They Hate Our Freedoms

Bootlickers of the U.K. Unite!

2005-10-22T16:34:00.000-07:00

I typed the following in response to this post on Samizdata.net and am throwing around the idea of actually posting it. Since my blog has no readers other than spam-bots, I figured this was a safe place to store it in the meantime:

Sometimes civil disobedience has zero effect. Even when it works belatedly, in the meantime you can rot in jail for all the civil disobedience you want, and the courts can high-handedly dismiss your arguments as having no legal merit.

So I say the woman should have kept walking, and she has every right to be outraged at being arrested.

To those of you who disagree,

Lick their boots again. You missed a spot.

People who repeatedly cave in to unjust laws simply deserve whatever they get.

If a law was intended to keep swarthy-looking Middle Eastern men from prowling about the place for potential targets, then that's what the law should say. If they can't make a law that says that, then they have no business making a blanket law in its place.

If you think someone is prowling about looking for potential targets anyway, you arrest them for that, not for something else. These broad-brush laws that enhance officer laziness and incompetence aren't doing anyone any favors, except for lazy and incompetent officers.

Maybe those coppers should brush up on their detective skills instead of relying on blanket legislation.

If a law was made that said the coppers had to kick in your door and machinegun you and your whole family because you didn't pay their taxes one month, you'd still have morons out there saying "oh well, that's the law, and if you break it you suffer the consequences".

Taste the boot leather.

September 11 conspiracy?

2005-10-21T23:07:00.000-07:00

What I know about September 11 is we were attacked that day. It was a horrendous thing. I don't know who orchestrated it, who let the hijackers get into place and who funded them. I don't know if it was the Saudis, I don't know if it was somebody else that maybe they're afraid to talk about, I just don't know.

I do know that somebody should have gotten fired for what happened. I do know the 9/11 Commission whitewashed over a lot of glaring and uncomfortable questions, just as the Warren Commission did back in the 60's. I do know NORAD stood down that morning in 2001, and there was an exercise that was awfully similar to what really went down. I do know there was once a plan called Operation Northwoods that should make people really wonder.

I also do know that what happened was at least partially the Clinton administration's fault. I guess they were too busy burning innocent children at Waco, Texas to bother with little distractions like Osama bin Laden and his terror networks.

I certainly do know we're not being told the whole truth about 9/11, or even a respectable fraction of the truth. Whoever did 9/11, whoever helped or allowed those hijackers to commit that horrible attack, should face charges of criminally negligent homicide. And that's being charitable about it.

I am not, at least any longer, in the "blame Bush" camp about 9/11. All I know is someone out there is hiding some monstrous secrets. Really monstrous, as in "curl your toes" kind of secrets. No, worse: "never get a good night's sleep again" kind of secrets. Bush might know some of them, but maybe he's being swept along by something bigger than he is, and he knows to keep his mouth shut about it.

Every President since JFK knows what happens to ones who go against what can only be called the "shadow" government: shady back-room policy making that's influenced by people you've probably never heard of.

Such is the state of a government that has been for years operating like a runaway freight train, its brake lever out of reach of the population it claims to represent. Out of reach, possibly because much of the population is tied directly to the tracks in front of the oncoming train.

Michael and Me

2005-10-21T23:06:00.000-07:00

So maybe I'm a tad late in climbing on the Michael Moore-hating bandwagon.

All I can say is,

better late than never.

Dianne Feinstein should move to Beijing

2005-10-21T01:07:00.000-07:00

There's definitely room for improvement within the Republican party (hint: stop being so much like the Democrats; stop feeding Big Government; repeal some of the thousands of nonsensical laws which have criminalized non-violent behavior; etc.)

I am at least happy to see the Bush camp ignoring the loony left about the whole gun industry lawsuit thing. The far left would like to see the U.S. gun industry bankrupted with lawsuits.

Meanwhile the Dianne Feinsteins of the world travel around with their heavily-armed guards, preaching a curious brand of socialism indeed... they're all tooled up and loaded for bear while they work constantly to make sure you and I can't defend ourselves from criminal scum (or, worse, from a government that could one day turn against us.)

