Saturday, January 06, 2007

I want you all to read that post

And just savor, SAVOR the liberal sense of entitlement.

On Christmas Eve I went to a party where the four liberal families I previously discussed were present, and followed your advice. After bringing up the emergency kit issue again, lots of people complained and teased me (in a good natured way) but as expected, the ”we’ll just come to your house” meme reared its ugly head. I stated, as you suggested, that I would *NOT* help them in an emergency unless they first took measures to help themselves. This did not go over well. Much argument followed. The net result:

1) I am no longer welcome at any of the four homes (no great loss).

2) I am now morally equivalent to Hitler and George Bush.

3) One woman called me a potential child molester (I’m not sure of the logic, but it had something to do with not helping her starving kiddies when the world goes whacky).

4) Republicans are evil, therefore, I am evil (being a Libertarian, this seemed a bit unfair, but the finer points of political philosophy were lost in the debate).

5) Another woman (a hardcore feminist) screamed “I’ll call the police!! Hoarding in an emergency is just wrong. You won’t get away with it.”

6) The case of home brew ale I brought to the party was consumed (even some liberals have good taste in beer).

7) It was the females who did most of the ranting about my vile character and lack of moral fiber. They also had the worst potty mouths.

8) As I was leaving (actually, “kicked out” ) one of the guys said, with complete sincerity: “If things get bad, I really hope you’ll help us out.” I said nothing, just shook my head and left.

"How DARE you refuse to help us even though we refuse to prepare ourselves!" If this doesn't explain the Leftist mindset in a nutshell, I don't know what does. I don't know what areas my readers live in, but I currently reside in a hurricane prone island with a history of power outages and supply shortages. So when the Raging Mrs. and I got down here, did we whine and seeth about how we hope someone will help us in an emergency?

Fuck no.

We set up an emergency store of food. Non-perishable. A few MRE's and a lot of canned goods. We ensured that we had ways to cook said food. We put away gallon bottles of distilled water. Three gallons per day per person for a week. We keep a supply of gasoline behind the house, and we rotate it constantly, either in the lawn mower or in the truck. Once the basics were taken care of, we began buying what I consider luxuries. A generator, large enough to run the fridge, the TV, and a few lights. A camp shower that runs off of a battery and propane. One bottle of propane and one charged battery gives us one hundred gallons of hot water, and we can use any water that isn't filled with debris. Things like that.

Now, other than the fact that I live in a gun-fearing wussy shithole where only the criminals have guns, I am as ready as I possibly can be. If we got hit by a hurricane, as long as my house was still halfway standing, the wife and I could exist for a week without any help from anyone. And you know what? That is what I expect from anyone living in a disaster prone area. At least the basics, the food and water. If you live in an area where G-d may just decide to take a crap on you, it is YOUR responsibility to ensure that if everything goes to hell, you can live!

But I guess if you're a liberal, you just go whine and cry to the people who actually have a brain and prepare themselves.

That, my friends, is arrogance on such a scale that the brain can scarcely comprehend it.

They won with cheating and lies

So why should we expect them to clean up their act now that they're in power?

Democrats using the Constitution as toilet paper, in effect. Can anyone other than Drumwaster tell me why the nation's capitol is not part of any state? I'll give you a hint - that was done on purpose.

Any promise from the Democrats American Communist Party can be discarded as the lie it really is. After screaming for bipartisanship, the Donks can't be bothered to show it when they're in charge.

Barney Frank accuses President Bush of "ethnic cleansing". This coming from a man who let his gay boyfriend run a prostitution ring out of Frank's government paid for apartment. He shouldn't be in Congress, he should be in jail. But I guess funding a prostitution ring is perfectly fine if you're a Dimocrat.

The American Communist Party now has a former Grand Kleagle 3rd in line to the presidency. Let's hear it for tolerance, Dimocrat style!

The American Communist Party makes sure that they stay in power by putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Under investigation for bribery? Caught with cold hard cash in bundles in your freezer? Don't worry, as long as you're a black Dimocrat, you get a standing ovation!

