They tell me cat videos are ubiquitous on the Internet…
Yep. Ol’ Guffaw is sixty-frickin’-three today!
It’s been said I don’t look a year over 68… :-)
Seriously, I’ve many gifts for which to be thankful…
A roof over my head
Family and friends
If I knew I would be living this long, I’d have taken better care of myself.
Now, I figure a good burger or pizza, with an occasional beer is better than a skinless chicken breast or tofu with green tea.
I know I probably won’t live as long, but I will enjoy it more.
Happy Birthday to Me!
(courtesy of Borepatch)
Michael Yon has advice (via Isegoria):
We are at war.
We must retrain our minds that we are not sheep to be slaughtered.
First option — unless you are law enforcement or a Soldier — is to escape. Second option is to hide. Final option, kill that son of a bitch. Bum-rush him.
Take his rifle and shoot him in the head.
He might be wearing a vest — when you are very close shoot his head twice and keep moving. If the rifle is out of ammo, kill him with the rifle butt or something else. Smash with all of your strength.
No time for hogtying him. There might be other terrorists and there is no time for pleasantries. Just kill him and keep your weapon pointed at potential enemies. Be very careful not to cause innocent casualties. Can be hard to do.
Ugly advice for an ugly age.
Basic…to the point…nothing fancy.
And yes, ugly.
I don’t understand the mindset of people who volunteer to be sheep – either they figure they will lose (or deserve to), and seem to operate on that premise.
Or that they are incapable of self-defense violence. Unable to make an effort to save their own skin, or the skins of their loved ones.
REMEMBER – WE ARE THE FIRST RESPONDERS – IF WE CHOOSE TO RESPOND!
I’m old. Slow. Arthritic. Physically disabled.
I’m in chronic pain.
BUT I WANT TO LIVE!
by Walter Williams (Human Events)
Many of my columns speak highly of the wisdom of our nation’s founders. Every once in a while, I receive an ugly letter sarcastically asking what do I think of their wisdom declaring blacks “three-fifths of a human.” It’s difficult to tell whether such a question is prompted by ignorance or is the fruit of an ongoing agenda to undermine American greatness. Let’s examine some facts about our founders and slavery.
At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, slaves were 40 percent of the population of southern colonies. Apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections would be based upon population. Southern colonies wanted slaves to be counted as one person. Northern delegates to the convention, and those opposed to slavery, wanted to count only free persons of each state for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The compromise reached was that each slave would be counted as only three-fifths of a person.
If the convention delegates had not reached this compromise, the Constitution would have not been ratified and there would not have been a Union. My questions to those who criticize the three-fifths clause are twofold. Would it have been preferable for the southern states to be able to count slaves as whole persons, thereby giving southern states more political power? Would blacks have been better off without constitutional ratification and a Union made possible by the three-fifths compromise? In other words, would blacks have been better off with northern states having gone their way and southern states having gone theirs and, as a consequence, no U.S. Constitution and no Union? Abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was “a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states” that deprived them of “two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.”
Patrick Henry expressed the reality of the three-fifths compromise, saying, “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” With union, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade in 1808. According to delegate James Wilson, many believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.”
Many founders openly condemned slavery. George Washington said, “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” John Adams: “Every measure of prudence … ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. … I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence.” James Madison: “We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” Benjamin Franklin: “Slavery is … an atrocious debasement of human nature.” Franklin, after visiting a black school, said, “I … have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race than I had ever before entertained.” Alexander Hamilton’s judgment was the same: “Their natural faculties are probably as good as ours.” John Jay wrote: “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”
Completely ignored in most discussions of slavery is the fact that slavery was mankind’s standard fare throughout history. Centuries before blacks were enslaved Europeans were enslaved. The word slavery comes from Slavs, referring to the Slavic people, who were early slaves. What distinguishes the West, namely Britain and the U.S., from other nations are the extraordinary measures they took to abolish slavery.
The Founders knew without the South’s vote, they wouldn’t survive as a Republic. And in their genius put this together.
And now, they are being beaten-up for having done so, by people who don’t know history.
Or people who do…
Because forcing that political view is in the anti-constitutional, anti-Republic agenda.
Courtesy of The Firearm Blog…
Closer Than Ever Before To CMP M1911s
The Civilian Marksmanship Program has been providing arms to civilian match shooters and riflemen for over 110 years, but one weapon left off the list of civilian-legal surplus firearms the CMP is allowed to sell to civilian shooters is the venerable 1911 handgun. However, that may soon change. For the past couple of years, variations of the National Defense Authorization Act have been proposed that would change the law establishing the CMP to allow them to sell 1911 handguns to the American public, but so far none of these versions have passed and become law. The most recent version of the NDAA provides for the sale of 1911 handguns (albeit in a different manner than the rifles, i.e. through an FFL) through the organization, and is poised to be signed in the next week. Hognose of WeaponsMan reports:
According to Al Jazeera, which is bent out of shape because the language forbidding the closure of Guantanamo remains, the President will sign the changed National Defense Authorization Act.
