Image: AP Photo/Amel Emric
Bullets are cheaper and more effective than tear gas canisters.
Bullets and bombs are merely war’s last recourse. The actual front of most conflicts occurs in the vacuum between men’s ears. One gains a deep appreciation of this fact when watching the rapid social effects that result from orchestrated media onslaughts. The images and narratives carpet bombed daily into mentally defenseless targets demonstrate the undeniable power of air superiority.
And when spiritual fortifications have been flattened, antagonists put boots on the ground. That’s what’s happening now in unmoated areas of the West. But eventually even the dullest clucks begin to understand that virtue signaling on migration is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Conspicuously accommodating 100 brown people is a boast, while 100 million is a eulogy. And most prefer their praise served warm.
So what we are seeing presently in Europe is a people slowly realizing their moral vainglory is best taken in moderation. Unfortunately for them, that doesn’t much address the designs of a billion or so global refugees fleeing the war in Syria. You don’t simply lock the door after other people have decided they want in.
For once a large enough number of outsiders determine your house is precisely what they want, seeking your permission loses much of its appeal. That’s when fences start falling, tear gas starts wafting, and it dimly begins to dawn that invasion doesn’t require the Red Army.
Here’s one piece on the siege of Indomeni.
This is on the frontiers of Europe. (Not to mention the chaos already inside London, Paris and Germany)
And the current American administration has essentially told the Border Patrol to stand down. And has cut their numbers and budget.
Is this the future image on our borders?
No, of course not.
We are already looking the other way…
The ozone issue was an early misuse of science for a political agenda. It was a practice run for global warming with several of the same people involved.
Attempts to ratify the Kyoto Protocol included claims that the Montreal Protocol, designed to save the ozone layer, was a success. It wasn’t, because there was no problem in the first place.
Chlorofluorocarbons then, like CO2 today, were never a problem.
Environmentalists used a natural change of ozone and CO2 to blame human activity. With ozone, the “urgent problem” was a slight decline in atmospheric levels over Antarctica; with CO2, a slight increase at Mauna Loa.
Both times, they then found and funded scientists to produce the “scientific” evidence.
I explained the problem to the Canadian Parliamentary Committee Hearing on Ozone. I didn’t want to attend, but it was a legal order. It was the fiasco I expected.
I’ve written before in this venue that ‘Science’ with a pre-determined outcome ceases to be science.
There seems to be a group of individuals who hate humans, who wish to vilify them and their actions as being ‘bad’ for the planet. Of course, this doesn’t mean wholesale pollution by industries (corporations) should be allowed.
It DOES mean there is an agenda attached to this movement. And it has attached itself – parasitically – to the Green movement, not unlike the Progressives who have attached themselves to the Democratic (and Republican) Parties.
Once again, it is ALL about CONTROL!
When I ran across this article on Facebook, I truly thought it must be either dizinformazia, or an article culled from The Onion.
After a little side research, I determined this to be the genuine article. By a genuine LGBT activist. Who is quite obviously NOT a libertarian!
Famous LGBT Activist Reveals The Scary, Real Goal Of The Bathroom Battle (And It’s Not Bathrooms…It’s Way Worse)
What you may have been suspecting has been confirmed. LGBT activists’ end goal is not ruling over the bathroom. It’s obliterating the family. Riki Wilchins, a famous transsexual who recently wrote a piece in the gay publication The Advocate, revealed that many conservatives and even LGBT activists are missing the forest for the trees.
Titled,“We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns,” Wilchins says the real goal is to kill the notion of male and female altogether. The “binary” refers to gender distinction, and getting rid of the “heterobinary structure” is the goal. Wilchins writes that the fact that we are arguing over male and female facilities is proof that we still have far to go–that there should be no gender distinctions in general.
In fact, Wilchins points to an emerging group of people who don’t want to affiliate as any gender. Life Site News explains, “’Non-binary’ people don’t identify as male or female and they often want to be referred to as ‘they’ or ‘hir’ or ‘zer.’ So the fact that there are even intimate facilities that reflect the “binary” truth about gender should change, Wilchins wrote.”
If you are confused, you are not alone. But beneath all of the titles and non-titles, the insidious plan is the destruction of the family, reveals Stella Morabito, senior contributor to The Federalist.