I don't know if I need to go on. Suffice to say, everything we've predicted in terms of Dimocrat malfeasance and corruption has come true. The Dimocrats are not interested in a clean, open government. They are the true parasites, burying themselves like hookworms and tapeworms into the guts of this country, sucking the life out of America while ensuring that they cannot be eradicated.

We have two years of damage control at the least. And they way the Dimocrats are attaching themselves deeper and deeper into the channels of power, I don't know if we can eradicate them in time to save this country.

We'll see. Maybe we can survive the damage they'll do in the next two years.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Anyone with half a brain will not be surprised

More guns, less crime. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Sometimes it really is just that simple.

The FBI’s report once again confirmed that violent crime rates are lower in states with Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, RTC states had, on average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% less murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rates, compared to the rest of the country.

Want to protect yourself? Buy a gun, go to the range, and learn how to use it.

Dear Lord, not AGAIN!

Why in the name of all that is holy does the USA pump ungodly amounts of money into the UN, when the only thing the UN seems to be good at is supporting brutal dictators and raping children?

The United Nations said last night that it was launching an investigation into allegations reported in The Daily Telegraph that its peacekeepers and staff have abused children in southern Sudan.


The Daily Telegraph yesterday reported allegations of blue berets paying children as young as 12 for sex in the mission in southern Sudan, known as UNMIS. The abuse allegedly began two years ago when the mission moved in to help rebuild the region after a 23-year civil war.

The UN has up to 10,000 military personnel in the region, of all nationalities, and the allegations involve peacekeepers, military police and civilian staff.

The Daily Telegraph has learned of more than 20 victims' accounts claiming that some peacekeeping and civilian staff based in Juba regularly pick up young children in their UN vehicles and force them to have sex.

It is thought that hundreds may have been abused.

This isn't a one time deal. Child prostitution, rape, and drug rings by UN "Peacekeepers" have been reported for years, and nothing gets done. How many other children are going to get raped by UN "Peacekeepers" before we finally tell them to get bent?

Seriously, other than America and her allies, how many times have UN "Peacekeepers" actually brought peace?

Jamil Hussein found?

I can only give a definite "Maybe"!

OK, so there's one part of a story verified. Unfortunately for the AP, they still can't verify anything else about the story they printed.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Coherence - The Way Forward

But first, where we are at: For far too long now we've allowed the left to control the debate in the global war on terrorism. They've taken debate regarding Iraq to a place where the presence of violence equals the absence of noteworthy and fundamental progress toward clearly defined goals. The only solution they've put forth is retreat. As such, we are treated to daily dishes of violence made to seem as if each incident is indicative of the absolute undoing of all that has been done. The press goes soo far as to invent Jamil Husseins and double or triple horrid statistics in order to present us with a picture of chaos, corruption, and despair. Yet throughout this endless feast of terror, there have been substantial successes in the realm of politics (remember when the Sunni muslims were sitting it out, now they are signing up to police the new Iraq), rebuilding (or as it is now simply 'building' as the infrastructure of Iraq has advanced beyond what the brutal tyrant Hussein ever allowed or aspired to), and the economy (it's booming there). Yet, bordering Iraq sits at least one fearful nest of thugs that can't allow Iraqi democracy to take root, and the mullahs of Iran have set their designs on Iraq in order to sew strife. They see an emerging political movement in our own country intent on fleeing the battle. Indeed we see the birth of advocates foolishly pressing negotiations with Iran! Through silent proxy Iran trains, arms, and provides financial support to the masters of terror in Iraq who sew the strife:

We will shortly learn more about the documents we found accompanying the high-level Iranian terrorist leader we briefly arrested in Hakim’s compound in Baghdad some days ago, and what we will learn–what many key American officials have already learned–is stunning. At least to those who thought that Iran was “meddling” in Iraq, but refused to believe that it was total war, on a vast scale.

