Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Monday, December 5, 2011

A necessary blog to follow



I've been reading Kerodin's blog, III Percent Patriots, for some time now. There was a time when I felt that some of his material was a bit too strong for my tastes. As our current political situation continues to worsen, and our government increases its inroads upon our rights and our freedom - what is left of it - I find that it was I who was too weak in my assessment of the threat we face as a country. Kerodin has been a much better judge of that threat, and has been unrelenting in his presentation of just how bad things have become.

He has suffered directly and personally at the hands of our government, and continues to as I write this. His experience, his insight, and his training enable him to cut to the chase on what is important to us politically and in the fight we face, and is just as spot-on as is Silicon Graybeard's assessment of the continuing financial debacle.

Again, I need to be clear with those few folks who read my blog that we are not speaking of far-out conspiracy theory here. We are talking about the very tangible threats we face thanks to a government which refuses to accept that debt is real and cannot be ignored, nor can it be corrected by inflating our currency until it becomes worthless, like the Weimar Republic Reichsbanknotes (like this 20 million mark note from that time period). We are talking about the very real threats to American citizens as in the Patriot Act, and the new Senate bill 1867 (House bill 1540) which would allow the government to declare any of us "enemy combatants" and detain us indefinitely. Do you understand the significance of habeas corpus no longer existing? Lincoln was the last President to take that right away from us in order to punish those who didn't approve of going to war with the South. It is quite likely, if this bill passes, that anyone who disapproves of what the government does - Right, Left, or Independent - could be held indefinitely, with no legal recourse.

Think that is far fetched? DOD (Department of Defense) has written and put into practice a training program for their employees which describes political protest as "low-level terrorism". No, that is not a mistake, not a typo, and not a paranoid fever-dream of a right-wing wingnut. It is fact. The ACLU can hardly be considered spokesmen for the Right, yet they are speaking out against this. England, as well, is already treating their protesters, like them or hate them, as terrorists as Kerodin recently posted.

The more you follow Kerodin's blog, the more you will see that as strong as his language may be, as bleak as the picture he paints may seem, as dire as the threat he describes, it all rings true. We may wish it wasn't so, but I'm afraid you'll have to put that wish in one hand and see what it's worth. If you can't read him every day, check in with him frequently. You'll benefit from his personal insights, and the info he posts from other bloggers and news sources that provide facts, opinions, and ruminations which will open your eyes to how precarious our plight truly is right now.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

"There is no such thing as moderate islam"


I've been saying it for some time now, and here is a French politician actually admitting it. She is a brave lady, exposing her knowledge in a country currently becoming overrun by muslims, with arrondissements in Paris where the police fear to tread, due to the muslims who inhabit and riot in those areas.

Jeannette Bougrab is a French minister of Arab descent. Algerian in origin, she is familiar with muslims and Sharia. Orthodox islam calls for the death or subjugation of all "infidels", and even prescribes death for other muslims if they convert, speak against islam or Sharia, or fail to follow any of the dictates of the Quran, Haddith, or Sura. We won't even go into the many petty violations for which a woman or girl can be put to death under Sharia, along with the required genital mutilation (clitoridectomy at the very least) of female children.

Those who claim there is such a thing as moderate islam are either ignorant or liars. If they are muslim themselves, this is permitted under the cover of taqqiya. Read the brief article at Jihad Watch.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

More photos of muslim sex slaves






It's late and I'm feeling silly after seeing BillyBob's post at Hell On Earth showing photos of some lady hogs for any muslims that might wander onto his web site.

Well, we all know that a muslim would never touch a pig. While I have seen video of muslims utilizing donkeys for sex, it is my understanding that goats are the preferred partner if a young beardless boy is not available. So, for those few muslims who might wander onto my blog, here is some goat porn for your enjoyment.

The first is a young Nubian. Hmm. Nubia was in Africa, wasn't it? Not too far from home, eh? The one on the left in the next photo is either La Mancha, or a La Mancha cross. La Manchas are earless. Can't imagine someone breeding for an earless goat, but there you are. (Do muslims grab the ears when they get started? Is that why they prefer Nubians?) The third photo is of a Toggenburg, a goat that used to be common in Switzerland, along with the Saanens and Alpines, I believe.



I used to raise Toggenburgs. Calm, easy to milk, good mothers, easy keepers all around. Clean, chilled goat's milk is sweeter and better - IMO - than cow's milk. Making various cheeses from their milk was easy and fun. My wife kept and raised goats, too. If we ever settle down and stop traveling, we'd like to get a few again. If I see a muslim within 600 yards of my goats, he's toast.