The President’s reasons were many and various. The two he most often gave were the use of off-budget “Overseas Contingency Operations” funds to circumvent military spending caps, and the maintenance of spending caps on domestic programs.
The Republican Congressional leadership yielded to the Democrats across the board, discarding the budget sequester principle and going on a spending spree in domestic/welfare spending. Ironically, the OCO money remains, and is increased — but the increase is tapped off for domestic spending also.
The Guantanamo language remains, and more to our point, so does the CMP transfer language. (We discussed it recently, and explained the many gotchas in the text. The law limits CMP sales to a max of 10,000 firearms a year).
The resultant sale of 1911 handguns to the American public, even at a relatively low rate of 10,000 per year, could open the door for historical handgun competitions, perhaps based on a variant of IPSC or USPSA rules, in the same way that National Rifle matches have been cultivated by the CMP. As Hognose writes in his post, the signing of this bill into law does not mean that 1911 handguns will immediately go up for sale on the CMP website immediately; the pistols will have to be transferred from Army inventory to the Program, first, and the new bill requires the CMP to have an FFL to do this, which was previously not necessary for transfers of rifles from the Army to the Program.
– See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/11/15/closer-than-ever-before-to-cmp-m1911s/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2015-11-17&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter#sthash.xcAEDNZG.dpuf
Wouldn’t THIS be cool?
Of course, I suspect the current administration to put the kibosh on the idea…
(I do remember a previous barber of mine telling me he bought his 1911 from The Pentagon in 1961, for $17.00!? Of course, he may have just taken his when he left…)
Bernie Sanders’ 100% Tax: “Nobody Should Earn More Than $1 Million”
“Make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime.”
Here in the People’s Republic of New York, the streets are covered with crazed Bernie Sanders stickers promising a glorious Socialist utopia in which no one, except taxpayers, will ever have to work again.
Sanders apologists claim that he’s a moderate Swedish Socialist, not one of those crazy Communist or Nazi guys. But his history suggests that he’s redder than a fire engine. And we’re not just talking about his flirtation with Communist countries, but Communist ideas.
I always marvel at the
socialist communist dialectic.
The idea that if one makes X minus $1.00 dollars, it’s okay, but X dollars or more? – Suddenly it’s too much, unconscionable!
And then it must be redistributed! For the people!
The old dictum Qui Bono (who benefits) needs to be amended.
It should read Qui decernit (who decides?)
There seems to be some surprise expressed by the author regarding Sanders’ communism.
To be fair, he’s not been secretive about his beliefs.
No more than The President was regarding his income redistrubutive/leveling-the-playing-field beliefs.
And still, people were surprised…
Wake Up America! Don’t be like Bernie in the movies – Dead and still acting!
e.g. reduction to absurdity
“If all the cool kids jumped off a cliff, would you follow?” Like that.
From Say Uncle:
Too big to jail
A common theme put forward by a few of the presidential candidates at the last Republican debate was that, gosh darnit, you just couldn’t deport all those people who were breaking the law because it was impractical or impossible. Because there’s so many of them. The numbers tossed out were 3, 9, and 11 million, IIRC.
You see, it’s not possible or practical to enforce the law as it is written, so they should ignore it or let it slide or change the law. I welcome this precedent. How about 3, 9 or 11 million of us stop paying taxes? How about 3, 9 or 11 million of us ignore NFA laws? How about 3, 9 or 11 million of us start smoking marijuana? Or whatever anyone’s pet issue.
In two of three of my examples, I’m guessing the reaction wouldn’t be “gosh, that’s impossible”.
Some might respond, “I see the difference being the last time they did a round up and expulsion was in the 1950’s. It was a different time and culture.”
Of course, same reduction in argument applies. :-)
Hold the Freedom Fries…
It may offer the best political science course on campus, but the lessons are lost on bureaucrats: UC-San Diego’s fabled “Che Cafe” is awash in red ink and in need of a bailout.
Students have run the restaurant, named for Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara, for 34 years, but they’ve steered it into the ground. Boasting of “exorbitantly low” prices, the vegan co-op and concert venue that once hosted an up-and-coming Nirvana has cost the student body nearly $1 million over the years, and isn’t kept up to fire or safety codes. The ragtag band of volunteer staffers, who call themselves a “collective,” faced eviction in March, but have persuaded the school to save their beloved stronghold.
Hey! Income redistribution, man!
I want to go to the local university here, and open an unsanitary, unprofitable, collectivist health-food hole, and name it after another mass murderer! It’s certain to be a loss leader and on the government teat. Maybe I can keep it going 34 years, too!
Let’s see – Stalin’s Vegan Steakburgers? Mao’s Tongue (containing no animal products)?
I KNOW – Castro’s Playa Giron! Pork BBQ!