Several good journalists are working on this story (see, for example, today’s article by Eli Like in the NY Sun), and the outlines are pretty clear. First, we had good information that terrorists were in Baghdad, and had gone to the compound. We did not know exactly who they were. We entered the compound and arrested everybody who looked like a usual suspect. One of them told us he was the #3 official of the al Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, a particularly vicious group. He was carrying documents, one of which was in essence a wiring diagram of Iranian operations in Iraq. That wiring diagram included both Shi’ite and Sunni terrorist groups, and was of such magnitude that American officials were flabbergasted. It seems that our misnamed Intelligence Community had grossly underestimated the sophistication and the enormity of the Iranian war campaign.

I am told that this information has reached the president, and that it is part of the body of information he is digesting in order to formulate his strategy for Iraq. If he sees clearly what is going on, he must realize that there can be no winning strategy for Iraq alone, since a lot of ‘Iraqi’ activity—not just lethal materiel such as the latest generation of explosive devices, now powerful enough to penetrate the armor of most of our vehicles—is actually Iranian in origin. We cannot ‘solve’ the Iraqi problem without regime change in Iran.

We have been fighting to secure a nation that is being attacked by a neighboring nation. Impossible. They stage in the saftey and security of Iran. That is where we must take the fight. And now we come to the way forward:

The two policies you list (run away or invade Iran) are only two among many. In Tracinski's article, he quotes Michael Rubin on behalf of what Tracinski calls "Cold War II." That is, support democratic revolution in Iran. Again, I've been arguing in support of that since before we started Operation Iraqi Freedom. I think it's the best option, I think it will succeed if it is well done, and I think this is an excellent moment for it, since Khamenei is dying (as I was the first to report; it is now all over the Iranian blogs) and there is an intense internal power struggle at work. You probably noticed that the justice minister was killed in an automobile crash the other day, and it is noteworthy that an amazingly high percentage of important Iranians die in car and air "accidents."

I have also argued for a long time that our troops in Iraq should defend themselves against Iran and Syria. I think we should attack terrorist training camps in both those countries, and I think we should also go after the facilities where the terribly lethal new generation of IEDs is produced and assembled.

General Abizaid, and many in the Intelligence Community, have long resisted the plain fact that we are in a regional war. He has said he does not want to engage in a two-front war, but this is like saying you do not want to live in a world where the sun rises in the East and sets in the West; it does. And the war in Iraq is part of a larger war, and we need a strategy to win that war. I do not believe we can ever achieve decent security in Iraq so long as we limit our activities to Iraq alone, which is why I do not favor the "surge." I think it's both too little and too much, and I think it addresses the wrong problem.

Striking only military targets in Iran is without a doubt a minimalist military undertaking as compared to Hussein style regime change, but it is better than biting off more than we can chew and it is completely justified. We can not be expected to allow Iran to wage a terrorist incursion with the goal of aborting Iraq's fledling democracy. The case must be made. The goals must be clear. We must cripple Iran's ability to undermine our efforts in Iraq. There is no other way forward.


John Cross at Drumwaster's Rants has an essay up about Iraq, and states that it's close to coming apart at the wheels. He has a list of things that he writes about. Who's to blame; what we could do, ect.

Now, I'm not going to get all hysterical on him, because he's at least partly right - The situation in Iraq isn't all that great. I however don't think it's close to collapsing, but it's at a static phase right now - not getting better, not getting worse. We're dealing with a bad case of status quo, which is not a good thing.

The one big thing that I disagree with Mr. Cross on is where to lay the blame. Cross would blame the Iraqis themselves, and I blame America.

Yep. America. Specifically our politicians and media. I may ramble a bit, but try to stay with me here.

America's military, for all that it is the best in the world, is still controlled by civilian politicians. Now, this is a good thing, and I'm not objecting to it. But when the civilians in charge are a bunch of corrupt, spineless, parasitic asshats, THAT'S when we start to see problems begin. We as a nation have not won a major military war since World War Two, and each time the blame can be laid on a lack of willpower by our politicians.

