written and unconstitutionally vague measure that criminalizes activities that are perfectly legal anywhere else in the country, thus striking at the very heart of a constitutionally-protected, fundamental civil right.”
“We’re not trying to stop background checks,” Gottlieb sez. Yeah, well we kinda figured out that you were going to roll over and do nothing on that a long time ago, Alan.
Tell us again how the background checks you are willing to concede aren't registration lists. And speaking of lists. . .
Hannah Arendt stated in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem that without the assistance of the Judenräte, the registration of the Jews, their concentration in ghettos and, later, their active assistance in the Jews' deportation to extermination camps, many fewer Jews would have perished because the Germans would have encountered considerable difficulties in drawing up lists of Jews. In occupied Europe, the Nazis entrusted Jewish officials with the task of making such lists of Jews along with information about the property they owned. The Judenräte also directed the Jewish police to assist the Germans in catching Jews and loading them onto transport trains leaving for concentration camps. In her book, Arendt wrote that: "To a Jew, this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story." -- Wikipedia.
This juxtaposition is no doubt overdrawn and grossly unfair to Gottlieb as well as being a violation of Godwin's Law. For example, I will readily concede that there is no evidence that Chaim Rumkowski ever wore a bow tie. Neville Chamberlain, on the other hand. . .
Of course, I can understand why the cops might be pissed themselves: The Media’s PC Coverage of the New York Cop Executions
The purpose would be to address the foundations of young black criminality — the break-up of the family, the pernicious role of federal subsidies, a value system that deprecates academic learning and idolizes sports and acts of supposed masculinity, the misogyny and racism of popular rap and other cultural expression, the neglect of the inner city by the rest of America, the legacy of racism on the individual psyche, and on and on. Yet to have such a discussion, not to mention their remedies, would put the Al Sharptons and others out of business. Moreover, the entire Obama electoral strategy was to galvanize the black community to register, turn out at the polls, and vote in monolithic fashion for Obama, as the emblematic black candidate. Because there was no margin of error in such calculus (given that racial chauvinism turns off one voter for every voter it attracts), if the cases of Skip Gates, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and the Eric Garner were not politicized, others would have to be invented to create the needed outrage and solidarity that translates into political clout.
If you expect me to mourn over the discomfiture of this GOP elitist puke, you may be waiting a while.
This comment reflects my opinion:
Scalise is a real snake. He was Boehner's stalking horse to take over and neuter the House Republican Study Committee, much like David Cameron's takeover and neutering of the 1922 Association in the British House of Commons. He had to have known, and he needs to be replaced. Scalise is a front for the establishment, and a shed no tears for him.
As does this one:
What's good for me is bad for thee. Support us in the general, but if you win, we'll Murkowski you in the general. We like power and to manage the decline. Those are the Establishment principles.
"In military affairs, quantity has a quality all its own." -- Clausewitz.
From the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Revised February 2014).
In 2011, 13.7 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 282 million days and took 257 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $33.7 billion. Big game hunting was the most popular type of hunting. Almost 11.6 million hunters pursued big game such as deer and elk on 212 million days. Big game-related expenditures for trips and equipment totaled $16.9 billion. There were 4.5 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 51 million days and spent $2.6 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. Migratory bird hunters numbered 2.6 million. They spent 23 million days hunting birds such as waterfowl and doves. Migratory bird-related trip and equipment expenditures totaled $1.8 billion. Nearly 2.2 million hunters sought other animals such as raccoons and feral pigs on 34 million days, and their expenditures for trips and equipment were $858 million.
For all of us (presumably except for enforcers/confiscators, who must be immune to the madness that seizes we lesser beings). Meaning she wants to ban guns. She wants to stop people from getting them. She wants the government to take them away from people who already have them. Regardless of mental health. Regardless of the overwhelmingly peaceable and law-abiding nature of most gun owners. None of that matters because in her mind, and I quote, “the problem is guns.”
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
The other day I indicated that I was planning my itinerary for the first quarter of 2015. There may be a possibility of my attending this event on Monday the 19th of January. If that happens, I might be able to drive up on Friday to Richmond, then make a lightning trip into Maryland on the weekend for some meet-n-greets, talking treason to the empire and/or gratuitous nose-thumbing at the O'Malley legacy of petit tyranny. Any ideas? Email me if you do.
If you haven't yet received your hat order, here's why:
I sent out all the hats I had on hand -- 40 -- and those of you lucky enough to be on that list got them before Christmas. I am waiting to take delivery (promised for today) on the balance. Much to my frustration, the embroiderer had a machine break down and put off her delivery until after Christmas. All remaining orders should be out of here and on the way by Wednesday. Sorry for the delay. There will be hats of both types -- "100 Heads Life Insurance" & "Fight Tyranny, Shoot Back" -- still available after that, in black and dark brown.
Robert Kennedy of BamaCarry was lawfully carrying a holstered weapon and exercising his right to vote when he was denied and arrested on November 4, 2014. This was a clear violation of both 13A-11-50 and Alabama voting laws. He was arraigned on December 11 for the ridiculous charges of voting obstruction (his was the only vote obstructed) and the possession of a firearm at certain places. He pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go before District Judge Ronald E. Jackson on March 4.
From the wildly ironically named director of something called "PeaceVoice": Time is overdue to repeal the Second Amendment
Collectivist sign at OWS-Oakland, CA demonstration.
Oh, c'mon. You don't think the FBI would LIE about such an important thing do you? I mean, the only other explanation is that they're criminally incompetent.
Why don't we start a war based on faulty intelligence? FBI briefed on alternate Sony hack theory
“When the FBI made the announcement so soon after the initial hack was unveiled, everyone in the [cyber] intelligence community kind of raised their eyebrows at it, because it’s really hard to pin this on anyone within days of the attack,” Kurt Stammberger said in an interview as his company briefed FBI investigators Monday afternoon.
"Son, you don't poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your balls ripped off." -- Grandpa Vanderboegh.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Finally, another huge phenomenon, one that we’ll surely see more of, made headlines in 2014: resurgence of the time-honored American practice for nullifying edicts, civil disobedience. From patriots in Connecticut who refused to register their property, to armed citizens at the Bundy ranch who would not be cowed by BLM firepower, to aforementioned Oath Keepers refusing to come down from the rooftops in Ferguson, to this month’s “I Will Not Comply” rally in Olympia featuring colleague Mike Vanderboegh and others, a growing number of gun owners are taking steps to nullify edicts by flagrantly defying them. At least when done en masse, they're apparently getting away with it, and making those raging for enforcement look impotent. Look for the phenomenon to grow as more gun owners take notice and decide the most effective activism may be to repurpose Nancy Reagan’s “Just say no” slogan.
