Speak Out Against Silence

I Wonder if His Name is Church?

You can't make this stuff up folks.




For those who don't get the reference:




For more RvB wonderfulness go on over to Roosterteeth and loiter for several hours.

We're Not Gonna Take It!

Allow me to call your attention to Alaskans' Freedom to Travel USA, a citizen's group that is dedicated to legislative reform of the TSA. I'm not certain they go far enough, but you have to start somewhere.

Habeus Corpus? What's that?

So the Senate is seeking to redefine America as an actual military battleground, and allow the military to detain indefinitely, without trial or charge, American citizens. Somebody tell me that this is just my PTSD fucking with me. Please?

The authors of this travesty of legislation; Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), worked on the bill in secrecy. Wait, John McCain? Vietnam veteran John McCain? Hero P.O.W. John McCain? WTF? Man am I glad I didn't vote for that dude. To think that a guy that close to winning the presidency sees no problem with instituting the KGB in America. That's pretty terrifying. I think we may have actually dodged a bullet back in '08. Wait, did I just say I'm thankful that Obama is president? What the fuck just happened?

People often bandy about "When is government tyranny too much to stand for?" I think this might just be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. When the government can arrest and imprison ANYONE without charge or trial. I think that's the line.

At what point does Jeffry Habib, al-qaeda operative become John Public, outspoken critic of the government? What happened to the fifth amendment? Or the Sixth? Or the Eighth? Thor's teeth, it's only a hop, skip and a goose-step from "detaining illegal combatants on the battlefield of America" to "declaring martial law for the duration of the emergency". For the duration is a synonym for" whenever we fucking feel like it."

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering

Occupy this!

I'm only gonna say this once.

An adult does not whine about what he's owed. An adult earns his way in the world. Impotently whining about "unfairness" and rageing over the "1%" accomplishes nothing and makes you look like the child you act like. Shitting on a cop car, while funny, is hardly the act of a civilized person, or even a partly civilized person for that matter. It's more of a "laughing at" than a "laughing with" gag.

All the Occupy Whatevers need to grow the fuck up and get a fucking job. Those of them not getting paid to be Occupy Whatevers, that is.

Oh and is Rosanne Barr planning on giving away her eighty million dollars, or is she planning on being "re-educated" along with the rest of the "fat cats"? Is it me, or is the idea of a multi-millionaire celebrity decrying the inequity of the wealthy just fucking rediculious?

The Bonnie Blue Flag

The Bonnie Blue Flag
by
Harry McCarthy

We are a band of brothers and native to the soil
Fighting for our Liberty, With treasure, blood and toil
And when our rights were threatened, the cry rose near and far
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star!

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!

Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.
As long as the Union was faithful to her trust
Like friends and like brethren, kind were we, and just
But now, when Northern treachery attempts our rights to mar
We hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!

First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand
Then came Alabama and took her by the hand
Next, quickly Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida
All raised on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!

Ye men of valor gather round the banner of the right
Texas and fair Louisiana join us in the fight
Davis, our loved President, and Stephens statesmen rare
Now rally round the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!

Now here's to brave Virginia, the old Dominion State,
With the young Confederacy at last has sealed her fate,
And spurred by her example, now other states prepare
To hoist high the bonnie blue flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!

Then cheer, boys, cheer, raise a joyous shout
For Arkansas and North Carolina now have both gone out,
And let another rousing cheer for Tennessee be given,
The single star of the Bonnie Blue Flag has grown to be eleven

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!

Then here's to our Confederacy, strong we are and brave,
Like patriots of old we'll fight, our heritage to save;
And rather than submit to shame, to die we would prefer,
So cheer for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a single star.

Hurrah! Hurrah!
For Southern rights, hurrah!

Ultima Ratio Populi

Politicians are getttin' uppity gain.

First off, the (presumably, but probably not) honorable Robert Brady (D-PA) wants to make it illegal to say mean things about politicians. Notably he wants to make it a federal offense to use "language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress"

May I just say; damned if you will!

The ability to express ourselves fully, in the most vitirolic of language, is one of the last resorts we have to remind our elected officials who they work for, and when they're doing a piss poor job. Any curtailing of that most precious of liberties, free speech, must be considered an assault upon the People of the United States. I am not happy that such protection is afforded the chief executive, and I will be damned if all our elected officials receive the same ægis.