Sit down, put your feet up, smoke 'em if you've got 'em


I’ve read various and sundry blogs and comments upon them concerning secession from the United States by individual states. While it certainly makes sense to me - if not to my liberal/Democrat family members and few friends who are also liberal - it will never happen. I would love to live in a free state that has rejected what has become of America, but I realize it is a pipe dream.


Oh, I don’t doubt an attempt might be made, and it would certainly be better for everyone involved if it could happen without an uncivil war, but the Left - the collectivists - will never accept the possibility that some of us should be allowed to live apart from those who enjoy ruling or being ruled and nannied by a large and powerful government.


Those who remember their history may recall that this was tried once before, and we all know how that ended. I can see no reason to believe a current attempt would have any better ending, in fact it would either be worse or would never occur in the first place. There simply doesn’t exist the desire for freedom from governmental diktat that did just before the War of Northern Aggression - “Civil War” (although it was decidedly uncivil) which was between the Southern states and the Federal government. Not between the Southern and the Northern states - it was Lincoln and Congress who decided it couldn’t be tolerated, not the governments or population of the Northern states.


The Left and the Powers That Be, aka: Those Who Would Rule Us, will never allows us to separate from them. They could not exist without the fruits of the labor of the productive. They will never give up their addiction to other people’s money, as they know they would starve and die if they became dependent upon their own efforts. Unfortunately for all of us, they also cannot seem to get the fact that abusing those who are productive will never increase their output. It will only damage them until they can no longer be productive, or until they realize they are pushing a rock uphill and give up on their own.


We have seen in microcosm - the Occupy protesters - how the Left feels it is the responsibility of those of us who are productive, who are better off due to our willingness to work and provide for ourselves and our families, to support and provide for those who do not wish to work, as well as those who feel it is their “right” to have someone else pay for their healthcare, their childcare, their food, their housing, their transportation, even their entertainment. We have seen that the Left has no desire to recognize the right of the individual to his own property, be it his land (as in Kelo ) or his economic property, his income and bank account.


The Left, supported from below by the FSA ["Free Sh*t Army", for my liberal relatives who might not have heard the appellation] , the entitlement culture, has deemed that there is such a thing as having “too much”, “more than you need”, “what you ‘ripped off’ from the rest of us” [true in the case of crony capitalism, where Obama and Congress rewarded the large financial institutions which were the major beneficiaries of TARP and later bailout schemes]. Those in power on the Left actually understand that there needs to be a productive segment of society, or they would have no source of income themselves, but as unwilling as they are to give up their income to succor the entitled, the “poor and hungry”, they feel it is acceptable to tax the productive into poverty in order to supply those entitled souls who vote them into office in exchange for the spoils of this theft from the productive.


I have a cousin whose husband is a very compassionate registered nurse at a hospital in Connecticut. He is a principled (not my principles ;-) and intelligent man who wishes to help others, especially those in need. Unfortunately, he appears to be unable to understand that the theft of property from those who produce actually reduces what is available to be used to help those who are truly in need, because so much goes to those simply unwilling to work and provide for themselves and their families. He is unaware of the fact that the Right gives to charity much, much more than those on the Left who talk about the “poor” but then cling to their own money like a drowning man to a floating log. He has bought into Karl Marx’s line about “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Sorry, John, but it is true. Marx knew that a lot of compassionate people would swallow that one, hook line and sinker.


I have a young friend and former co-worker who is also a registered nurse. He and his mother, whom he lives with and helps to support, have experienced hard times. They had some periods in their lives when they needed healthcare that they could not get covered by insurance, or when they couldn’t afford insurance. I don’t recall his exact explanation, but IIRC he might not have even been able to get the care he (or she) needed, although that seems unlikely given that few emergency rooms will turn away those in need simply because they cannot - or will not - pay. Perhaps he could not pay and did not wish to end up in debt for the needed care.


[We both worked with an orderly who made a great deal less money than we did as RNs. He needed neurosurgery for his neck, which he received in spite of not having any insurance at the time. He is still paying it off, but he is paying for it out of his own pocket. He is my age, and even though he may not live long enough to repay the entire debt, he is doing what he knows is the right thing. Believe it or not, he votes Democrat.]