The Obama administration's relentless expansion of executive power through extra-constitutional means only further fuels the public's distrust of government. If 2014 was a referendum on Obama, 2016 may be a referendum on whether the public wants the federal government, particularly the president, to live within constitutional boundaries. Will our next president be a king, queen or a constitutionally-limited president? That is the question for 2016.
Maybe the elites can really and completely destroy the GOP as a viable national party this time. Wouldn't break my heart.
Bush surges to 2016 GOP frontrunner. You know, before anybody panics about this, I would remind them that the prospects of actually making it to a traditional presidential election in 2016 before the roof falls in from economic collapse, external attack or internal civil war are not exactly written in stone.
Yeah, yeah. I've heard about this "United Front" crap before. It is a tale told by a hard-core collectivist, repeated by useful idiots and embraced by any fool who wants a knife in his back from so-called "allies."
Czechoslovak diplomat and politician Jan Masaryk (1886-1948)
Trust me, they're not.
Don't believe me? Ask the ghost of Jan Masaryk. As they said in Czechoslovakia after the Communists murdered him and then claimed it was suicide: "Jan Masaryk was a very tidy man. He was such a tidy man that when he jumped he shut the window after himself."
The following link was sent by a loyal reader with the comment:
Nothing they use can be "fixed" when it breaks. Never fix anything? No understanding of how anything works. No problem attack skills. No initiative. No capacity for improvisation. Learned helplesness. Totally dependent. Good Democrats to the bone.
“Congress has a history of not challenging the FBI.” No sh-t. I wonder why. If you've just gotta know, ask John Boehner.
"THOUSANDS OF GUN OWNERS RALLY AGAINST LATEST GUN-GRABBING SCHEME" shouts the headline at NewsWithViews. Yup, Jim Kouri finally noticed our little armed civil disobedience get-together back on the 13th. Better late than never, I guess.
Sunday, December 28, 2014
This opinion piece in the LA Times by Jared Diamond was also mirrored at RealClearDefense. Diamond is no Media Matters collectivist putz. He is a Pulitzer Prize winner and thought of as a deep thinker in certain quarters. So when he writes of "the enemy within," you have to take him seriously. And who are "the enemy within?" Why us, of course.
You may object that the American armed forces, unlike those in Chile or Indonesia or Spain, have no precedent at all for interfering in American politics. That's true. But consider what happened in 1933 in Austria, where private citizens had increasingly been arming themselves and forming private militias. When Austria's Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss abolished the country's legislature and established an authoritarian right-wing government, he didn't use an Austrian army to crush his left-wing political opponents. He did it with a militia of his own armed supporters.Could that be possible here? Already, plenty of Americans are asserting the right to carry guns in previously unlikely places (such as in schools and government offices). Already, they are forming private militias for purposes such as patrolling the Mexican border and protecting a claimed right to graze cattle on federal lands. Again, when private citizen militias already carry guns for those purposes, it's "just" a matter of expanding the scope of an established principle to use guns for other purposes.We Americans today are focused on the wrong threats to American democracy. We are obsessed with threats from overseas: from terrorists and Islamist extremists, and from other countries. But realistically, while terrorists and Islamists and other countries will continue to cause trouble for us, the chance of their ending American democracy is nil. The only real threat to American democracy comes from Americans themselves. If our politicians continue to yield to pressure from extremists not to compromise and remain mired in gridlock, the majority of decent Americans may in frustration come to view an authoritarian government as the only solution to political gridlock — as a lesser evil that has to be tolerated.
Uh, pardon me, oh exalted anal sphincter, but "authoritarian government" is here already and it is your intellectual allies who are working their dictatorial wills in violation of the Founders' Constitution upon the rest of us.
Public Notice: Itinerant seditionist/smuggler seeking to avoid boredom. I'm working on next year's schedule.
I am putting together my schedule for the first quarter of next year. The only firm commitment I have in that time frame at the moment is one to speak at an all day event of BamaCarry on 21 February at the Pelham, AL, Civic Center. Of course later in the year I will be at the can't miss event in Washington state at Yakima when we have our little "We-Don'-Need-No-Steenkeeng-Background-Checks" gun show the weekend of June 20-21. Other than, and a general desire to get back up Northeast and tweak some noses in New York, Connecticut and Maryland, my dance card is free.
So, if you have any venues where you think I might add to raising (or lowering) the polite level of discourse -- ;-) -- get in touch with me by dropping me an email at GeorgeMason1776ATaolDOTcom. My needs for speaking are simple. Transportation to and from as well as someplace to crash while I'm in your AO.
Let me know what you're planning and if it fits with the general thrust of my work, I'll try to create a schedule that works for all. Hoping you New Yaarkers can put something together. I'd really like to tweak that tyrant wannabe Cuomo's nose just once. And if you boys and girls in Connecticut can do the same in an amenable time frame, I'll get two tweaks for the price of one (three if you count Commissar Lawlor along with Malloy).
"Background checks? We don' need no steenkeeng backgound checks!"
Blacks and whites live in different worlds when it comes to perceptions of the criminal justice system and the role that police play in society. But divisions within the white community are almost as stark, with opinions heavily shaped by partisan identification and ideology, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Unum Necessarium. "Now was the time to squirrel away as much powder as possible." Ghostly echoes of history from 1774-1775 to 2014-2015, Part One.
"A rebellion must have arms." -- Jeffery Record, Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win.
Fort William and Mary in 1705.
On the 19th of October, in the year of our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Seventy-Four, George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith (and so forth and so on) issued a confidential Order in Council forbidding the export of arms and powder to America. Like most royal secrets at the time, this one quickly leaked to operatives of Sam Adams and the Boston Sons of Liberty. (Funny how tyrants always think in similar terms and use identical actions. Indeed, it is their actions that make them as tyrants -- then and now. As I have written before, history rarely exactly repeats itself but it often echoes.)
The King was reacting to his understandable fright caused by the Powder Alarm, when in the immediate aftermath of the 1 September seizure by General Gage of the gunpowder at Charlestown, thousands of Massachusetts militiamen had marched on Boston and Cambridge, and mob action forced Loyalists and some government officials to flee to the protection of the British Army. The run-up to the Powder Alarm is described by Robert P. Richmond in his book Powder Alarm, 1774:
As the colonists' defiance grew, it became evident that it would be only a matter of time before the British Government prohibited the exportation of gunpowder and military stores to America. Now was the time to squirrel away as much powder as possible. The colonists were within their legal rights in withdrawing, town by town, the powder that had been allotted to each town according to population. The system of storing powder necessary for local self-defense in centrally located powderhouses throughout the province had been a safeguard against the French and Indians. Now, however, Gage realized that this powder intended for defense would quite likely be used against his troops. . .
