I’m having a bit of an identity crisis.
I was born white, which makes me a racist.
I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which makes me a fascist.
I am heterosexual, which makes me a homophobe.
I am non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business.
I am older than 55 and semi retired which makes me a useless old man.
I think and I reason; therefore I doubt much that the main stream media tells me, which makes me a reactionary.
I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture, which makes me a xenophobe.
I value my safety and that of my family; therefore I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right wing extremist.
I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual’s merits, which makes me anti-social.
I, and my friends, acquired a good education without student loans and no debt at graduation, which makes me some kind of odd underachiever.
I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland by all citizens, which makes me a militarist.
Please help me come to terms with this, because I’m not sure who I am anymore!
And now I don’t know which bathroom to use anymore….
H/T Doverthere, Theo Spark
It makes sense the electorate should be concerned about a candidate’s health. ANY candidate. After all, William Henry Harrison caught pneumonia during his inaugural address (two hours, in the snow) and died 30 days later.
We’ve had candidates who drank, smoked, fooled around. FDR was a polio victim and largely hid it from the general public. Jack Kennedy had a bad back, Addison’s disease and used speed (in addition to his other pursuits). Reagan may have had the beginnings of his demise while still in office.
And that guy who dropped out of the race because he had been treated for depression.
Now we have a current candidate. With many possible health issues.
(from Brock Townsend, in part)
Here are some more interesting facts about her health that the mainstream media ignores:
- She’s a compulsive liar, which may not just be an issue of repugnant character. Dr. Gina Loudon, a political psychology and behavior expert, spoke to WND.“Robert Reich, M.D., a New York City psychiatrist and expert in psychopathology, says compulsive lying can be associated with dementia or brain injury. Otherwise, compulsive lying can be associated with a range of diagnoses, such as antisocial, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders.”
- She has intermittently worn Fresnel glasses since her concussion. These glasses correct double vision (often due to a traumatic brain injury.) The Fresnels reappeared on the campaign trail about the time of the fall pictured above.
- She is prone to uncontrollable coughing fits when she speaks publicly.
- She only made it 4 blocks in the Gay Pride parade last June before she was apparently too tired to continue.
- She has had obvious seizures, on camera, with several occurring over the past few weeks. (You can find the videos here.)
- She has a medic handler who goes everywhere with her….and it appears that he’s carrying an injector pen of Diazepam. The drug, also known as Valium, can be used to halt seizures.
- She got confused and completely froze on stage when she spoke in Vegas. As a political veteran, tough questions and angry crowds shouldn’t be overwhelming. Her handler appeared at her side to let her know she was okay and that she should keep talking.
More @ Freedom Outpost
Then there’s THIS:
Is the hole in Hillary’s tongue from removing a stud, or is it from cancer surgery? According to the blog Lame Cherry:
“the only way one has one of these is that a physician has cut out a huge growth on the tongue, and the only reason one cuts out this huge of a growth on a tongue, is it is cancer.
What kind of cancer? The Internet is rife with speculation, which I won’t repeat here.
Regardless of her politics, I don’t want someone this ill serving as the President.
h/t Fellowship of the Minds
from Free North Carolina)
Properly vetting would-be immigrants’ religious beliefs is not only legal — it would be wise and prudent. Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.
The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.
But…But…RACISM! BIGOTRY! No Wall! Yadda, Yadda…
But ‘they’ don’t let facts get in the way of their agenda.
AGAIN – political correctness will be the death of us.
(from The Firearm Blog, in part)
The last few months in the US have been pretty tumultuous if you have been watching the news. Without getting too political, we have seen terror attacks, hate crimes, and a multitude of other criminal activity. It is truly unsettling and has a lot of people on edge. Some people want to scream gun control or make other arguments, but I digress. What is interesting is what firearms some Americans think should be legal or illegal. Vox, an internet news site, tried to delve into that exact topic.
Vox teamed up with Morning Consult and tried to ask the question of firearm legality. They asked 2,000 people whether certain firearms should be legal or illegal merely based on appearance and their name. The infographic below is very telling. The less it looks like a hunting firearm and the more scary it appears lead whoever they surveyed to believe it should be illegal!
Results from 2,000 people surveyed on whether certain firearms should be LEGAL or ILLEGAL [Credit: Vox/Morning Consult]
You get some interesting, and maybe not surprising results, when you start to identify respondents by their political affiliation. Vox and Morning Consult took it a few steps further by dividing results from their survey by gender. Their full story and results can be found HERE.
Yeah, regardless of what the polls think (democracy), I will keep my guns and, if at all possible add more.
BECAUSE MY INDIVIDUAL NATURAL RIGHTS ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE OR PLEBISCITE!