Americans are getting sick of this. Why can't the Schumers and Feinsteins of the world just leave this country and go to Red China where they belong? The culmination of all their dreams has been realized long ago by the Chinese government: an all-powerful State that has a monopoly on the instruments of force. See how wonderful it can be?

I was very glad to see The Nuge on CNBC tonight. Donny Deutsch was getting visibly flustered at some of Nugent's statements. Donny tried a disingenuous little trick of throwing a false statistic at Ted, claiming 5,000 children accidentally killed each year in households that had guns-- a huge distortion. Then, even when Ted said he dismissed this 'statistic' out of hand as completely false, Donny acted like he never heard that part and said "what percentage of these 5,000 do you think are gang and drug related" or something to that effect. This is a common tactic of the mainstream media. It's right out of the Marxist playbook.

Let's look at that supposed 'statistic' given by Donny Deutsch. 5,000? No way, not even close. Look at the National Safety Council statistics (published 2001): The number of children (ages 0-14) killed accidentally with firearms in the year 2000 was 80. Not 80,000. I said 80. If you include the 15-24 age group, the total comes out to 230. This is nowhere near 5,000. Drowning and poisoning each killed more children in 2000 than did accidental gun deaths.

On the other hand, Automobile accidents killed 12,900 people aged 0-24 in the year 2000. Of these, 2400 were children aged 0-14. Donny Deutsch got really, really uncomfortable when Ted Nugent pointed out how many more children are killed each year by car accidents than by gun accidents. All Donny could say was "well, that's not the same thing". How so? Dead is dead.

Perhaps we should limit the availability of cars in this society?

Even if you look at homicides-- classified as such, but not always murders (example: self defense)-- you have to consider how many of the "children" that die are gang-bangers or otherwise involved in violent crime. If you add up all the homicide deaths from firearms in 1997, age brackets 0-19 inclusive, you get 2,562. Notice that the murder rate with firearms jumps drastically once we're out of the 10-14 age bracket and into the 15-19 age bracket.

Think about this. At what age do kids start getting really active in drugs and gangs? Which age group is more likely to commit robbery, the 10-14 or the 15-19? Hmm... I see a connection here that the media never seems to address.

When it really comes down to it, you can see pretty plainly that the Left just doesn't like guns in the hands of anyone but the stormtroopers of an all-powerful State. No amount of logic seems to sway them from this thinking.

A Look at Tomorrow?

2005-10-19T16:19:00.000-07:00

A creepy but all-too-realistic scenario:

Sundown at Coffin Rock

By the way... the site where I originally stumbled upon that story also has some good pictures:

More available at http://www.a-human-right.com/

Anonymous Blogging Is Good

2005-10-14T21:59:00.000-07:00

I know some of you hate the word "blog". Just quit your moanin' and keep reading.

A lot of public figures have their knickers in a twist about blogs. I mean, badly. As in, "let's get our stormtroopers geared up and kick down some doors" badly.

They especially take issue with anonymous blogs. See, people like Bill O'Reilly and Hillary Clinton find it very offensive that they can't "defend their reputations" from the likes of us "little people" who could be in a shack somewhere on the outskirts of Anytown, USA.

It's not entirely what we say that galls them so much, although that's certainly part of it. What really, really galls them is the fact that, to them, we're nobodies who, in their mind, haven't earned the right to criticise them. How dare a nobody say anything bad about the rich, powerful, and famous! (Notice that bloggers rarely say anything bad about the Albert Schweitzers and the Louis Pasteurs of the world. It's always the politicians and the pundits that get reamed out on the 'net. Nobody seems to know why this happens.)

Anyhow, back to reputation. First off, nobody cares about your reputation anyway. You are not God. (In fact, even God handles the whole blogging phenomenon better than you do, and He gets bashed a lot on the Internet.)

As a bigwig, your reputation is no more important than mine, or my neighbor's, or the guy that fixes my oil burner.

Here's why the Internet is so great, and unfettered free speech in particular:

If you stand for democracy, it doesn't get any more democratic than average schmoes like me having a say.

If you stand for a republic, it doesn't get any more republican than average schmoes like me exercising our Constitutional rights and having a say.