“What we are really talking about is the abolition of sex. And it is sex that the trans project is serving to abolish legally, under the guise of something called ‘the gender binary.’ Its endgame is a society in which everyone is legally de-sexed. No longer legally male or female. And once you basically redefine humanity as sexless you end up with a de-humanized society in which there can be no legal ‘mother’ or ‘father’ or ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ or ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ without permission from the State. Government documents are already erasing the terms. In such a society, the most intimate human relationships take a hit. The family ends up abolished.”
Morabito hits home the point: “Sex distinctions are the germ of all human relationships. Abolishing them legally basically abolishes family autonomy. And this is an act of violence against children because it would serve at some point to separate them from their origins. Every child’s first transcendental question is ‘Where did I come from?’ If the law will not allow the child to see his own origins and wholeness in the faces of a mother and a father, it destabilizes the child’s sense of self. It creates personal dysfunction in children and basically ends up spreading more dysfunction and even dystopia in society.”
This is scary. If Morabito and other cultural watch-dogs are right, the bathroom battle is far more serious than many think. We need to really pray and ask God for help–before it’s too late and our future generations end up really damaged. Do you agree? (Faith Family America)
SO. Either Ms. Wilchins is a dystopian uber-Statist of the first order, or is a deepest cover agent promoting such nonsense reductio ad absurdum*!
I truly hope it is the second choice offered.
If this is indeed the true ultimate agenda, it goes way beyond men ‘self-identifying’ as female to visit women’s rooms and/or taking surreptitious photos of women and girls, or worse!
But, as The President is taking a hard line on this issue, ‘blackmailing’ the States to conform to this agenda in their schools, or lose federal funding(!), and many believe him to be a variety of Marxist…
*Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. (Wikipedia)
…or your mustache or surfboard. Your choice. :-)
(from Free North Carolina)
Aristotle taught that “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these things retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.”1 In this paper I want to explore Hume’s views on the proper size and scale of political order.
Size and scale are not the same thing. The scale of a thing is the size appropriate to its function. Scale for human things is the human body and its capacities. Classical architects have longed explored the relation between the human frame, its sensory capacities, and the proper size of doors, windows, courtyards, gardens, the width of streets, plazas, and so forth.
What is the proper size and scale of political order? The answer depends on what we think the function of political order is. Plato and Aristotle thought the function of political association is to achieve human excellence. Since virtue is acquired through emulation of character, face to face knowledge is required of political participants, and this places a limit on the size of the polity.
Aristotle said it should contain “the largest number which suffices for the conduct of life, and can be taken in at a single view.”2 Another classical measure was that one should be able to walk across the polity in a single day. The ancient Greek republics were of this human size and scale.
I’ve asked this question previously. What is the function of political order? (government?) Is it to ‘nanny’ the population into some pre-determined ideal – pre-determined by the (almighty, all-knowing) government? Or is it to allow individuals to be FREE; free to make their own choices and mistakes, and perhaps learn from them? Or not? THEIR choice?
And allow them to follow whatever path they choose, as long as it doesn’t impinge on the ability of others to follow THEIR path?
Sadly, I believe most Americans are so fed-up by the ongoing political machine that they don’t care. And, anyway, they are too busy trying to eke out an existence for themselves and their families, with the ever-present demon of surveillance and taxation wolves at the door. Or already inside.
How many different taxes and fees are you forced to pay? And how many agencies are recording your movements, actions and attitudes, through direct physical surveillance, monitoring email, cell phones and social media? Information many times given up by you voluntarily.
What kind of political order do YOU want?
And do you even have a choice, anymore?
I’ve gotten used to seeing political correctness on TV. Not that I like it, but have come to the realization that most of the TV show writers, producers and networks foster an agenda. Nowhere near that of a constitutional republic.
And many times, it’s not based in fact – it’s based on what is perceived as popular and liberal.
An aside on a sitcom about the prevalence of global warming; the presence of a gun – in and of itself – shown as evil and dangerous. The whole BLM agenda, as well.
But, occasionally, some differing opinions slip through the cracks!
