Poor babies. "Democrats' Scheme in Mississippi Fails." It will be a different story in CA, AZ and NV, however. Gearing up for the coming armed civil disobedience in those states. "Too far" or "Too radical? Or both?

"If there's one ideology I can't stand above all others, it's pragmatism. People just brutally assert that what they're doing is practical, or what you're doing isn't, but they never consider that what's practical depends on what you want to achieve." -- "Daktoria," blog post, 2010: "Pragmatism Is Stupid."

"Democrats have decided that they will try to win court cases since they cannot win down-ballot offices, thanks to a leftward pitch under Barack Obama. . . It is an attempted power grab that is very similar to President Obama's use of executive orders. Rather than trying to flip the House back to the Democrats' control, Obama has bypassed it with executive orders; the Democrats' strategy in southern and Republican-red states is to bypass legislatures with court actions. You see this happening on gun control via state ballot initiatives. Billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lost big last week in two state Senate races in Virginia. He dumped $2.3 million into trying to wrest the chamber from Republicans, but the GOP held the seats. Bloomberg now will focus on gun-control ballot initiatives, such as one in Nevada and possibly another in Arizona. In Mississippi, the teachers' unions and some wealthy advocates put a referendum on the ballot that would require the legislature to fully fund the education formula, a massive increase over current funding."

Unfortunately, although the Teaching Mafia lost in Mississippi, Bloomberg's millions will likely win in both Nevada and Arizona, just as Newsom's will likely win in Kalifornia. Once again, we will have to expand our armed civil disobedience plans to include those states, although how I can contribute given the resources necessitated by the long-range logistics of travel to that distant AO is more than a little problematic. I am willing if the folks in those states are willing to underwrite the travel and give me a chair to sleep in, a shower to stay reasonably clean and an Internet connection so I can continue to report on events and keep this blog beast fed on a daily basis. My speeches are still free, no matter where I give them. And I wouldn't mind adding three more states to the list of places where I have publicly broken these tyrannical laws. (I still am hoping to get to New York state after the first of the year and stick my defiance of the SAFE Act in Cuomo's eye. The logistics of that are not quite as daunting.)

As far as my health goes, it is admittedly touch and go right now, but my oncologist has given me to understand that the side effects of the new chemo pills I'm taking will only likely grow more onerous the longer I am on it (as it is, I take a month's worth then have to knock off for two weeks to let the body readjust -- then start the cycle over again). This week, I noticed the first episodes of blurred vision predicted by the doc, and he tells me that I have a very good chance of developing boils when I get three or four months in (shades of Job!). So waiting for improvement before doing something would be rather a triumph of hope over experience and not the way to bet. On the plus side, it is also certain beyond a doubt that I am bouyed emotionally by being actively in the fight. I recharge my batteries spiritually by being in a good scrap, risking my hide alongside other folks who live, since Sandy Hook, behind enemy lines. It is, I am convinced, one of the tasks that God made me for. So add to the uncertain minuses of side effects to come, a counterbalancing intangible positive.

The main question, however, is this: Are there any no-compromise groups in those three states that are interested in having me? My informal inquiries have already been rebuffed by groups in two of the three states. I am, it is said -- as has been said before by others in various places -- "too radical" and not fit to grace the stage with other more conventional "established gun rights spokesmen" and "pragmatists" as well as "friendly" politicians who might be "embarrassed" or discredited by means of "guilt by association" if they share the same speaker's platform with me. "We want to stay legal," I was told, although I got the feeling that some of them would be saying that when climbing the platform to the railroad cars.

Kurt Hofmann's dictum applies here. ("It is better to be despised by the despicable than admired by the admirable.") But it is more than a little frustrating.