Korean War? Technically still ongoing. There's simply a cease-fire in place that's extended for over fifty years. We can't say we won a war that's ongoing.

Viet Nam? Chalk that up as a loss. And why did we lose it? Because our politicians refused to allow our military to fight it properly, and the so-called "leadership" of this country gave up. The American military did not lose a single battle in that war. Some skirmishes here and there, some firefights, yes, we lost. But battles? Nope. We won those. The Tet Offensive, dubbed by the media as some great horrible loss for America, was actually the single worst loss by the North Vietnamese. It took them two years to recover from that loss. TWO YEARS before they where anywhere near the strength they were at before Tet. But what did America do with it? The politicians gave up.

The Gulf War? We drove Saddam out of Kuwait, and then stopped. Saddam was still in power, and would kill hundreds of thousands of people while the world dithered for twelve years. We had a chance to take Saddam out, and we didn't. Why? Lack of political spine.

We have a military that can win any war you put them in, combined with politicians who can't win anything outside of their election. And unfortunately for Iraq, it's the politicians that are in charge. They don't have the courage and the willpower to see victory in Iraq. I don't care if the Chiefs of Staff came up with a sure-fire plan for victory, it's the politicians who have to say "Go ahead". And they haven't done that. Nor will they, I fear.

As for the media - the propaganda wing of the Democrat American Communist Party - many of the problems we now face can be laid directly at their feet. Do you think that people in this country would be as distressed about Iraq if they knew how many terrorists were killed by America and her allies? I read a report some while back that put the number of terrorists at ambient temperature somewhere around 60,000.

That's SIXTY THOUSAND dead terrorists. Versus a little more than 3,000 American troops. That's a 20 to 1 kill ratio. Do you think most Americans know that fact?

How many Americans hear about the schools being built? The hospitals? The power grids? Sewers? I'm betting that people who get their news from ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN don't know a single thing about that. And I'm sure they don't know that the terrorists operating in Iraq are funded by Iran.

In fact, if I were to do anything to improve the situation in Iraq, I would move our troops to the borders of Iran and Syria, then shoot anyone coming across. But the politicians won't do that either. We might "provoke" someone. If the terrorists are funded by Iran, why are the politicians afraid to call them on it?

Because they're weak, craven cowards.

Look, I'm not going to pretend that Iraq is all roses and fluffy bunnies, but it could get a lot worse. And it could get a lot better. But what we have to recognise before anything happens is that it's up to America to determine how bad it gets in Iraq. Do we have the willpower to gain victory?

Judging from who just got elected Speaker of the House, my gut instinct is "No".

Here's one thing I don't get about pro sports

Contracts don't mean jack squat. Not to the players, not to the GM's, and not to the coaches. Witness Nick Saben's recent job change (which was on ESPN yesterday, ALL NICK SABEN ALL THE TIME!). For weeks, he was saying that he was not going to take the job. A few days after the season ends, and he takes the job.

When did a contract become nothing more than a piece of paper that listed your salary that you could wipe your ass with at a moment's notice?


Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Good stuff from Cold Fury

Mike found the Top 10 Ways the Left Enables Terrorism, as well as a new 12 Step Program for overcoming Leftism.

One of the most salient characteristics of the Left is that it is peculiarly incapable of learning. In my lifetime, it has been ridiculously wrong about virtually everything, but it is as if facts and reality don’t matter. The same people who were trying to convince us of manmade global cooling in the 1970’s are now trying to convince us of manmade global warming. The same people who argued for our unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 1970’s and 1980’s are now telling us that it didn't matter that Saddam would have undoubtedly acquired nukes or that Iran and other terrorists are on the brink of doing so. The same people who successfully curtailed nuclear power plants in America are now insisting that we must be “energy independent” and that we are only in Iraq for the oil. The same people who argued that Reagan’s tax breaks would destroy the economy have, like everyone else, enjoyed the unprecedented economic growth of the past 25 years, and yet, still want to raise taxes. The same Democratic party that accommodated southern racists for decades continues to argue that race is all-important and that government should be engaged in the task of dividing people by race and gender and giving special privileges to some. And of course, the Democratic part is now the main repository and champion of mankind’s most ancient and vile prejudice, anti-Semitism.