Light a candle, knock-on-wood, something…
As The Old Man posted
I am so liking this underlying sentiment of one of the LA “What-Time-Is-It?” editorial:
The European Union just lost a sixth of its economy, roughly akin to Florida and California seceding from the United States.
Sounds like a good idea to me. but there is no chance of existence for state/nation that Charlie-Foxed. Fortunately England proper will rediscover the spirit of te Blitz.
I don’t see us getting that lucky. If New York and Illinois joined the succession movement, the American homicide rate might halve. If we could add Joisey, DC and Oregon…..The mind boggles.
But as usual they bugger it up. (This is my shocked face…) It’s amusing how many TPs/hotDemocritter talking points are nailed..
As usual, the little guy is shafted.
We can dream, can’t we?
© Office of the Inspector General
Senator Wyden Puts A Hold On Intelligence Authorization Bill To Block FBI Warrantless Surveillance
from the there-goes-that-wyden-guy-again dept
As we’ve discussed, some surveillance/law enforcement hawks have tried to rush through a law to expand the power of national security letters (NSLs) to paper over the long standing abuse of NSLs, by saying that they can use those documents (which have basically no oversight and don’t require a warrant) to collect a ton of private info, including email info and web browsing histories. The rushed vote on this — stupidly citing the Orlando attacks, despite the fact it would have done nothing to stop that — failed but just barely. Basically, if Senator Dianne Feinstein were able to attend the vote, it likely would have passed. The support for it was one vote shy, and then Sen. Mitch McConnell changed his vote for procedural reasons to be able to bring it back for a quick follow up vote.
Now, as Congress rushes towards that vote, Senator Ron Wyden stepped up today to use his power as a Senator to put a hold on the entire Intelligence Authorization bill. He gave a short floor speech explaining his reasons.
I certainly appreciate the FBI’s interest in obtaining records about potential suspects quickly. But Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges are very capable of reviewing and approving requests for court orders in a timely fashion. And section 102 of the recently-passed USA FREEDOM Act gives the FBI new authority to obtain records immediately in emergency situations, and then seek court review after the fact. I strongly supported the passage of that provision, which I first proposed in 2013. By contrast, I do not believe it is appropriate to give the government broad new surveillance authorities just because FBI officials do not like doing paperwork. If the FBI’s own process for requesting court orders is too slow, then the appropriate solution is bureaucratic reforms, not a major expansion of government surveillance authorities.
The fact of the matter is that ‘electronic communication transaction records’ can reveal a great deal of personal information about individual Americans. If government officials know that an individual routinely emails a mental health professional, or sends texts to a substance abuse support group, or visits a particular dating website, or the website of a particular political group, then the government knows a lot about that individual. Our Founding Fathers rightly argued that such intrusive searches should be approved by independent judges.
It is worth noting that President George W. Bush’s administration reached the same conclusion. In November 2008, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel advised the FBI that National Security Letters could only be used to obtain certain types of records, and this list did not include electronic communication transaction records. The FBI has unfortunately not adhered to this guidance, and has at times continued to issue National Security Letters for electronic communications records. A number of companies that have received these overly broad National Security Letters have rightly challenged them as improper. Broadening the National Security Letter law to include electronic communication transaction records would be a significant expansion of the FBI’s statutory authority.
And unfortunately, the FBI’s track record with its existing National Security Letter authorities includes a substantial amount of abuse and misuse. These problems have been extensively documented in reports by the Justice Department Inspector General from 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2014. As one of these reports noted, “the FBI [has] used NSLs in violation of applicable statutes, Attorney General guidelines, and internal FBI policies.” No one in the Senate should be surprised by this pattern of abuse and misuse, because this is unfortunately what happens when federal agencies are given broad surveillance powers with no judicial oversight. In my judgment, it would be reckless to expand this particular surveillance authority when the FBI has so frequently failed to use its existing authorities responsibly.
Of course, to some extent, this is little more than show. It’s pretty clear that McConnell has the votes to get this passed, which is why Wyden has now taken the dramatic step of putting a hold on the bill. But the 60 votes here are usually what is necessary to break a hold (which remains a widely used, but informal, Senate rule). So in the end this won’t mean much, but we’ve been here before again and again and again. And by now it should be clear: When Ron Wyden says that the government is abusing laws to spy on Americans, he’s not lying. We shouldn’t then paper over that abuse and give the FBI or the NSA or anyone else greater powers to spy on Americans. Because they use that power and they don’t tend to use it wisely and judiciously.