For their part, the colonists knew that there was virtually no indigenous powder production, and the lack of gunpowder could cripple their resistance if the issue came to shots, as it did the following year at Lexington and Concord. The colonists turned to smuggling, of course, but their powder purchases in Europe and elsewhere could not make up the difference, especially in the short run. Indeed, when Washington arrived to take control of the militia army in front of Boston and learned how little powder was actually on hand, he was quite speechless for a considerable period of time.
What was terrifying (in 1775) was the picture of an America fighting with no weapons . . . the country was as naked and defenseless as a shucked oyster. The colonies were in the nightmare situation of trying to fight the strongest nation in Europe almost barehanded. . . The crying need was for gunpowder. There had been a few powder mills in the country, but they were long out of use. -- Helen Augur, The Secret War for Independence, 1955.
I am currently reading Kevin Phillips' book, 1775: A Good Year for Revolution. In his chapter on "The Global Munitions Struggle, 1774-1776," he writes:
If powder importation was to be prohibited, then, the powder existing in the magazines of the two sides became the critical item of contention in the run-up to war. When the Boston Sons of Liberty learned of the Order in Council, they feared that the Regulars would make another attempt to seize colonial stores. Wikipedia reports:Although both sides made many mistakes during 1774 and 1775, neither underestimated the central role of ammunition. Adapting a term from Christian theology, Samuel Adams candidly proclaimed gunpowder as the "unum necessarium" -- the one thing needful.
Patriots in Rhode Island moved munitions from the fort at Newport inland for safe keeping without incident. In Massachusetts, rumors flew that troops from Boston were headed to reinforce Fort William and Mary and seize its powder and arms. On December 13, 1774, four months before his more famous ride in Massachusetts, Paul Revere rode to Portsmouth to sound the alarm.
So, 240 years ago this month, the colonists in New Hampshire seized the powder at Fort William and Mary.
On the morning of December 14, Patriots from the town of New Castle unsuccessfully attempted to take the gunpowder at Fort William and Mary by trickery. Meanwhile, John Langdon made his way through Portsmouth with a drummer, collecting a crowd to descend on the fort. Several hundred men responded to his call, setting out for the Castle by way of the Piscataqua River. Only one provincial officer, Captain John Cochran, and five provincial soldiers were stationed at Fort William and Mary. Despite the odds against them, they refused to capitulate to Patriot demands. When Langdon's men rushed the fort, the defenders opened fire with three cannon and a volley of musket shot. Patriots stormed the walls and Cochran's men engaged in hand-to-hand fighting before being subdued by an overwhelming number of raiders. Langdon's volunteers not only broke open the powder house and absconded with about 100 barrels of gunpowder but, to three cheers, hauled down the fort's huge British flag. Several injuries but no deaths occurred in the engagement, and Cochran and his men were released after about an hour and a half of confinement.The next day, additional rebel forces arrived in Portsmouth from across the colony, as well as from Maine. Led by John Sullivan, the rebels returned to the fort late on the night of December 15, overran the post without gunfire and removed muskets, military supplies and 16 cannon marked as the property of the King. British authorities declared the raids - for which Sullivan later received a stipend from the Continental Congress - high treason.
Unfortunately, the colonists didn't have the foresight, or the means, to remove all the heavy artillery and military stores at the fort, and these were later recovered by the British navy. Too bad, they would have come in handy at the siege of Boston. Grandpa Vanderboegh's Rule No. 32 applies here: "If God gives you a cake, take the whole damn thing. You might get hungry later."
Note that this took place a full FOUR MONTHS before the General Gage's ill-considered gun raid of 19 April 1775. This was not merely armed civil disobedience, but high treason -- theft of Royal property and an attack on the King's lackeys. This is in part what I meant during my speech on the steps of Connecticut state capitol in April of last year when I said that the Founding Fathers "did what was required."
But this post started out with the promise in the header to find parallels between 1774-1775 and 2014-2015. Why, you might ask, do I begin with the one certain contradiction to what the Founders faced and the situation as we find it today? For it is an absolute given that we, today, live in the most highly armed society in history -- ever. We have no lack of arms, no lack of powder and shot, no lack of ammunition, nor do we have at the moment any impediment to obtaining more. (Although we should always remember Kipling's dictum that you can NEVER have TOO MUCH ammunition.)
I begin with the one major difference between then and now because I apparently need to remind those of us who are timid and fearful, those of us who exaggerate the power of the federal government and minimize our own innate power, those of us who immediately crouch in the submissive position of compromise, THAT WE HAVE THIS ONE HUGE ADVANTAGE OVER THE FOUNDERS. All other comparisons between the two periods must take this fact into account up front. Whatever the other parallels that I will discuss in further installments of this series, remember that THIS is our reality, not the poverty of means faced by the Founding generation. How, then, can we do less than they? Only by means of failures of our own will, failures of our own imagination, failures of our own courage. We have the means to secure our own liberty and property and lives. We have but to recognize it.
I also begin this series with the indisputable fact of the greatest armed society in history as a warning to the analysts of the federal three-letter paramilitary police organizations and to the so-called "fusion centers" and their state-paid but federal-directed lickspittles -- in the hope that they communicate it to the various tyrant-wannabes that they serve. Clausewitz, I would remind them them, offered this truth among many: "In military affairs, quantity has a quality all its own." Try to keep that in mind, you insignificant tax-fed carbuncles. Try not to piss off the largest, most heavily armed and accoutered, armed citizenry in the history of the planet. Take my advice in the loving admonition with which it is offered. You'll live longer.
Saturday, December 27, 2014
"Well it's a nice, soft night, so I think I'll go and join me comrades and talk a little treason." -- Michaleen Flynn in The Quiet Man, 1952.
I have to be in a nearby county early this morning to talk a little treason to the Empire and I intend to scavenge brass in the predawn darkness on the way there (early bird gets worm). I am working on a series of posts wrapping up the year and comparing 1774-1775 to 2014-2015. Hope to have the first of those later today. Sorry I overslept.
JPFO contributor Claire Wolfe has long argued that, "Secret government is tyrannical government." It's tyrannical, because only government by the people is not tyrannical. And government is not "by the people" when "the people" are not even allowed to know what their servants in government are doing. ASLGVP's forcible citizen disarmament agenda is an attack on liberty, as are the methods by which they seek to advance that agenda.
Friday, December 26, 2014
With Rekha and Sanjay and Sincic, and recently-confirmed Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and untold prominent voices in the Indian-American community stumping for Indian-style “gun control” here, it might be instructive to look at “gun control” there, and especially at its results.