Whatever the case, my fellow RN is totally in favor of stealing from the productive - the 50% (is it still that high?) who pay taxes to support the 50% of Americans who do not - in order to provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it. He works in healthcare, so he is aware of how many who claim not to be able to afford it simply feel it is their “right” to get it without having to pay for it, but he remains adamant that it should still be “free” (aka: paid for by us tax payers) because there are a few truly destitute people who cannot afford it. He is another compassionate and bright individual who abandons reason when it gets in the way of what he wants - to provide for those “in need”, including his mother and himself. When asked about it, he cannot discuss it, as questioning his worldview angers him too much to be willing to discuss “politics”.


Hell, yes, I know I am singing to the choir here, as most of the folks who follow my blog are reasoning adults with a fairly firm grip on reality and who believe in personal responsibility as well as the inviolability of personal property - aka: conservatives, members of the Right (not to be confused with “Republican” or even “Libertarian”, although the small “L” libertarians come fairly close). People who understand that America does need to defend herself, although that doesn’t mean attempting to bring “Democracy” to countries that are still living in the seventeenth century and are incapable of doing otherwise at this time. People who support our men and women in the military, if not the military adventurism and manipulation we have seen in Bosnia, Libya, Iraq, and - to a certain extent - in Afghanistan, although I find myself in favor of whacking Al Qaeda and the Taliban, even if I understand that the real target should be Saudi Arabia, who funds and supports those groups.


So, here I sit. One more small voice trying to awaken a few souls who otherwise might not ever get the message. One barely articulate fellow hoping to shed a little light upon what we are facing, and how it has come to be this way. Better men - and women - than I have tried and failed. I fear that most of our fellow citizens will not awaken until it is too late, when they find themselves prisoners in the gulag of oppression to which America is headed.




Sunday, November 27, 2011

Silence Is The Goal

The assault on free speech by many countries across the globe is gaining a foothold here in America, as well. While we still enjoy the ability to say what we will, and to post what we will here on the Web, free speech is nonetheless under attack in the media and in the halls of government, where such scum as Harry Reid and John Kerry whine about how we shouldn't be allowed to voice any opinions that offend their particular sensibilities. Those That Would Rule Us do not wish us to say anything which might awaken others to our actual plight as their chattel. Any criticism of government, socialism, "social justice", wealth distribution, etc. are deemed damaging, subversive, seditious.

The excellent owner of the blog Eternity Road, Francis W. Porretto, has written an article under his nom de plume (or alter ego), Curmudgeon Emeritus. It is entitled, Silence is the Goal. Our silence, that is. The silencing of Those Who Would Not Be Ruled. We are not talking about anarchists (for the most part ;-), but simply those who believe in the natural rights of the individual, and their inviolability by those who think they know better, or simply wish to exert power and control over the rest of us.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly has taken an incredibly nasty hit in Merry Old England, where those whom the government disapproves of suffer beatings and arrest even when peaceably convening in the venue of a pub. In Canada, people have been sued and harassed for expressing an opinion about muslims and islam, the "religion of peace". We won't even start on the long and tortuous trials of Geert Wilders in Denmark.

There is a strong movement by liberals, Democrats especially, to silence those of us who feel threatened by the changes occurring both in our government and in our society. They have already muddied the waters significantly by redefining our language to mean what they wish it to mean, making it difficult to have a meaningful discussion of these issues as what they mean by a particular word is diametrically opposite of what the word formerly meant. Bringing this country to the condition where it is no longer permissible to voice an opinion contrary to "political correctness" would be tantamount to silencing any dissent they wish to be silenced.

Please read Silence is the Goal, and take it to heart.

An excellent post on the upcoming ruckus and how cops may respond

Mike at http://mike-istan.blogspot.com/ did a must-read post on "Concord Bridge or Fort Sumter". There were some responses to it speaking to the likelihood of the police following their oath to the Constitution vs how they may actually behave. Some felt that "small-town" cops would have more invested in their community, as opposed to "big-city" cops. Some of the folks in law enforcement and former military (as am I) claimed that they fully supported the Constitution and honored their oath. Here is my response (which I posted there), as I see it:

As a former peace officer in both big city and small town departments, I have to take some of the people who responded to task.

As Mike stated in response to a post about small town police:

It is probably unavoidable with big-city police who see bad stuff
every day, but it is disconcerting to see nice suburban officer Jones
all buffed out from gym time, head shaved, wrap around tactical
sunglasses, and tactical pants bloused into tactical boots (black of
course). I'm sure he is a fine officer, but it looks like he has
succumbed to early onset thinblueline-itis.