If you are an anarchist, it doesn't get any more [workably] anarchistic than average schmoes like me having a say.

If you are a right-winger, you can bypass the mainstream, tree-hugging, politically correct left-wing media that never wants to tell your side of the story. If you are a left-winger, you can bypass the media arm of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that never wants to tell your side of the story. If you are a libertarian, your ability to have your say gives nightmares to little Pol Pots everywhere.

See? Something for nearly everyone. Except for bloated, elitist plutocrats who can't hold their own on the Internet. :-P

Oh sure, they might think they can, but they can't do it without cheating.

Such as, applying pressure to the blogger's ISP to delete all the competitor's posts.

Or maybe sponsoring legislation based on some "study" by Dr. Eley Q. Fathead at the Institute For Worldwide Stupidity that's "proved" that bloggers are all mentally ill and should be imprisoned for life without access to attorneys or toilet paper.

To the O'Reillys and Clintons of the world who still feel they can't handle it all and have to resort to cheating: you do realize you could have your own blog. You don't even have to allow posting if you don't want to. You could say, for example, "dear 'They Hate Our Freedoms', your blog is a crock and here are 10 reasons why".

But you never do. At best you can say it's "rubbish" but you never can say why. Maybe it's because you're wrong, hmmm?

Respect is earned, not stormtrooped.

2005-09-28T22:33:00.000-07:00

Another thing. Call it either a flaw in globalism or a flaw in the conspiracy theories about globalism, but the problem is:

if you crush the middle class out of existence and herd everyone into a perpetual bare-bones struggle to survive, guess what.

THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BUY YOUR PRODUCTS ANYMORE.

So I'm thinking these globalists hopefully have thought things out before they go turning our whole planet into a corporate-police state that lords over a population of cowed slaves. There is always going to be inequality in the world, but the globalists' vision of forced socialism for the masses and hyper-capitalism for the elite is more unequal than anything I've ever heard of.

2005-09-28T21:52:00.000-07:00

Some people start to froth at the mouth at the mention of "globalism". I'm not one of those, but I can see it has some problems. Mainly because, instead of a true free-market, the laws churned out by pro-globalist governments usually prop up international oligopolies while hurting everyone else... the small businesses and wage earners.
To quote this site,

"Globalism mandates governments to turn away from serving their citizens and toward satisfying the demands of foreign corporations."

When I look around me and see all the police state measures that have been enacted since around 2001, many of them in secret or at least without much media coverage, it makes me worry just where this 'globalism' thing is headed. With middle-class jobs going overseas faster than ever and a tidal wave of illegal immigration pouring in, some of which is bringing in racialist-revolutionary elements such as La Raza, it's starting to look to me like there is definitely a plan behind this. Evidence? Things said by top globalists themselves are damning enough. Need more evidence? Start digging, you won't like what you find.

The problem is, a lot of things connect to places you wish they didn't. Once you discover them, you really wish you hadn't, but then you can't un-discover them.

Danny Casolaro might be alive today if he could un-discover the things he found out. But his death clued a lot of people in, so he didn't die in vain.

Then again I'm sure a lot of us would rather un-know the things his death revealed. For others, Casolaro's death merely reinforced what we've all known since November 1963.

So anyway. Globalism. Now I'm not opposed to the concept of looking at limited resources, seeing how to manage them best, and that sort of thing. I'm opposed to the tactic of all the resources and money being siphoned upward to the bloated plutocrats, while the 'little people' at the bottom get sucked dry by globalist policies and then stomped flat by the accompanying police state juggernaut.

There would be an even greater opposition to globalism at the grassroots level if more people knew about it, but "mysteriously" the media won't cover it. Look what happened at the WTO riots in Seattle... the videos are floating around. Once you watch them you get a distinct sense that the globalists want to contain and discredit the anti-globalist movement as much as possible. Sometimes, as in the case of Seattle, by using paid agents provocateurs. Check out the Alex Jones videos on the subject.

The Seattle ploy was classic. Provocateurs run riot and trash the place. Then when the riot police are all fired up and ready to bust heads, the bigwigs let 'em loose on everyone else.