It turns out the former FBI agent has a “history of confrontation and controversy.” Extremely serious allegations were made in a piece from The New Yorker about a nightclub altercation that he was in involving an estranged husband over a woman, with Grimm reportedly producing a gun, making threats, and taking advantage of his “Only Ones” status to not only be armed where mere mundane average citizens may not be, but to further exploit his authority to recruit police support and subsequently intimidate witnesses from coming forward.
The big surprise: “Communists are behind the anti-police protests in New York.”
Cindy Gorn, who was charged with assault, rioting, and resisting arrest. Gorn, 29, is "a graduate student at Columbia University and a professor teaching courses in geography at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, NY. According to the College’s website, Ms. Gorn studies geography from the perspective of Marxist philosophy, and is also interested in 'social movements, autonomous labor movements, health, and the environment.' She is also a 'healing arts practitioner.' She teaches one course titled, 'Mapping the World: Critical Cartography and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) for Social and Environmental Justice,' in which she uses maps to demonstrate to students 'the inherent contradictions of capitalist society.' She also teaches at Hunter College, Columbia University, and Barnard College."
No wonder these folks are chanting "Hands up! Don't shoot!" That's what the NKVD always commanded just before they put a bullet in the back of their victims' heads.
Believe me, collectivists are hardly swayed by folks pointing out their hypocritical inconsistencies. For them, corrupted language, specious argument and bald-faced lies are simply parts of the ideological battlefield.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
ATF used F&F "to help justify new gun control regulations–without telling the public that ATF was actually facilitating the delivery of weapons." I wasn't going to post today, but this just came in from Sharyl Attkisson.
It has been more than four years since Brian Terry's murder. FOUR YEARS since David Codrea and I first heard about "gunwalking" being related to his death in tips from ATF whistleblowers. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about how, once again, the murdering collectivist bastards of the federal militarized police have gotten away with mass murder in service to their interlocking agendas. Now Sharyl Attkisson has a story derived from recently released documents that just makes my boil once more, even though there is nothing here that our sources didn't report at the time and that we in turn wrote about -- yet no one (including the NRA's leadership) believed us. The link: Belatedly Released and Revealing Fast & Furious Docs
Clues as to why President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder kept the public documents secret for so long may be found in one 60-page release examined below. Nearly three years after-the-fact, its news value is diminished. If these documents had been turned over when Congress subpoenaed them or when they were first requested under FOI law, they would have revealed damaging information in the lead-up to President Obama’s re-election in 2012. By exerting executive privilege, the President and Holder kept them hidden until the court challenge forced their release. The reason for the 60-page grouping of materials isn’t apparent. Documents that long predate Fast and Furious are mixed in with relevant documents. Redactions aren’t justified or explained. Inexplicably, even Congressional testimony that had been publicly presented to Congress was included in documents withheld under President Obama’s sweeping executive privilege. . . .
Multi-Agency Participation in Fast and FuriousThere is evidence of widespread knowledge of and participation by several federal agencies in the controversial Fast and Furious gunwalking case that let traffickers put thousands of weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Agencies participating in Fast and Furious included the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch (ICE), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Phoenix Police Department. A January 2011 “Key Messages: Tasking Points” memo (p. 14) generated by the Public Affairs Division at ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. stated:“The Fast and Furious investigation is just one of a number of firearms trafficking cases perfected by the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Strike Force, a multi-agency team of investigators from ATF, DEA, ICE, IRS, and the Phoenix Police Department.”and“In October 2009, Operation: Fast and Furious, an ATF lead OCDETF investigation into a firearms trafficking organization funded by the Sinaloa DTO, kicked off in Phoenix. Although this investigation was lead [sic] by ATF, it was a multi-agency effort involving DEA, ICE, IRS, and the Phoenix Police Department.”The multi-agency participation makes Attorney General Holder’s claim of ignorance of the the cross-border operation all the more perplexing and, assuming it’s true, seemingly more egregious.
And then there's this:
Justification for New Gun Control RegulationsATF’s internal Public Affairs Talking Points show the agency was using Fast and Furious to help justify new gun control regulations–without telling the public that ATF was actually facilitating the delivery of weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
Murdering bastards. All for a bloody agenda.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this." -- George Mason, 1787.
In one sense it is doubtless true that nobody, in 1775, wanted war; in another sense it is almost equally clear that both the Americans and the British were aching for a showdown. -- Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Morris, The Spirit of 'Seventy-Six, 1958.
I have long been warning that given the collectivists who seek to impose their will upon the rest of the country with their appetites for other citizens' rights to liberty and property even at cost of the lives of those who disagree with them -- and especially with their designs upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- civil war is not only possible but probable. My hope has always been to prevent that war by pointing out to all that it IS possible and that the bloody costs will accrue to everyone, especially the war makers and decision takers, if we are stupid enough to go down that path for the third time in our history. (And, yes, I count the Revolution as our first civil war.)
To that end, I have been studying HOW civil wars start. We like to think that such fratricides happen after long periods of consideration -- that no one would be so foolish as to wade into such butchery with little thought. Yet we have only to look at the bloody disintegration of the former Yugoslavia to see a modern example of how swiftly such butcheries can happen.
I was making this point to a friend the other day and he objected that Yugoslavia had been an artificial construct of Versailles in 1919, that it was a "lash-up of a nation" (to use his words) that was bound to fail. The United States, he felt, was not nearly as close to civil war as I feared from the evidence of the Yugoslavian disaster. I pointed out to him that the compromise that was the Constitution was a similar "lash-up" -- a compromise that was forced upon the Founders, despite the advice of men such as George Mason, who wrote as early as 1773:
[Slavery is] that slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentlemen [sic] here is born a petty Tyrant. Practiced in Acts of Despotism & Cruelty, we become callous to the Dictates of Humanity, & all the finer feelings of the Soul. Taught to regard a part of our own Species in the most abject & contemptible Degree below us, we lose that Idea of the Dignity of Man, which the Hand of Nature had implanted in us, for great & useful purposes. Habituated from our Infancy to trample upon the Rights of Human Nature, every generous, every liberal Sentiment, if not extinguished, is enfeebled in our Minds. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers. The Laws of impartial Providence may even by such Means as these, avenge upon our Posterity the Injury done a set of Wretches, whom our Injustice hath debased almost to a Level with the Brute Creation. These Remarks may be thought Foreign to the design of the annexed Extracts - They were extorted by a kind of irresistible, perhaps an Enthusiastick Impulse; and the author of them conscious of his own good Intentions, cares not whom they please or offend.
Mason, himself a slave owner, struggled to reconcile his own Whig beliefs in liberty with what Bruce Catton once called "the indigestible lump" of chattel slavery. Yet we know from our own experiences in the Twentieth Century, that collectivism is an even more evil form of slavery than that practiced by Mason and other Founders from southern colonies. This is not to excuse Mason and the others, yet Mason must be credited at the least with the struggle with his conscience. In that, the Founders stand up pretty well to collectivist butchers such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Mason warned his fellow Founders:
This infernal trafic originated in the avarice of British Merchants. The British Govt. constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing States alone but the whole Union…. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities….[It is] essential in every point of view that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.