Last Man Standing – a sitcom with Tim Allen as a beleaguered conservative business owner, surrounded by liberals and mostly conservative females. Making statements against The President’s policies and Secretary Clinton’s lack-of-action about Benghazi. And, still remaining a comedy!
Blue Bloods – a Tom Selleck (a Gunsite graduate) cop family vehicle including Catholicism, proper gun handling instruction, and the difficult balancing of policing with civil liberties. Tom plays the current police commissioner.
Criminal Minds – The FBI against serial killers, with Joe Mantegna (another Gunsite graduate) showing off many his many skills.
Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders – Another FBI vehicle, this time offshore, with Gary Sinise (a champion for the American Veteran). In a recent episode, they helped capture a duo of American mass murderers in Cuba (!) Sinise gave a passionate spiel about the Communist propaganda prevalent on our college campuses, and the ubiquitiousness of that vile t-shirt celebrating a murdering bigot Che’!
So, there IS hope…
Sadly, watching Blue Bloods, with Mr. Selleck as the Police Commissioner, I’m reminded of watching the movie Air Force One (in the 80’s), wherein Harrison Ford plays a President who had been a Green Beret (I remember). He stands up to terrorists and kicks a**!
I left the theater feeling good. Until I remembered Bill Clinton was (then) the actual President!
And the current P.C. of NYC is no Tom Selleck! :-(
The 2016 Legislative session is officially over. The status and summary of bills that AzCDL monitored this session can be found on our Bill Tracking page.
The Good News
In addition to stopping almost a dozen bad firearms related bills from progressing through the Legislature, AzCDL was instrumental in getting the following bills through both chambers of the Legislature and to the Governor’s desk where they were signed into law.
HB 2224, the AzCDL-requested bill that prohibits state or local governments from requiring any fee, tax, etc. on the private transfer of firearms.
HB 2338, the AzCDL-requested bill that prohibits the governing boards of educational institutions from banning firearms on public rights of way, such as city streets and sidewalks that happen to pass through campuses.
SB 1266 puts teeth into the preemption statutes by allowing for civil actions when state agencies, counties, cities, etc. disregard the law.
SB 1487 requires the Arizona Attorney General to investigate local ordinances that violate Arizona’s Constitution or state law.
The Bad News
For several years we have been pushing legislation to end Arizona’s official policy of allowing armed criminals to enter government buildings through the use of impotent “no weapons” signs as their only means of security. As long as the bad guys can come and go at will in public facilities, we believe all law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves. This year’s bill was SB 1257 which said in essence that if state and local governments’ only means of security was a cardboard sign, then CCW permit holders should not be disarmed when entering. At the request of the Governor’s staff, SB 1257 was amended in the House. However seeing that the bill only needed one more floor vote to pass out of the Legislature, his staff then lobbied the Senate to kill the bill. We learned our lesson – cooperating with this Governor is not necessarily a good thing.
We were able to get this year’s version of our interstate firearms compact bill, HB 2524, through both chambers of the Legislature but it was vetoed by Governor Ducey. You may recall that last year, after Bloomberg’s lobbyists appeared at the Capitol, the compact bill was buried in the Senate Rules Committee while the clock ran out on the session.
HB 2524 would have established an interstate compact between Arizona and other states that prevented the member states from enacting firearms transfer requirements more restrictive than existing federal law. Enactment of HB 2524 would have neutralized Bloomberg’s ballot measure to criminalize private firearms transfers, which he has promised to file in Arizona.
In 2014, after passing a “universal background check” ballot measure in Washington, Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization bragged that Nevada, Maine and Arizona were next. In Nevada and Maine the groundwork is completed. They will have “universal background check” measures on their November ballots. Bloomberg has less than 2 months to accomplish the same thing here in Arizona. We must operate on the assumption that it will happen and be prepared to not just fight it, but to stop it from becoming the law in Arizona.
With the veto of HB 2524, legislative remedies are no longer available. We can only stop him at the ballot box. If Bloomberg’s ballot measure passes, Arizona’s Constitution prevents it from being overturned by a subsequent Legislature.