Actually, the entire country will be damned and the descent into fascism of our freedom loving rollercoaster will slip it's brakes and there will be little left to do about it. Remind your elected officals that you oppose any such legislation. Failure to do so will result in you getting the government you deserve.

Secondly, James Clyburn (D-SC) wants special treatment when passing through TSA checkpoints.

“We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else.... ....Well, the fact of the matter is, we are held to a higher standard in so many other areas, and I think we need to take a hard look at exactly how the TSA interact with members of Congress.”

That is an interesting opinion, please allow me to rebut.

Fuck you, you tyranical, egomaniacal, shitstick. The best part of you ran down the crack of your mother's ass and left a brown stain on the matress. How dare you think you are above the rest of us. You are a public servant you power-hungry tool, not a member of the second estate.

And finally on the hit parade of shame; Peter King (R-NY), who wants to make it "illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials.”

This is because he knows his latin and remembers his history. Ultima Ratio Populi; the last argument of the people.

h/t to JayG for the Brady story.
h/t to Uncle for the storys on Clyburn and King.

Stormcrow's Warnings

With just over a week to go before we as a nation, reach the climax of our political nooner (a what a grudge fuck it has been too). I feel the need to voice my concern over what, or rather who we are about to elect to office. I cannot stress enough the need to thoroughly investigate your options. not just examination of the voting records, but look also into what kind of people your candidates really are.

Are they hypocrites (knowing or unknowing), oath-breakers (not just liars, which is a given in a politician), cheats, murderers (yes I'm talking to you people in Massachusetts) or just plain stupid? Walk around the old gal, kick the tires and slam the doors, really look under the hood. Consider this; Would you be willing to share a lot-line with your proposed elected official? I find that most of the politicians from my state fail that simple test (Tea Party included).

If you find your candidates to be completely unpalatable, use your option to write in a candidate that you can stomach. Just remember that your local laws may restrict who you can write in. After the tremendous write-in success of Snoopy in '68 and '72 California passed a law forbidding the entry of fictional characters on write-in ballots. But you can vote for someone you think would do a good job, or at least someone unlikely to completely screw us over.

Me? I'm looking at voting for Cthulhu. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?

Twenty Questions or ...You'll Find Someone Packing it Full of Nonsense.

The blog Common Gunsense authored by one Joan Peterson (aka japete) has put up 20 questions in her blogpost entitled Where there is an open mind... that she wants to ask gunners. So here's my answers.

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?

This question is redundant and loaded. Domestic abuse is a crime therefore those convicted of it are criminals. That being said, I am only in favor of restricting the access of violent felons to weapons. Besides, anyone too dangerous to be allowed access to a weapon should not be allowed to intermingle with society at large anyways.

2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?

Refer please, to the post of 7.14.10 entitled What I Believe: Crime and Punishment.

3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?

Yes, yes I do.

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

I must assume that to be true, since any reduction of our essential liberties can be used as a foothold by any tyrant who wished to eliminate them in their entirety. Whatever your intent, the end result is the same. Besides, as Christians are wont to say "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

I imagine it would take the form of lobbying, a bill would be introduced, Congress (not looking further ahead than the next poll) would approve, as would the senate (also a myopic group). The President would throw his John Hancock on it, then the whole thing becomes law. Was I the only one that watched Schoolhouse Rock as a kid.

6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?

This question is both misleading and possibly libelous. Sharron Angle did not "propose" anything, but rather expressed hope that her election would help to reduce the perceived tyranny felt by many of her constituents.

As to what "Second Amendment Remedies" are? I must assume that what is meant is the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government, but to be certain you'd have to ask her.

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?

As Sharron Angle said, the second amendment is there to allow us (as in "we the people") to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. To use violence or threat of violence as a means to restrict another's freedom would make me as much a tyrant as any Caesar.

As a secondary function, being well armed allows the casual human to indulge in that most basic of freedoms "the freedom to survive". So I suppose if someone were doing something violent and threatening, I believe it would be an acceptable notion to shoot them. Twice. Three times if you've be practicing your Mozambique drills.

8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?

If what they are saying does not (or cannot) coincide with reality and there is sufficient reason to believe that they are aware of this fact? Then yes I find it acceptable to call someone a liar. It is generally considered immature and poor form to actually call names, however.

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?

Oh yeah. To say it otherwise would be cowardly.

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?