His fellow Founders did not listen to him. And we now know from the experiences of the 1860s how prescient Mason was.
In The Presence of Mine Enemies, Edward L. Ayers describes the almost instantaneous resolve for war that formed on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line in the aftermath of the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for volunteers to impose the will of the national government on the Southern states. I present this not to relitigate the issues of the war or to defend or attack the morality of one side or the other. The striking thing in Ayers' account is the rapidity with which what had been uncertain became set in stone, leading to a war that nobody wanted or expected.
The Civil War did not approach the border like a slowly building storm. It came like an earthquake, with uneven and unpredictable periods of quiet between abrupt seismic shifts that shook the entire landscape. It came by sudden realignments, its tremors giving no indication of the scale of violence that would soon follow. People changed their minds overnight, reversing what they had said and done for years.The crisis came in a strange way. It was rehearsed through debate and deliberation, through what Abraham Lincoln called "airy" and "theoretical" concerns. People on the border, dedicated to peace and moderation, imagined all the permutations and outcome, calculating carefully what would be won and lost by each strategy. Border Unionists gained momentum after the first secession, pulling Virginia and its neighbors toward compromise and reconciliation. Partisans in the border North fought with one another over every petty issue until the day the Confederate troops fired on Ft. Sumter. Abraham Lincoln bent over backward to appease the border South, giving in on everything except slavery in the territories and the fort at Charleston.Then everything changed because Lincoln sought to resupply that fort. Actually overnight, the Virginia Convention, so cautious and plodding, threw itself to the Confederacy with the support of the great majority of the voters east of the Allegheny Mountains, including the Valley. By doing so, they gave themselves to a war that they had every reason to dread. Over the border in Franklin and Pennsylvania, the Democrats abandoned arguments that war with the South would be wrong, unconstitutional, stupid, and unmanly. They gave themselves over to the new cause.Each side had a simple explanation for the other's sudden change: the people on the other side were hypocrites, claiming to fight for one thing while really fighting for another. The South felt certain the North fought for dominion and abolition born of sheer spite, envy, and a puritanical self-righteousness. The North felt certain the South fought to extend slavery like a disease throughout North America, infecting white people in the established states with its black slaves. Both knew the other side used the language of the Constitution as a mere shield and excuse.Indeed, the inconsistencies were striking. The North went to war to keep people in a Union based on the consent of the governed, to maintain connection with a slaveholding society it despised. Northern leaders expressed barely a word of concern for the millions of people currently enslaved. The south, for its part, went to war under the flag of freedom to maintain a massive and growing human slavery. The South risked war and the disintegration of a nation it had dominated to maintain rights that remained unchallenged in any concrete way.But both sides had reasons that seemed deep and compelling to themselves. The North clearly believed in the global importance of the Union, the anarchy that would follow in the North if the South were permitted to to leave and other parts of the Union broke away, and the illegality of secession. Northerners believed that the Confederacy did not speak or act for most white Southerners, that a white Southern Unionist majority only awaited help and a signal to step forward. The South clearly believed that the safety and integrity of the entire society were challenged by the Republicans, a party that had arisen for the express reason of dominating the South. The south believed too that the Constitution gave states the right to leave if they so wished and that the election of Abraham Lincoln had been nothing other than an attempt to drive the South away through electoral means. The south now wanted to leave, whether the Republicans offered an immediate threat, a long-term threat, or no real threat at all.People defended their actions through the words of the Constitution. Like a prism, the Constitution focused and intensified the sectional struggle. Rather than fight for slavery, the South said, it fought for the right of slavery, a right won and decreed by their ancestors who helped create the United States, and the right to remove itself from a union it had voluntarily joined. Rather than fight against slavery, the North said, it fought to preserve the government the Constitution created, to stop outlaws and traitors from usurping it.Slavery lay at the the root of the South's actions, and white Southerners were not squeamish about saying so. Since all civil society in the South, everything touched by the public realm of law and government, rested on slavery, that civil society necessarily defended slavery as a crucial part of itself. White Southerners did not isolate slavery as the "real" reason they were fighting because slavery could not be separated from the rest; it was so tightly bound up with their sense of who they were that it could not be isolated. They spoke easily, as they had for decades, of God's plan to use the South to Christianize Africans. They spoke of enslaved people's love for their masters and mistresses, of the bonds that tied them together. They spoke of the waste and bloodshed that would accompany emancipation, of the desolation of the South, of the slow death of the former slaves.Along with the Constitutional language and the language of slavery emerged another language, a language of elemental loyalties, a language of loyalty to family and locale, of native soil and the sacrifices of the fathers. It was a language everybody knew how to speak. It was a language older than the Constitution. It drew on cultural memories even older than the Bible, memories of Greeks and Romans. It spoke from instincts embedded in the human mind and body. It was a language made for wartime, and people on both sides of the border spoke it fluently.Both the North and the South claimed the sanction of God. They read their Bibles selectively, turning to the language of retribution and vengeance in the Old Testament rather than the language of forgiveness and brotherly love in the New. They defined righteousness as they wanted to define it, as they needed to define it, not for His name's sake but for the sake of worldly ends.Law and right, duty and honor, fate and history, so tangled only weeks before, suddenly aligned for both the North and the South. The paths of righteousness suddenly appeared straight and smooth.
And so a nation disintegrated in rapid events that few wanted or thought possible. I present this as cautionary tale to those who think that civil war cannot come to this country overnight. It can. It requires only one or two incidents to crystallize both sides -- to kick it off into bloody fratricide. We were faced with one possible flashpoint earlier this year at the Bundy Ranch. We face the threat of others every time there is an armed civil disobedience in opposition to the tyrannical laws brought about by Bloomberg Rules. We face the same threat every time a federal raiding party forms up for some stupidity that could rapidly devolve into another Waco. Civil war can come to this country overnight. The only thing that might prevent it is when those who would victimize others believe that it can and that it will have immediate and deadly repercussions for them. That is the only thing. But it is not the way to bet.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
“Don’t form conclusions just yet because so much of what has taken place behind the scenes is not fully exposed or understandable,” Dobyns cautioned supporters about Monday’s development. “Additional proceedings will reveal that. Trust that justice is being served. My battle is not close to being over.”
Refusal as a weapon. There is NO unconstitutional law that Mike Bloomberg can buy that we cannot nullify with armed civil disobedience.
NOTE: If you agree with this post, please forward the link as far and wide as you can. (LATER: My thanks to Larry Pratt for the mirror on his Facebook here.)