I guarantee you, having not only worked in two small town departments as well as at the California Highway Patrol and as a San Diego police officer, many of today’s young officers have indeed succumbed to “them vs us”. Being members of the community, small and local as it is, does not define them. They revel in their position of “authoritah”, shaved head and heavy badge and all. The time of the Andy Griffith style f police officer is long gone.

I saw this just a few weeks back, when my flight instructor was yanked out at gun point of the Cessna I was preparing to taxi from the apron to the runway. He had had a non-violent domestic disagreement with his wife for which she had pressed charges, and the young city cop treated him as if he were a piece of filth, instead of the patient, compassionate, and friendly man that I - and all of his friends in town - knew this 65 year old man to be. The deputy sheriff who was backing him up (an older, more mature man) was polite and professional, but not this young town cop.

Those who responded here, claiming they always supported and defended the Constitution are not being honest, with us or with themselves. If they enforced the laws that are on the books, they have gone counter to the Constitution. If they have arrested anyone for any sort of weapons violation - gun, knife (too long, double-edged, concealed), billy, loaded firearm, etc., they have violated the Second Amendment. If they have arrested anyone for drug use, they have violated the Constitution, for wherein does it give the government the right to legislate a private activity such as self-medication? If an arrest - and a ticket is an arrest with a promise to appear in place of being taken into custody - is made for lack of insurance, driving without a license, driving without a seat belt or helmet, then again, the Constitution has been ignored. [Yes, the states do have the power to pass various laws, but I submit that those such as being forced to purchase insurance - automobile, as opposed to healthcare, but both are wrong - and I believe the seat belt and helmet laws are equally wrong.]

I was as guilty of this as anyone else, although I did let a _lot_ of people go on these violations of “law” when I was in law enforcement. In California, it was a felony to ignore a felony, so there were times when I had a partner and my choice was to arrest or be arrested myself if that partner snitched me off, so I took the safe route (rather than the Constitutional route).

I’d bet a month’s income that these folks responding here to Mike’s post are as guilty of this as I was, hence my statement that they are not being honest. As far as military folks go, their ROE _used_ to be broader than those of the police, although I understand that isn’t the case anymore, thanks to the Pretender-in-Chief and those he has running the military. The former ROE were reasonable and necessary, given what the military was tasked to accomplish. I have no argument with that.

However, given the psychology of those sworn to obey their orders, trained to obey without thinking (for the most part, though most military folk do think in spite of such training), and the psychology of those acting in a group, thoughts of rights and Constitutionality are almost always far from their minds. Recall Tom Baugh’s brief essay on “When to Shoot the Colonels”.


Sunday, November 20, 2011

Even some of the liberals get it

Incredibly, Yahoo - which I use for my email base, preferring it slightly over Google - has just posted a news release not only critical of Obama's damage to our economy and the job market, but also speaks of the damage that eco-extremists do to our economy and the functioning of our society.

"The six-month delay was ordered to allow for time to study the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. The Environmental Protection Agency has stacks of studies and monitoring reports on the practice dating back to the 1950s. President Obama's move to satisfy a fraction of extreme environmental groups fearful that fracking would harm waterways shattered the economic hopes of an entire state.

Planned drilling in multiple Ohio regions offers more than direct drilling and transportation employment. A steady paycheck for shale and natural gas industry workers would be spent in towns across the state providing funds for non-drilling businesses. Communities would benefit from increased sales at local businesses, delinquent property taxes would get paid helping public levies and struggling homeowners would be able to prevent foreclosure.

Anti-drilling rhetoric by some environmental groups opposed to drilling in the national forest is juvenile and not based in fact. Ohio Environmental Council spokesman Jack Shaner said drilling in the Wayne would turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley. There have been a multitude of oil and gas wells pumping in the forest for years without causing a harmful impact on either the environment or muscle-powered recreational opportunities."


Although I don't read much of Yahoo News, being disenchanted with their liberal slant upon most issues, from what I have seen, it is quite unusual to see Yahoo publishing anything either critical of Obama or less than completely supportive of the "green" eco-extremist camp. The clear and rational treatment of this particular issue by the writer, Tara Dodrill, is refreshing, and seeing it presented on Yahoo News is simply amazing. Please read the whole thing, and consider contacting Yahoo to thank them for "printing" such an accurate portrayal of the damage Obama has been doing to our country, a thing routinely ignored by the mainstream media.