Another type of freedom "they" hate

2005-09-27T15:53:00.000-07:00

They hate religious freedom. Specifically, the right to express religious views out loud, to people who might not want to hear it.

Several organizations have been working to condemn religious speech, especially of the Christian religion. They have been trying to make it "hate speech". One of the main culprits is the so-called "Anti-Defamation League". The ADL is a liberal extremist organization that keeps trying to abrogate some of our Constitutional rights. Excuse me, but I thought Christians and Jews held the Old Testament in common, and now preaching from the Bible is considered "hate speech"? I think the ADL is very hypocritical, because they are working against not only the Christian religion but also the Jewish religion. It looks to me like they're concentrating more on the destruction of religion altogether than on religious freedom, but hey I could be wrong.

This "hate speech" thing is out of hand. But then again, Jesus did warn we'd be hated and persecuted for following Him.

If you look at the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions, they all condemn homosexuality and other things. To call this "hate speech" is going too far. Our world is being overrun with immorality which has led to breakdown at all levels, especially the family.

It is not surprising that leftist groups are primarily behind the effort to vilify Christians. After all, the logical extension of leftism is Godless communism.

As a Christian, I still think other religions should have the freedom to express themselves and worship as they choose. How they worship is between them and God, and it's not for me to judge. If they come around to Christian beliefs, so much the better.

Race, Martial Law, and New Orleans

2005-09-22T23:14:00.000-07:00

So okay, let's say the bigwigs really do think martial law is a good thing.

The one thing, the only thing, I'll grant them there is that there ARE certain populations in certain cities whose upbringing, culture, attitude, whatever, leads them to misbehave after a disaster. I'm not going to get into this whole politically correct retardation of saying it has nothing to do with race. Because unfortunately it kind of does, though not necessarily in the sense of innateness. Here's the deal:

If you want to argue that it's because The Man put the Black and Hispanic populations down, that might be partially true and I'll be glad to debate with you another time. The Man puts most of us down as it is. But New Orleans was a mess and who was left there? Poor folks. Poor folks who were black.

You might think me a bigot, but I strongly agree with Fred Reed of The Autonomist . Contrary to the belief of some, Whitey in general does not want to stomp the Black Man's face in (the Bilderbergers of the world want us ALL as their cattle). BUT sometimes the resentment that's built up gets unleashed in a crisis, and it gets vented on racial scapegoats. In the Los Angeles riots, the Koreans were a major scapegoat. So they got attacked hard core by the Blacks. In another place, maybe it's Anglos or Indians who get attacked.

Gangs are bad. They kill people for trivial things. They are all too ready to use violence. People must not adopt gang identity as their racial identity, but the sad reality of it is, many street gangs are black or Hispanic in origin and they think this is part of their racial heritage to have a gang. Hollywood glamorizes gangs and that sort of thing, like they want you to make this connection, that gangs are "your people". Screw Hollywood. You are being used by greedy old bastards.

In my teenage years I had this friend, a Mexican guy. He moved from Texas to our white, middle class neighborhood in the suburbs here up North. He had a good home, good friends, and his mother had a good job... so what did he do? He ditched his white friends and sought out the few, isolated Hispanics and blacks who lived in our area... and who, coincidentally, were aspiring gang bangers. Maybe nice fellows if they were away from all the bad influences, but as a group they were too hung up on the gang thing.

So anyway, this kid robbed a gas station. Armed robbery, no less. In the wanna-be Soviet police state where we lived, law-abiding citizens were severely restricted from owning handguns, but of course this dude could bypass all that. It appears he got a gun through his gang connections, no problemo. The poor store clerk was (you guessed it) unarmed and helpless. Thankfully nobody was hurt. But it could have gone bad at any second, as armed robberies often do. (I've seen surveillance videos of young black males coming into stores and shooting the clerks because there wasn't enough cash in the till. Sickening. In a just world, the clerk would have taken off their heads with a 12-gauge. In Inner City, Socialist Republic, USA, the victims are disarmed and the criminals are all tooled up. Funny, even in England this is happening with increasing frequency since the gun bans. You can't tell me Chuck Schumer and friends aren't aware of this fact.