They can jail us. They can shoot us. They can even conscript us. They can use us as cannon-fodder in the Somme. But… but, we have a weapon more powerful than any in the whole arsenal of their British Empire. And that weapon is our refusal. Our refusal to bow to any order but our own, any institutions but our own. -- Liam Neeson portraying Michael Collins, 1996.
Mike Bloomberg thought he was on a roll. In the wake of Sandy Hook, his money managed to buy unconstitutional legislation in Connecticut, Colorado, Maryland and New York. In the election just past, his money staved off defeat for two governors who did his bidding, although as Wellington said about Waterloo, it was "the nearest run thing you ever saw." Most importantly -- and the latest jewel in his anti-firearm crown -- his money and that of Bill Gates, Paul Allen and other like-minded elitists "bought the mob" (in the parlance of the Founders) with the success of I-594 in Washington state.
Yes, Bloomberg was on a roll. The so-called "mainstream" gun rights organizations, from the NRA to Alan Gottlieb's Second Amendment Foundation and all the smaller spin-offs in the affected states, had no answer to Bloomberg's millions and refused to put their own rivalries and jealousies aside to find one. This is hardly a surprise, since almost all of these groups have always been more about raising money to "fight gun control" than actually FIGHTING gun control. Each has been more obsessed with their own reputation in the collectivist-dominated press and their obsession to "win friends and influence people" in the middle. So, following their long-established patterns and refusals to think and act outside the boxes they placed themselves in, they lost. They lost in Connecticut, they lost in Maryland, they lost in New York, they lost in Colorado and now they have lost in Washington state.
In each case, Bloomberg understood his enemies, their foibles and their failures far better than they understood him. So he won and they lost.
But then something happened that Bloomberg in his arrogance never expected, something that the "mainstream gun rights organizations" for their part never expected either -- in every single state where Bloomberg had "won," it turned out that the victims of his unconstitutional laws had other ideas. And they didn't need "leaders" like Wayne LaPierre and Alan Gottlieb to lead them.
The "I Will Not Comply" movement in the various affected states began the instant Bloomberg's Intolerable Acts were passed. Individual firearm owners, led here and there by some courageous activists of the smaller rights groups who were not so worried about raising money and preserving their press image than their "betters," simply announced that they would not obey such unconstitutional laws. They refused to cooperate in their own disarmament. They refused to obey. If the government wanted to make them criminals, well, then, they would be criminals and they dared the authorities to do anything about it.
And the authorities did . . . nothing. When it became apparent that Connecticut was experiencing a stunning non-compliance rate approaching 85 percent, Mike Lawlor, the governor's appointed "gun commissar" in that state made threatening noises. But the raids did not begin. And now, almost two years later, they still haven't begun. In New York, the non-compliance rate is even higher, with county sheriffs even threatening to arrest state policemen who seek to enforce the SAFE Act in their jurisdictions. And Governor Cuomo has done . . . nothing.
In Colorado, on the day the magazine ban went into effect in July 2013, resisters gathered on the statehouse steps and broke the law. And the authorities did. . . nothing. After I announced on 20 April 2013 on the steps of the Connecticut state capitol that I had smuggled in forbidden magazines in violation of their diktat, Lawlor had the state police open a criminal investigation of me, but did . . . nothing. Since then my friends and I have smuggled in more such magazines to that state and the authorities have done . . . nothing. I even recently attended a gun show in CT simply to give the authorities a chance to arrest me if they felt froggy enough. And they did . . . nothing. The raids have not begun. The state and its newly felonized citizens have been looking at each other with firearms in their hands for almost two years now. Yet the other jackboot has not dropped. And the authorities, as with those in other states with Bloomberg Rules, don't know whether to defecate or go blind. Consequently they have done . . . nothing.
This refusal, this armed civil disobedience, reached its highest expression to date with the "I Will Not Comply" rally at the state capitol in Olympia on the 13th of this month. Two thousand armed people met, without a permit, defied I-594, held a successful rally without incident, and the authorities did . . . nothing. I was privileged to speak at this historic event as well. I will go back to Yakima in June for a planned gun show that will refuse to conduct the 594-required background checks and we will give the authorities a chance to enforce their new Bloomberg Rules.
And where are the "mainstream gun rights groups" in this national campaign of armed civil disobedience which has negated the results of Bloomberg's money, his so-called "victories"? Why, they're nowhere to be found. They have either condemned them or ignored them. In a recent interview, Alan Gottlieb, -- who was apparently vacationing in Hong Kong on the proceeds of his members' dues while the brave men and women of his state were risking arrest defying I-594 -- denied that the rally was in fact "armed civil disobedience" because, he ludicrously claimed, "most people there weren't armed."
And if you didn't get the underlying message, he went on to say "I don't think it helped us with the general public. It doesn't help us with the public or the legislators." And, he added, "I'm not a fan of armed civil disobedience."
Coming from a guy who has never risked more than a paper cut opening fundraising envelopes . . . coming from a guy who was willing to trade away national background checks in the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook . . . this was hardly surprising. He will do what he has always done when confronted with Bloomberg Rules. If he cannot sue it, if he cannot lobby a "compromise" that gives up a little more of other people's essential liberties and property, he will do . . . nothing.
Yet such "leaders" risk exposure and irrelevance in the new shifting paradigm. Legal challenges on all these Intolerable Acts are working their way through the courts. All have, up to now, failed. Elections have been fought and lost. Lobbying has been redoubled. Indeed, in the same interview Gottlieb asserted that the emergency was so grave that they had hired another lobbyist!
But the practitioners of armed civil disobedience, the resistance behind enemy lines in Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Colorado and Washington state, have ALREADY NULLIFIED BLOOMBERG RULES. And Michael Bloomberg himself doesn't seem to know whether to defecate or go blind.
The failures of the "mainstream gun rights groups" to protect liberty and property from Bloomberg's assaults have forced the American people -- an eminently practical people -- to make their own arrangements. If this risks exposing the increasing irrelevance of such groups there is nothing we can do about it. (Although there is certainly something THEY can do about it -- thinking and acting outside the boxes of their own comfort zones would be a good start.) But the fact of the matter is that, as demonstrated now by almost two years of experiences THERE IS NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT MIKE BLOOMBERG CAN BUY THAT WE CANNOT NULLIFY WITH ARMED CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
Refusal is a weapon. It is a weapon that has been used to good effect in this country since the time of the Founders. Michael Bloomberg's Rules are negated by the Law of Unintended Consequences. And looking back on the past two years of expensive laws and craven legislators bought and sold that all of his "victories" required, Bloomberg must be wondering this Christmas why it is that someone crapped in his stocking. He should be celebrating. Instead he has been frustrated, as the Founders intended, by the refusal of the armed citizenry of the United States to bow down to him and his tyrannical kind.