And if the staff goes on strike, we can just kill them.
I don’t know what is the most sad – that they exist at all, or that ‘educated’ college folk (and the gov’t) have supported them for 34 years!!
George Soros (or as Glenn Beck calls him, the ‘spooky dude’) openly admits ‘national borders are the enemy’.
If he would a libertarian, I might believe he has an open, free-market agenda.
BUT, he IS George Soros…
(From The Natural News, in part:)
Following Orban’s statement, Soros sent an email to Bloomberg Business, in which he claimed that his foundations actually help “uphold European values,” while Orban’s actions in bolstering the Hungarian border and thus impeding a huge influx of migrants “undermine those values.”
“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Soros added. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
In October, Orban accused pro-immigration non-governmental organizations (NGOs) of “drawing a living from the immigration crisis.” He singled out those funded by Soros, who is a strong supporter of transnational bodies like the European Union and the United Nations. Also, his Open Society Foundation (OSF) provides assistance for pro-immigration activists, and he is well-known in the U.S. and internationally for supporting “progressive” (read far-Left) causes like the Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation and the Center for American Progress.
In fact, the OSF website notes: “We believe that migration and asylum policy should be grounded in economic and demographic realities, not driven by temporary political considerations or popular misconceptions.
“In Europe, many of our civil society partners are raising their voices demanding a common European approach in line with international human rights commitments.”
In a recent interview, Orban said that immigration and multiculturalism were working in tandem to change the face and traditions of Europe, it’s “Christian roots” in particular, all while creating “parallel societies” (just like mass immigration in the U.S. – and isn’t it peculiar that President Obama and Lefty Soros have the same view on mass immigration?).
So sayeth the ‘spooky dude’.
Do you think they are looking to destabilize existing governments by taxing the system until it breaks? Just as Cloward and Piven suggest?
Naw, just a coincidence…
Pay no attention to the spooky dude behind the curtain.
Or in the White House.
“But wait, there’s more!”
I recently posted Tomi’s view regarding escalating our efforts against terrorism and supportive nations (an idea I support).
And, I have an addendum to her idea.
To wit, consider this argument:
Why were the Parisian terrorist attackers so successful in obtaining fear, terror and death?
Because of French and Parisian laws, the citizenry were unable to respond! As people in most schools, hospitals, concerts, military bases and all gun-free zones are in The United States.
Fact – most polls currently in the United States support the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Fact – The Supreme Court has upheld this right as individual.
Fact – In so-called gun free zones, the recommended method of survival is to hide and wait for people with guns to come and solve the problem.
Let’s take the gloves off!
Every able-bodied man and woman who has has training should be carrying a handgun, everywhere. Including adult students, teachers and the military!
Let’s take the fight to them!
If some joker or a team of jokers decide to attack your place-of-business, church, concert hall, shopping mall or school, let’s show them that of which we are made.
If they want to see their god – provide an introduction.
It’s time to stop pussy-footing around. ‘They’ aren’t just in Europe and India, they are here! Whether they are imported here as ‘refugees’ or are ‘home-grown’ is of no consequence.
I DON’T CARE !
We need to stand up. As the military responds overseas, we need to here.
Let’s take the Republic back from fear of terrorism by being proactive in our ability to respond.
Tomi (known to long-time blog readers here) recently posted her response to the Paris terrorist attacks on her blog.
To be fair, I was a bit surprised. After all, she is an admitted social democrat, who tends to lean left in her views on many things.
Here is her post, in full:
I have often felt like a voice crying in the wilderness, since September 11, 2001. I keep insisting that the “War on Terror” is a sham. You can’t wage “war” on religious fanatics who wear suicide bomb vests and shoot people at restaurants. Terrorism is a series of criminal acts done by those that have nothing to lose in this life, and everything to gain in the hereafter.
After nearly fifteen years of listening to this ridiculousness, and watching the US commit its worst crimes since the Native American genocide, I am ready to throw in the towel….kind of.
If we’re going to fight a “war” let’s make it a real one: State to State.
We KNOW where these terrorists get their money from: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. They are, and always have been, the funders of Al-Qaeda, ISIS (ISIL, the IS, or whatever you want to call it) and all of their offshoots.
I am not saying anything we all already don’t know.
It is long past time to keep pretending these States are our allies. They are not and never have been.
Seize their financial assets. All of them. Tell them they will get their money back if and when all of their sponsored terrorism ceases.
It is time to stop all this double-dealing. They are not our friends or allies. They are our enemies, by any reasonable definition of the word.
These proxy wars have got to stop. If we’re going to expend blood and treasure, let’s at least do it honestly.
Of course, no one wants war (except, perhaps war profiteers and fanatics). But I understand her argument. The fact we both fight and simultaneously support so many of these nations smacks of that military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about!
Let us not remain mired in brush-fire wars that have been plaguing us since Vietnam.
As Todd Beamer said on Flight 93, “Let’s roll!”