Hmmmmmm.... Seems as if I just went over the topic of the Left's inability to see their mistakes.

Also over at Cold Fury, Al Mavia has written a damn fine piece of work.

Yeah, it’s cute to sign a pledge to repudiate God and all, but that sort of thing is kind of old. It’s also funny to see what appear to be libertarians heading up efforts like that. It reminds me that Milton Friedman used to think of the Rothbardians as free-riders. You can only enjoy near-absolute liberty in a society where many, many other people sacrifice their own liberty to pay for yours. It takes soldiers and cops to make you safe, people who give up long hours of their time working at tough jobs to make sure you have a bustling economy that provides plenty of goods and services for you, as well as personal wealth for you to buy all that luxury, or even the luxury of idleness if you wish.

The sad fact is most of the good stuff we have is grounded in a lot of passe values - old fashioned Judeo-Christian morality, a calvinist work ethic, a Jeffersonian notion of liberty as a fruit of hard work and self-sacrifice, and a lot of other things that are basically incompatible with the porno&pot wing of libertarian thought. Most dillettantes fooling around with the Kabbala or celebrity Buddhism or radical chic politics or living a truly dissolute life can only do so because thousands of other people pay the price for it, live by the rules, and run a world that creates enough surplus to allow for fantastic numbers of idlers.

At some point, however, the idlers outnumber the workers, or reach a significant enough number that there isn’t really enough surplus to go around. At that point, your civilization starts to have some trouble. Western Europe provides a good example. There, enough people have sought luxury, that population levels (at least among the non-immigrant community) are crashing. No mind; they can console themselves that it is more beneficial to the environment if pre-literate immigrants start to run the joint. Who needs millions of epicures with degrees from the Sorbonne? No, what civilization needs is tens of millions of violent immigrants to tear down some of those oppressive western cultural edifices. Yes, the destruction of the West will serve us all. Meanwhile, forget the labor of having kids, titheing and church going, being tied to all these smelly people around me in a thousand different ways. I am independent, man as a single atom rather than a link in the great chain of being, and this man wants some MTV, a BMW coupe, and another bottle of Chateaux Margeaux, preferably the ‘61.

If you sometimes wonder why there are so many people to only take, never give, and you wonder why the whole damn system doesn't fall apart, it's because there are people out there working their ass off to make sure the system holds together. My question is, what would happen if those people working their ass off all took a day to say "Yannow what? Screw you freeloaders!"

I would both love and hate to see that day.

Hold on to your wallets

Phil is keeping his eye on the Democrats American Communist Party, and true to their roots, they're pushing their agenda and helping out their union buddies. It in effect removes a person's choice as to whether to join a union or not. You don't want to be union? Too damn bad, if there's enough union members at your workplace, you're screwed.

Go read Phil's summary. The sheer gall of the Dimocrats and their union buddies makes me want to puke. Why in g-d's name would I want to give money to a corrupt group of twits who actively work against what's best for this country?

You want to know what I think of unions? They're nothing but a bunch of money grubbing idiots who pad their pockets and who's main goal is funding the Democrat American Communist Party. Can anybody name anything that the unions have done to actually improve the lives of the Regular Joe in the past thirty years? Lord knows I can't, and if I had some smarmy fuckstick telling me that I had to join a union or lose my job, I'd be beating people into a bloody pulp. But in effect, that's what the Democrats American Communist Party wants to do. To tell you, in effect, that you do not have a say as to your union membership. If they can get enough people signed up, you're hosed. And your union dues get funneled into the pockets of the Left. Anyone who tries to deny that the AFL-CIO is a cash cow for the Democrats American Communist Party is either blind or insane.