Can anyone explain, seriously, why the emergency powers that allow the FBI to do the search in an emergency and then get the warrant after are somehow too problematic? Or why the FBI can’t go and get a warrant at all? It’s a petty quick process for them these days. This whole effort seems designed solely to wipe out what little oversight there is of the FBI and its use of national security letters. (Techdirt.com)
AND, how much coverage of this was out there in the “press” (again, in air quotes)?
More importantly, why doesn’t the American Public care?
I’m speaking of this Republic.
With Rome, it was either when the Ottoman Turks took Byzantium (Constantinople) 1453 AD or when a barbarian deposed the last western Roman emperor 476 AD (ancient history About.com)
My Western Civilization professor said it began with (and I’m quoting here) “Moral decadence and pleasures of the flesh!” (to the cheers of the 400 or so horny underclassmen)
What is/was the beginning of the end of this Constitutional Republic we know as The United States?
The Whiskey Rebellion? (1791)
The Civil War? (1861)
Federal income tax (1913)
Direct election of Senators? (1913)
Establishment of the Federal Reserve? (1913)
The National Firearms Act (1934)
Or is it an amalgamation of these and many other things, eating away at our Constitutional substance, punctuated by further federal government oversteps such as Ruby Ridge and Waco? No-knock warrants, followed by airport searches and sobriety checkpoints. Massive surveillance of our electronic communications. Prohibitions of Speech seen as ‘politically-incorrect’. The killing of Blacks by police – whether or not legitimate actions – spun by self-serving propagandists into an ersatz race war?
Now followed by widespread racial civil unrest, punctuated by acts of terrorism against civil authority.
I’m certain all ‘civilizations’, be they primitive neolithic cultures like the American Indian when the White man first laid eyes on him, or the Romans, or the Christian Turks all thought they would endure forever.
And so have most of we Americans.
I guess the true question isn’t what was the tipping point.
It’s what do we do NOW?
from a miniseries The Dark Ages
(NOT to be confused with LSMFT**)
Kevin Baker (aka The Smallest Minority) ALWAYS brings it. If he doesn’t, he brings to us others who do. Brewing in his blogmind prior to the recent announcements regarding the firm placement of the cap on the Rule of Law, his latest megapost is truly worthy of your time.
Here is a taste:
In the intervening twelve-plus years I’ve done a lot of reading, observing, thinking and writing. I’ve currently got a bookmark folder entitled “Civil War” with about fifty links in it, and those are just the ones I knew I’d eventually want to go back to. Apparently I’ve been ruminating on this particular essay for a couple of years without realizing it. The piece that finally forced me back to the keyboard is a year-old post over at Sultan Knish, No Truce With the Left. It echos a lot of the sentiments I have posted here over the years, but as Daniel Greenfield is wont to do, he says it more eloquently than I. A short excerpt:
The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left’s favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.
The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.
To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.
The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.
That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.
You should really go and read the whole überpost!
The Smallest Minority
*LMTFA – leave me the f*** alone!
**LSMFT – Lucky Strike means fine tobacco
Two Hundred Forty years ago…
A group of colonial representatives of the British crown voted to sever ties with the most powerful monarchy on Earth. With the largest military.
And ultimately won our Independence.
Established a government, dissolved it, established a second government. And immediately began ursurping the rights of the Citizenry we had fought a revolution to protect!
Governments, by their very nature, want control and power.
John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Well, THAT ship has sailed!
Too bad the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee some kind of reset button, which would keep the Bill of Rights as Paramount.
And allow us to begin again.
I’m rereading The Declaration of Independence at High Noon again, today.
Before my so doing is prohibited by law!
From Alan Korwin’s email this morning, in part…
The Infamous No-Fly No-Buy Gun Bill HR 2578:
“Blatant Rape of the Constitution.”
— Legislators who proposed this should be removed from office —
Has anyone even read the bill that had democrats
staging a sit-in on the floor of Congress?
“No district court of the United States
or court of appeals of the United States
shall have jurisdiction to consider the
lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…”
It gets worse.
Under the excuse of fighting terrorism, these democrats, with republican allies, wanted to deny Americans their individual rights to travel by air — or obtain arms — without probable cause, without due process, and get this — without being able to view the evidence against them or face their accusers. Their accusers and the evidence remains a secret. Your rights would be denied solely by a secret-police list.
You can’t challenge the proposed law’s legality… because it hasn’t got any. It would not pass even the slightest scrutiny, and they know that, hence that clause above in bold. My republican senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, supports this, smiling when he announced it on TV.
The people proposing this 17-page tyrannical travesty should be removed from office.
And THIS STATIST CLOWN is the more ‘conservative’ of Arizona’a two Senators! (The other being McCain!) Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave!
Even if you are not from Arizona, please contact this guy’s office in protest! (link below)
Senator Jeff Flake
(I have – THREE TIMES!)
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #22 of 22)