Of course. What part of "...shall not be infringed." was unclear.

11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.

I believe they exist, if that's what you're asking. If you mean to ask "Do I feel that the current gun laws are effective at their overt purpose?", then no, I do not. I am sure they are being enforced (sometimes, as it pleases the DA's office and the local, state or federal constabulary).

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

This is a loaded question since it is possible to be a "law-abiding citizen" who is careful with their guns, and still shoot someone. Remember, "True gun control is having both hands on your weapon.".

I know that most people are safe with their firearms. I also know that most people are never going to be in a position that would require them to shoot someone for any reason, legitimate (defense of self, others or property) or otherwise.

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?

No, I do not. While suicides do tend to employ specific methodologies based on gender, suicide is not a really a criminal act (at least not in civilized places).

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?

It depends very much on what purpose the gun statistics are being used for.If the statistics are being use for actual, rigorous, scientific inquiry, then it depends on whether accidental gun deaths were germane to the inquiry at hand.

If the statistics are being gathered for a pseudo-scientific, ideologically driven, attempts to frighten people into giving up their essential liberties, then I do not think any statistics should be recorded.

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?

The design of modern firearms prevents such accidental discharges from occurring.

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?

That depends entirely on who died and who killed them, why they died and where. Without that context such a question is meaningless.

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?

Well, I've not had to shoot anyone this year, does that count? Ooh, I know! I could pledge not to shoot anyone that deserves it in the next calender year. I'll use my axe instead. Does that count?

How about "I will follow Cooper's rules and obey my Federal, State and Municipal laws concerning firearm use."

18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?

I do not believe you are making up the shootings you write about but, human interest stories are a form of sensationalist journalism. and do not deal so much with the facts of the case as the spin put on the terms in which the facts are couched.

Rather than simply reporting that "A Smallville woman was allegedly kidnapped and held against her will until a local man rescued her from her alleged captor." You write "Today the lovely Lois Lane was held Hostage by the evil (if roguishly handsome)criminal mastermind Lex Luthor. She was held by the terrifying madman until our hero, Superman rescued her is a show of bravery." While transmitting the same information, one imparts certain emotional cues that distort perceptions of what occurred. Why do you think juries are not supposed to read the papers or watch news reports relating to the case they are trying?

19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).

Me personally? No. I think that the BATFE is barely cognizant of me as an individual. They have however, on multiple occasions indicated a willingness to ignore reason, law and general good judgment in the pursuit of and enforcement of firearms regulations. I must conclude that the BATFE end goal is that no-one but agents of the government should have access to firearms.

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

I will continue to discuss this matter reasonably until such time as the government makes it illegal to do so. Once discussion and demonstration are no longer viable methods of change, I will be forced to resort to those "Second Amendment Remedies" of which you seem so disdainful.

Your Daily Motivation

Found on /k/*.

Damn Skippy!


I can't make this stuff up.


Sometimes...


Truth spoken to power.

Heh.

I think that's enough motivation for today.


* Warning: This blogger is NOT responsible for your accessing 4chan.org. You do so at your own risk. And for the love of the gods and all the valkyr DO NOT GO TO THE RANDOM BOARD.

Thoughts on: Conflagration

The original post can be found over at The Breda Fallacy: conflagration.
The original story can be found here.
An interesting update to the story, here.

I dislike book burnings. Not because of the loss of knowledge it once was, but because it gives people bad ideas.

I understand Rev. Terry Jones's need to display his (and his follower's) displeasure with the Muslims and the acceptance of Islam as a political and religious force (one in the same, truth be told) in this country. And I admit the Islamic "cultural center" to be built near Ground Zero is just as offensive as the thought of erecting a Shinto shrine overlooking the USS Arizona memorial. He and his congregation are free to do any non-violent thing they want as an act of, what? Defiance? Display of disgust? Anger? whatever. The first amendment guarantees them that.

I still don't like it.

Breda mentions that in this age of electronic storage, one can delete an infinite number of Quran E-books. This is not the same as a book burning. In the old days, among certain cultures, when a host wanted to strut his stuff and shame his guest, he destroyed his possessions (typically by burning). It was a way of saying "I have so much nice stuff, that this stuff here, is worthless to me. Don't you feel like a chump because I have such nice stuff that I can burn the kind of stuff you have." Deleting an electronic copy of a free book is like covering up the shadow cast by your house and trying to claim you burned it. By burning a book you are saying the information in this book is worthless to me, it means nothing.