Back to my Mexican friend. This kid had everything and he threw it away because he bought the farce that criminals were his racial identity. He always used to go on and on about how he was a 'minority' this, 'minority' that, he had to listen to gangsta rap, he had to speak street lingo, he had to mistreat his 'bitches' and 'hoes'.

I wonder if he's even alive anymore. It would be nice if he got his act together and cleaned up.

Unfortunately, what feeds racialism is, there is a reality out there that hurts. It is a major ass kicking to find out the theories of complete racial harmony are still a crock for the most part, or at least they're not ripe yet. If you're white and you go to prison, you might be suddenly hating life in worse ways than you can imagine. Because right or wrong, there are a lot of black inmates who strongly believe it's YOUR fault that Whitey has kept them down. They want to take it out of YOUR white ass. And they will. Literally. Again and again. You will probably end up with AIDS. Imagine a justice system that routinely hands down de facto death sentences for misdemeanors? This is it, baby.

Read the Human Rights Watch report on black-on-white prison rape, it's an eye opener. The ivory-tower liberal types always ignore the glaring facts about black-on-white rape. Wonder why?

Any city with a major gang population is going to be a problem in a chaos scenario. Again, political correctness be damned-- most of the USA street gangs are black or Hispanic these days. And like Fred Reed says, look what happens when "the lid comes off" in a mostly-black inner city. Not a white area. Maybe a long time ago it was Italians, Jews, Irish, or Poles who had their gangs and were considered the troublemakers, but they've gotten established over the years and we don't worry so much about them anymore. The Blacks and Hispanics are still in their Era of Rampage. Hopefully they will outgrow it.

If the argument for martial law is that it really IS only about the gangs who run wild, then I say, leave the rest of us alone. Focus on the gangs, the roving animals who rape and kill, and leave the Patricia Konies and the Algiers Point Militias of the world alone. That dude who was going round in a boat to save his neighbors, leave him the hell alone too. The guy who commandeered a bus to take 100 people to Houston, leave him alone as well.

To be fair, maybe what the NG and other military groups needed was an opportunity to get in there and assassinate gang leaders without the civil rights groups watching. I'm just speculating. If that's their motive, I'd actually applaud them. In fact, deputize me and give me an M16... and I'll help. Pretty good marksman, at your service.

Whether it's class or race, in the end the rioting still wrecks your neighborhood. I can think of a few places things either did or would get ugly but this is a short list only: NOLA, parts of Los Angeles, Oakland, Detroit, Camden, Newark, north Philadelphia, East St. Louis... Gary, Indiana... Birmingham, England... parts of Chicago... maybe a couple others. Go ahead, camp out there at night while wearing expensive shoes, a gold watch, and a nice suit. See how long you last.

So back to the 'race' thing. I do know of towns that are almost 100% Black but I guarantee there would be no rioting, because they never bought into the culture of gangs and drugs which Hollywood is selling. These folks would band together quickly to defend their homes from marauders and brigands. They would share food. They would help each other. But you know what's sad? The gang bangers would think of these people of being "oreos" or sellouts to Whitey. Display some civilisation and you're "not black" anymore in their eyes.

So enough babbling on my part. I would hope, if the bigwigs are hell bent on their martial law plan (which they seem to be) that they can restrict themselves to only the areas that are actually getting chaotic, discounting any media hype.

Overall though, I think martial law is unacceptable and the local authorities should handle their own problems. If understaffed, recruit citizen militias who can show they have some experience with a firearm. That's what we're here for.

If you want order in the streets, it's good to get responsible citizens on your side, not make them into enemies. I guess the worry is that decision makers can't figure this out. Or they think everyone is as careless with a firearm as they'd be.

Un...ac...ceptable.

2005-09-21T14:58:00.000-07:00

Let's talk about injustice.

Abuses like what happened to Nicholas Monahan and his wife are the reason I haven't bought airline tickets for a few years now.

I figure my personal boycott has withheld about $10,000 so far from the pockets of these totalitarian scumbags. I know a lot of other people who have mostly stopped flying as well.

While I'd like to see the TSA thugs hanging by the neck from trees, for now I'll settle for a boycott.

There is one thing worse than a rotten bureaucrat. That is a rotten thug with a badge and a gun who can fabricate felony charges against you and then lie to make them stick.