From what we’ve seen happen in Washington, Nevada and Maine, we cannot count on outside help. The reality is that we must fight this battle ourselves. AzCDL is self-funded and operates from the generosity of our members. To maintain our independence we are unaffiliated. We don’t receive corporate grants or have a rich sugar daddy hiding in the shadows. Your donations determine if we succeed or fail. In order to win this, we are going to need your support to help us spread the word. When the next fund raising letter hits your inbox, please remember that we can only defeat Bloomberg with your help.
These alerts are a project of the Arizona Citizens Defense League (AzCDL), an all-volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization.
AzCDL – Protecting Your Freedom .
Copyright © 2016 Arizona Citizens Defense League, Inc., all rights reserved.
And don’cha think Bloomberg and his Statist minions will be visiting other States, as well?
Count on it!
…or at least equal opportunity for yuck!
I’m speaking about equal opportunity for MEN here.
I’ve been taking out the trash and the garbage my entire life! Or, at least since I was able to walk, lift and receive an allowance.
My sister? Nope. And SHE, too, received an allowance.
Why the disparity? I AM MALE!
Don’t you know – IT’S THE JOB OF THE MAN (OR BOY) TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH!
How do we know this? Every woman – starting with my Mother and stepmother – said so!
And subsequent girlfriends and even the (now ex) wife!
And currently my female roommate!
WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?
Everyone in the house makes trash and garbage. I don’t mind sharing the duty necessary to get it to the dumpster. But, when did it become solely the purview of the MALE?
I tried the argument that if there were gender-specific jobs that she should take care of the house and make the meals and do the wash.
That didn’t go over so well…
And I also received the counter-argument that they had to suffer childbirth and other things feminine. As if I created women to be that way!
It’s an argument with a woman.
Men lose, automatically.
DEFLECTION is a time-honored technique of propaganda and argument. State that your enemy is doing thus-and-such, whether or not they actually are, and YOU are actually doing it!
Case in point: Wholesale terrorism and espionage as performed by the Eastern Bloc (1920-1990), whilst constantly berating the West for having done so.
Regarding current history:
(in part, from Brock Townsend)
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She earned a B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of three books, including Are Cops Racist? and The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe (forthcoming June 2016).
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 27, 2016, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series.
For almost two years, a protest movement known as “Black Lives Matter” has convulsed the nation. Triggered by the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014, the Black Lives Matter movement holds that racist police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today. This belief has triggered riots, “die-ins,” the murder and attempted murder of police officers, a campaign to eliminate traditional grand jury proceedings when police use lethal force, and a presidential task force on policing.
Even though the U.S. Justice Department has resoundingly disproven the lie that a pacific Michael Brown was shot in cold blood while trying to surrender, Brown is still venerated as a martyr. And now police officers are backing off of proactive policing in the face of the relentless venom directed at them on the street and in the media. As a result, violent crime is on the rise.
The need is urgent, therefore, to examine the Black Lives Matter movement’s central thesis—that police pose the greatest threat to young black men. I propose two counter hypotheses: first, that there is no government agency more dedicated to the idea that black lives matter than the police; and second, that we have been talking obsessively about alleged police racism over the last 20 years in order to avoid talking about a far larger problem—black-on-black crime.
from Brock Townsend:
Few, if any, currently prominent historians voice unqualified objection to the destruction of Confederate monuments. The most tolerant among them instead suggest that the memorials should remain, but with new explanatory inscriptions offering “context”—a code word that simplifies to: South=Bad, North=Good.
Consider, for example, the contextual marker that might be added to Liberty Hall, former home of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens. No doubt it would emphasize the racist remarks in his Cornerstone Speech. But I’d wager $100 against a good Cuban cigar that it would ignore his address to the Georgia legislature after the war when he urged the body to adopt laws to protect African-Americans “so that they may stand equal before the law” partly because “we owe [them] a debt of gratitude…”
More pertinently, adding additional perspective to Rebel memorials begs the question of whether the policy should also apply to Yankee monuments. Consider the Lincoln Memorial. A couple of months before he announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862 Lincoln met at the White House with African-American leaders and urged that blacks leave the country. He arranged congressional funding for their emigration.
Of course, those who win the wars write the history of said wars.
Would not Washington be viewed as a terrorist if Britain had won?
The difference being, of course, remains: We are all Americans, North and South.