While I can see the validity of the sentiment, I still don't like book burnings.

The National Association of Evangelicals, the nation's largest umbrella evangelical group, issued a statement urging the church to cancel the event, warning it could cause worldwide tension between the two religions.

I hate to tell you folks at the NAE, but there already is world wide tension between Islam and EVERY OTHER RELIGION ON THE PLANET! What can you say when a religion is; militantly evangelical, practices holy war, advocates active disinformation to non-believers, and promises to reward a violent death? Well it's either Islam or medieval Christianity, take your pick.

A lot of the chatter on the intarwebz seems to be centered around the "It will put our troops in danger" whine. While I think that true compassion for our troops is a great and noble thing. This ain't it folks.

Out troops are already in danger. They're in danger every minute they're deployed. Don't think that the militant extremists, Afghan warlords and general baddies are taking it easy on us because we're not pissing in their Cheerios today. By burning a Quran, the worst that will happen is that uncommitted fence sitters amongst the Muslims will pick a side and line up to be molded into poorly trained Predator-fodder and awarded their virgins (male, basement dwelling WoW addict, 72 each).

Liberal Muslims (are there any liberal Muslims?) will feel pity for us and try even harder to make us understand that Islam is the "Religion of Peace". Moderate Muslims will become incensed and will write sternly worded letters to the papers (not that anyone reads them any more) and protest, embarrassingly. But the militants, the truly hardcore will say nothing (except perhaps to release another tape that no one knows what in Niflheim they're saying on), load their magazines and strap C4 to themselves. Because that's what pissed off (really pissed off, not just angry and offended) people do, they don't bitch, they prepare. But that was what they were doing on Saturday anyhoo.

I still don't like the idea of book burning. Because if people think it OK to burn a book we hate or don't care about, how long 'til someone decides to burn a book I like.
H/T to Breda

To Conceal, or Not to Conceal? That is the Question.

I make my morning check (that'd be nightly for you daywalkers) and the newsfilter dredges this bit of krill out of the info-ocean for me.

Apparently a man frightened the citizenry of Nashville, simply by legally carrying a firearm. After being detained for several hours, he was released without charge. Later in the year he was again the subject of police scrutiny, when he was reported in the vicinity of a country club, carrying a black powder revolver. Again, Mr. Leonard Embody ws released without charge. Police Chief Tim Eades (Belle Meade Police Department) is quoted as saying:

"Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing
to do."

The TN AG's opinion was that the law does not require a licensed gun owner to carry concealed. That is, if you wanna carry concealed, go ahead, but if you don't, that's fine too. Looking deeper into the story I see that Leonard's permit to carry was suspended by the Tennessee DOS, sighting "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public". And he's filed suit, alleging violation of his civil rights.

David Codrea notes a prawn of a particularly putrid flavor coming from Officer.com, a forum for police officers and the perps who love them.

Liston Mathews, a Knoxville Gun Rights Examiner, in a related article opines:

"...what is legal is not always prudent. If we are to win the hearts and minds of our neighbors, it makes more sense to be dressed like a neighbor when we carry openly."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a person's manner of dress covered under the First amendment? A long as my clothing does not sport patently pornographic iconography (i.e. nude images of a prurient and lascivious nature), it matters not what I wear. I can wear a speedo and clogs topped with a football helmet if I feel like it, and while I should be prepared for people to point and laugh, neither the police nor the ranger service should be involved. Does it really matter if I add a gun to that ensemble. So what if Mr. Embody's clothing seemed... intimidating to hikers, just so's he's polite and courteous to others. Besides, my Five-seveN doesn't fit under my suit coat.

By hiding our firearms we send an unconscious message that guns are somehow bad, otherwise why hide them? Additionally, by carrying openly we invite people to ask us questions about firearms, carry laws and training. I've managed to steer a dozen people to local CCW licensing schools, firearms stores and shooting ranges in the year or so I've been carrying openly. Yes I get hassled by the cops, and I think I've made my feelings known about the people that sic 'em on me too. But I'm willing to endure that harassment in order to acclimatize my fellow Alaskans to the sight of a man, legally carrying a firearm.

Aye, 'tis nobler indeed to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing the slings and arrows of outrageous LEOs, and ignorant citizens, and by opposing their bullshit, end it.

Democracy in Action