Dear police officers: in case you're still unable to figure out why you're generally mistrusted and feared so much, it's because you fail, again and again, to eject scumbags like these from your ranks. The "few bad apples" argument just isn't cutting it anymore.

The Washington Post is wrong, as usual

2005-09-20T08:22:00.000-07:00

A recent Washington Post article has the nerve to blame the Hurricane Katrina fiasco on "economic libertarianism". Nice try. Get the public equating 'libertarianism' with one of the worst disasters in U.S. history. People who don't even know or care what a libertarian is (but whose vote counts as much as yours and mine) will come away with the notion "libertarian = bad" even though there's zero connection between libertarianism and what happened in the Gulf Coast.

This kind of word association is what the Post and their handlers are hoping for, I think. The propaganda arm of Big Government can be subtle, indeed. Since Libertarianism is a grassroots movement that threatens the hogs feeding at the trough of Big Government, there's naturally going to be an attempt of this sort by the controlled media.

Blame for the Katrina disaster rests solely on incompetent government personnel who already had more than enough funding but failed to do their jobs. The only exception might be the Army Corps of Engineers, whose budget for levee maintenance was cut drastically before the storm hit. The rest of them- FEMA and friends- couldn't be trusted to handle simple things like trucks, radios, and bottled water. How, then, could they be trusted with millions or billions of dollars in additional funding?

Deliberately turning back truckloads of food and water from disaster-ravaged New Orleans is not about "insufficient funding". It's about criminal levels of incompetence.

There is no excuse for trying to extort more money from taxpayers for this mess.

Your Rights Are Obsolete...?

2005-09-18T20:15:00.000-07:00

People love to say some of our rights have to be "reconsidered", "revamped", or even "repealed" in the "post 9/11 world". I say bugger off! I'm getting quite sick of this tripe. If certain people had done their jobs in the first place, the attacks of 11 September wouldn't have happened. Another stack of oppressive laws isn't going to change that. Meanwhile, trying to establish national ID cards, internal passports, and military checkpoints is most certainly not appreciated by the large number of us who, believe it or not, still don't buy all the stories that CNN and MSNBC are peddling.

Stop assaulting our freedoms while telling us you're protecting them. We're told this whole operation is going on because "they hate our freedoms", meaning "the terrorists". Indeed, someone hates our freedoms, but it ain't just who we thought. I am every bit as frightened of being stormtrooped to death by government excess as I am of Islamic extremists. Come to think of it, this is all too convenient. Tell me again just why Scotland Yard wasn't interested in talking to that London bombing 'mastermind' who just 'happened' to be an MI6 asset?

Another thing. Don't continue to insult our intelligence by claiming that fiasco in New Orleans was because of "red tape" or "lack of communication", unless by the latter you're talking about FEMA's deliberate cutting of emergency lines. Purposely turning back truckloads of water and denying rescue personnel entry into the affected areas does not constitute "red tape" or "lack of communication". The most charitable term I could think of for it is "criminally negligent homicide", but mostly I'd call it "1st degree murder". "Hey, let's seal off the area and let it degenerate into chaos so people will beg for soldiers on every street corner!"

This wasn't all that hard to figure out, really. Traitorous scumbag politicians have for years been trying to figure out how to do an end-run around the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. There has been drastically increased talk on MSNBC-CNN-FOX in the past three years or so of "getting around" Posse Comitatus, and now lo and behold, Hurricane Katrina comes along and gives them just what the Dr. ordered. Dr. Mengele that is.

And the door-to-door, home-invasion-style gun confiscation? Many of us know damn well what was being attempted down there, and it isn't appreciated one bit. Dianne Feinstein & John Kerry have been fantasizing about exactly this kind of thing for years.

At least now, a lot of people have seen the government's hand. The deck really had five aces, huh?

I thank God that we have people like GeekWithA.45, Heartless Libertarian, and others who won't shut up, though. It's good to know a lot of people still "Get It" even in the face of a relentless media campaign to turn the population into helpless, boot-licking serfs.

Blog became corrupted

2005-09-17T20:32:00.000-07:00

Had to delete the whole thing and start over.