Monday, December 22, 2014
For many residents, however, mass transit remained their only viable means of commuting to work. One of those New Yorkers was Bernard Goetz, a bespectacled passenger who looked, as Darrell Cabey later told Jimmy Breslin, “like easy bait.” He wasn’t, but Cabey and his three companions didn’t realize that until too late. Goetz had been recently robbed and assaulted, and was so incensed by the lenient treatment of his assailants that he’d sought permission to carry a licensed firearm. His petition was denied, but he bought one anyway, a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson, which he was carrying, hidden, on the fateful subway ride.
Whether the advisory group DeWine launched will address these concerns remains to be seen. That the attorney general would not earlier consider gun owner safety to be a priority is a curiosity in itself, as he enjoyed support from some grassroots gun advocacy groups in the last election. The pro-gun endorsement represented another reversal from when the Brady Campaign called him a “principled statesman” and praised his gun-grabbing prowess as a U.S. Senator.
David Codrea on "Squatter's Rights." Sipsey Street under cyber-squatting attack as well. What's next?
"In the mean time, you can contact them here and inquire about their 'Service You Can Trust' claim. I'm hoping someone with the ability to record phone calls can place one to their 1-303-893-0552 number and ask about the morality of this, and then post it on YouTube. Be great if they reached ol' Jeffrey himself. It looks like CO is a one-party consent state..."
A comment to the blog post below this one. It is, of course, anonymous.
You won't let anyone comment on anything you don't agree with. You never have. You are a coward and a self promoting phony , who's only interest is your own overinflated ego. You long ago lost credibility with most of us because your sense of liberty is no better than the NSA's, so why worry about the comments of trolls? Because you are so drug addled and self deluded as to think your blog is somehow influencing the conversation? Nobody cares how many "rally's" you crash in your lust for self promotion. Your refusal to allow any voice but yours, Brands you as the same brand of statist you so loudly decry. No matter how many papers brand you a "leader". Only the left still cares.
Well, I guess he told me. Of course I might be more impressed if he had the guts to use his own name. But then, the real rabid ones never do.
Attn: Rabid cop haters whose blood dancing celebratory comments on the NYPD killings are being routinely deleted by me.
Here is the face of your "instrument of justice": The Many Atlanta Mugshots of NYPD Cop Killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley.
Brinsley bought the gun he used to shoot his ex-girlfriend in Baltimore and the two officers here in Atlanta. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is currently questioning the pawn shop in the Atlanta metro region that sold Brinsley the gun. . . Brinsley had active warrants out of Cobb County . . . for probation violation related to theft, firearm possession and criminal property damage charges. Brinsley was thrown into the Fulton County Jail nine times between 2004 and 2010. The offenses include simple battery, disorderly conduct, theft by shoplifting, criminal trespass, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a knife during the commission of a felony, possession of marijuana, simple battery, and terroristic threats.
NOTE: All of the "kill all the pigs" comments are being deleted by me before they can be associated with this blog. I assure you that if that is what you truly believe and advocate you have not internalized the principles of the Three Percent and you should go find another hobby. Those of you who are merely federal trolls seeking to discredit the Three Percent via such messages ought to hang it up too. I instituted moderated comments early on because I was tired of neo-Nazis trying to hijack the blog. When I compare their collectivist hatred to those of a few recent commenters, there is little functional difference.
Bob Owens asks: What is wrong with these people?
C'mon, Bob. You've never heard of the Young Communists? The Hitler Youth? Collectivists ALWAYS try to achieve their aims through the weak minds of children. ALWAYS.
A centrist Democrat bemoans the collectivist wreckage of his party: "Time to Bring Back the Truman Democrats." The one thing he doesn't mention is firearms. If there is one issue that has consistently damaged his party over the years with the poor and middle class white voters that he seeks to reclaim it is firearm confiscation. It is also impossible to finesse that issue with the collectivists who control his party and their carefully constructed base that controls the primaries. How he hopes to do so is beyond me. It is the one thing the leadership and the base all agree on. The party he pines for is gone with the wind, and Harry Truman, like Generalissimo Francisco Franco, is still dead.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Now we know why he was smiling. He just spent three days partying in Hong Kong. Well, that's harsh. Maybe he was consulting with the ChiComs about the efficacy of background checks.
Fresh from world traveling to Hong Kong for "three days of fun" as he described it, Gottlieb appeared on the Mark Walters show as the quintessential Neville Chamberlain that we've come to expect.
Walters asked Gottlieb about I-594, inquiring whether we have another CT non-compliance campaign on our hands. Gottlieb answered, "I'm not expecting it in Washington state."
NOT EXPECTING IT?!? NOT EXPECTING IT?!? It's already a frigging fact! How Walters didn't choke in laughter is beyond me.
When Walters asked him about the fact of the armed civil disobedience of the "I Will Not Comply" rally, Gottlieb lied and said that it wasn't armed civil disobedience because "most people there weren't armed."
He added, "I don't think it helped us with the general public. It doesn't help us with the public or the legislators." He added, "I'm not a fan of armed civil disobedience."
Like we couldn't figure THAT out. The only thing he IS a fan of is other folks sending him money.
In the second segment, Walters asked how Gottlieb was going to try to change I-594 in the legislature. Without touching the subject of what compromises he was willing to make, he answered, "All the gun groups in Washington state have banded together and hired another lobbyist."
WOW! That's showing them, Alan. I'm sure Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Michael Bloomberg are quaking in their designer shoes.
LATER: It is evident that Gottlieb doesn't believe that the state usurping the long-standing right of individuals to exchange property freely is that big of a deal. Considering that he has indicated his willingness to concede that right in the past -- and not even King George the Third was that grasping -- this is perhaps not surprising. If you are expecting Gottlieb to fight that fight is to believe in the triumph of hope over experience. With fairy dust thrown in for good measure.
Alan Gottlieb's secret weapon for defeating I-594 -- Magic Fairy Dust.
“I called CDC not long ago and I said how many cases are being monitored in the United States and they said 1,400. I said, ‘Where are these updates on your website? ‘ They said they’re not putting it on the web. This is public information we have a right to know and the media should not hype it, but should cover it.”
The latter claim is where the ubiquitous administration-serving media narrative falls apart. How does one track guns without making any attempt to do so? That, in turn, leads to the fraudulent, but often-repeated media claim that Fast and Furious was a “botched gun sting.”
Turn on the television and you will see the clips of marchers in NYC chanting "What do we want?" Answered by "DEAD COPS!" Followed by "When do we want it?" "NOW!" These clips are followed by much hand-wringing by the collectivist talking heads that people are making a connection between the anti-police rhetoric and actions of Eric Holder and the mayor of NYC (dubbed "Big Bird" by his critics) and the assassination of the two policemen.