The sad part is, should this bill pass I know that many Americans will just shrug their shoulders and say "Well, OK, that's the way it is." If people actually gave two hoots about this country, the Democrats American Communist Party would have never been elected in the first place, and most of the Republicans would have been replaced during the primaries.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

An excellent question

Via Kim du Toit.

Why is it that people leave a state because the state government has screwed up their lives, and then go on to replicate the situation in their adoptive state? I swear, one new law I’d support would be that people moving to a different state should not be allowed to vote on local matters until they’ve lived there for five years.

Part of the answer is simple, and part of the answer I can't answer at all. The part that I can answer? Well, it's like this:

Part of the reason liberalism is a mental disorder is because it's adherents cannot seem to see the damage that they do. It's like the communist who insists that the reason communism hasn't succeeded is because it hasn't been tried by the right people. Let's look at who is leaving where: It's people leaving large urban areas, and I'd bet my eyeteeth that a majority of those people are liberals. When I was in high school, one of the biggest insults you could call someone was "Californian", because of the huge influx of people from that state that were moving to Idaho. In fact, being a Californian is still looked down upon in Coeur d'Alene. Why? Because the people were leaving California for whatever reasons, and then tried to turn Northern Idaho into California, at least with the laws they want to enact. Which caused quite a bit of anger from the locals, and the question of the day was "If you don't like it here, why the hell did you come here?"

So I can easily see why Kim is asking his question. And part of the answer is due to the fact that Liberals refuse to see the negative results of their actions. Acknowledging that their actions even could have negative results would mean that they would have to re-think their actions, and a Liberal will never, ever, EVER do that. The very possibility that they might be wrong will never cross a liberal's mind. And thus, when a Liberal leaves his former residence and attempts to recreate the same conditions in his new residence, it's because a Liberal will not acknowledge that it was the conditions they imposed in their former residence that made them leave it in the first place. It wasn't their taxes that drove businesses out. It wasn't their laws that allowed criminals to roam free. It wasn't their policies that ruined the quality of life in the city. oh no, since they're Liberals, it could NEVER be their ideology that made their former residence unlivable. They will always attribute it to something else. The people who lived there. The place. But their ideology must never be questioned. It just hasn't been tried properly, you see.

And so a Liberal will leave their hellhole, and then try to recreate the very same policies that made their former home a hellhole in their new homes, because to a Liberal, it's not his policies that are at fault. It could never be his ideology.

Trust me, when a Liberal starts thinking, (which few of them do in any case) and realizing that maybe, just MAYBE the policies that they push might cause more harm than good, that's when they stop being liberals.

That's the part I can answer.

Monday, January 01, 2007




Yeah, I'm from Idaho. Whaddya gonna do about it? That's right, NOTHING!

You want a reason for a playoff system in college football? The Fiesta Bowl just provided you a perfect reason. Of course, if you're from Oklahoma, go lick your wounds and mumble about some excuse or another. The rest of the country knows the truth. Michigan and Ohio State? Florida? How about BOISE STATE!


In a perfect world, the Broncos would be one step closer to a national championship.


There are some people who won't be happy with anything that happens while Bush is President. Plain and simple. I've said it before - Bush could have sweat that cures cancer and crap gold ingots, and the Left would still complain that he didn't do anything about the common flu.

Oh, you think I'm kidding?

Kim's Quote o' the Day

From World Net Daily.

We don't need a Department of Homeland Security – we need an army of responsible, motivated, vigilant, self-governing people entrusted by their government officials with their inalienable right to bear arms. And we need a government that recognizes it is not all-knowing and all-powerful and stops treating its citizens like helpless children.

Kim keeps a running total of certain goblins who have obtained room temp, and for good reason. It's more proof that well-armed, law abiding citizens can do more to prevent crime than all the police and laws in the world.


I hope you all had a great New Year's Eve, and a better year ahead.