"Wait," they demand, "you can't blame our First Amendment expressions for cold-blooded murder. The one has nothing to do with the other." Of course these are the same people who blamed Rush Limbaugh and the militia movement for Timothy McVeigh and the OKC bombing. They are the same people who blamed me for the Georgia Waffle House geezers whose "deadly plot" was conveniently uncovered by an FBI snitch.
So which is it? If they are not guilty, then I am not guilty. If Eric Holder is innocent in the present circumstance then so was Rush Limbaugh and the militia movement at the time of Oklahoma City. It is one or the other. If I am guilty then they are guilty. Or not. Pick one, you lying collectivist bastards, and own it.
Of course the larger question is not either/or nor is it a zero sum game. As I have written before, it is possible to criticize the militarization of police without embracing race rioting as a proper response. But the deliciousness of the collectivists' current discomfiture is marvelous for those of us who have been the victim of their lying propaganda for years.
Why is this man smiling? Alan Gottlieb, Washington state's own Neville Chamberlain in a bow tie.
David Codrea reports that Alan Gottlieb will be on Mark Walters' Armed American Radio tonight at 8:00 PM Eastern. From Walters' blurb:
"Alan Gottlieb updates on his travels and latest news of defiance out of Washington State against the new law."
"Latest news of defiance. . ." Hmm. The only "defiance" I saw while in Washington state was from Gavin Seim's band of brothers and sisters at the "I Will Not Comply" rally, which Gottlieb and his friends and associates (as well as the NRA) either denounced in advance or ignored.
Now I have no conduit into the mind of Mark Walters, but were I in his position here are some questions I would have for the man:
1. The I Will Not Comply rally of armed civil disobedience at the state capitol in Olympia last weekend was an apparent success -- the state police said there were at least 1,800 people in attendance and Mike Vanderboegh, one of the speakers, estimated it at 2,000. What did you think of the rally, its purpose of armed civil disobedience to I-594, and why did you not attend or endorse it?
"Petty jealousies, touchy egos and cynical jockeying for position lost the political fight against I-594. The NRA did the minimum required to convince their members that they were doing something without really doing something because they did not want to ally themselves with Alan Gottlieb. For his part, Alan Gottlieb seemed happy to have NRA cede the battlefield to him for he would claim the credit for the history. ONLY ONE THING HAPPENED, THEY DIDN’T WIN. They lost. WE lost. And now we are here because grown men and women acted like jealous children. But it is time to cease acting like children. Because of our own failures it is time to stand up and act like adults. This is not a game with no consequences, and merely played for points. This is deadly serious. this is as serious as it gets. And as my friend David Codrea says, it is time for any chair in a bar fight – regardless of who gets the credit afterwards."
Were I Walters I would then ask: "How do you respond to Vanderboegh's charge? Do you concede that mistakes of judgment were made by you and the NRA in the campaign against 594? Wasn't your own backing of a competitive measure a dilution of energy, money and resources that actually helped the success of I-594?
3. In the past, after Sandy Hook, you were willing to make compromises on background checks "in order to prevent something worse." You have announced that you will be lobbying the WA legislature to achieve changes in I-594. What are those, exactly?
4. Finally, the "I Will Not Comply" folks have announced that they will be having a background-check-free gun show in June on private property to deliberately violate I-594 once again. How do you fell about another huge act of armed civil disobedience in your state? Will you participate? Or will you denounce it here tonight?
Whether Walters asks those questions or similar ones, be sure and tune in to find out what Chamberlain-in-a-bow-tie has to say for himself. The links are at David's site linked above.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Remember Rule #1 from Zombieland?
This fellow seems to have made a successful adaptation to that rule, at least until he runs out of gas.
Of course since he's an "Only One," presumably the government will have fuel long after it has disappeared from civilian stocks.
Of course, had the grandfather listened to Goodwin, his wife and three grandsons would have been at the mercy of two brazen invaders breaking into their home. The 18-year-old intruder the boy shot was reportedly trying to enter through a rear window when he ignored a warning to stop. His brother, who fled the scene, was reportedly out on probation for previous burglary attempts on the home, and was tracked down via the electronic monitor he was mandated to wear while out on bond.
“Within the beltway, the Kochs are not shy about using their money to support mass amnesty and open borders, not only by subsidizing CATO but also the open borders, pro-amnesty, libertarian magazine Reason,” that analysis explains. “So why do they refuse to be consistent with AFP or at least make their real opinion clear to the hundreds of thousands of Tea Party activists who have volunteered with or donated money to AFP?”
NRA has avoided the issue. There have been excuses from apologists, arguing unconvincingly that allowing millions of new anti-gun voters into the mix is not part of the “single issue” mission of the association, or that somehow, the newly naturalized will discover “pro-gun” principles. The problem with that is the first premise is demonstrably wrong, and the second is based on wholly on wishful thinking, never fleshed out with more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"If every Jewish and anti-Nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT, Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic," Zelman once told citizen journalist, blogger, and Three Percent movement founder Mike Vanderboegh. That commitment and that will are sorely lacking in Jewish betrayers of the slogan “Never again,” false leaders and their idiot followers whom Zelman contemptuously referred to as “bagel brained.”
We'll see how that goes.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Alan, ist dat du? Apparently I pissed off somebody in Washington state. Notice to readers. My email is under attack and at the same time someone is spamming with my name in the header.
Heads up. Today I have been under what amounts to a DOS attack with hundreds of emails (perhaps thousands by now) jamming my inbox from someone claiming to be Kevin Thomason with the header "re: U OK?" The text is beyond obscene. At the same time, apparently, someone is claiming to be me in emails. Received this from a reader:
Hi Mike,My wife received this email today, and I just wanted to give you a heads up that someone is spamming, or sending malicious emails under your name. I noticed right away that this email was not sent from your email address. The only thing I can think of is that my wife donated to your paypal account a couple of times. I am not sure if someone got a list of the people that have donated to Sipsey. I just wanted to bring this to your attention so you can warn others not to be duped by this email.Thank you, (NAME REDACTED)
From: Mike Vanderboegh [mailto:email@example.com]Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:29 AMTo: (LONG list redacted)Subject: from Mike VanderboeghHi!How are you?It works! http://agence-evenementiel.info/begin/read.phpMike Vanderboegh
Given the list of recipients (which included Oathkeepers), I do not think it has anything to do with PayPal. I have no experience with this and have no way to deal with it myself. Any suggestions?
LATER: Apparently someone is also using the email address firstname.lastname@example.org to do the same thing. Lord alone knows how big this is.