Saturday, April 15, 2017

Glenn Beck MOAB - Mother Of All Bullshit



I was listening to Glenn Beck on the AM radio yesterday afternoon.  Since I was on my way to the landfill with a pickup load of garbage, it seemed acceptable at the time.

As usual, I was not disappointed by Beck's incessant deception, fabrication, and outright lying.  The bit of fake news that caught my attention was his rant about the MOAB.  He said with what I can only assume was his straight-faced crooked grin, that the Mother Of All Bombs - otherwise known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast - was priced at $314 million per unit.

Considering that a typical 1,000 bomb like the MK-83 goes for about $12,000 each, the MOAB which is essentially the same thing with more high explosive in a bigger container, should cost less per ISIS vaporized.  Sure enough, the real cost for a big-ass MOAB is only about $170,000.  Roughly 20 times less than Glenn Becks Fake statistic.

That guy is the Mother Of All Bullshit.

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

And Now; the Rest of the Story

The year was 1947.



Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little more than 69 years ago, numerous witnesses claim that an Unidentified Flying Object, (UFO), with five aliens aboard, crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well-known incident that many say has long been covered-up by the U.S. Air Force, as well as other Federal Agencies and Organizations.

However, what you may NOT know is that around the same time, the following people were born:

Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
William J. Clinton
John F. Kerry
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer
Joe Biden
This is the obvious consequence of aliens breeding with sheep and jack-asses. I truly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It certainly did for me. And now you can stop wondering why they support the bill to help all Illegal Aliens.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Personal Protection

A liberal friend asked me what I thought he might need in order to defend his home and family from home invasion.
 
I suggested a 9mm, a couple of clips, and a box of shells.
 
A few days later he sent me this picture and asked me how to make it all work.
 
 
 
 
He voted for Obama - twice.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Introducing the Uber-Partisan Supremes

Senators are merely Representatives with longer terms.  They bow and scrape to the mindless rabble that elected them based upon the jerking of knees and the frothing of mouths.

It has been just a little over 100 years since Senators have been directly elected by the proletariat, and even in that relatively short time, the tyranny of the mob has become de rigueur.

I propose that as a first step in the right direction (backwards), the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States be repealed forthwith.


puts it very nicely in this piece I stumbled upon this afternoon.

Predictably, Washington is losing its entire mind over a procedural vote in the Senate to lower the threshold for ending debate on the confirmations of Supreme Court justices.

Even the name, “nuclear option” has a gratifyingly apocalyptic vibe.

We know how we got here: tit-for-tat escalations stretching back for 40 years. Was it Democrats’ filibuster of Judge Neil Gorsuch? Yes. Was it Republicans’ blockade of a raft of Obama lower-court nominees? Yep. Was it the public humiliation of Clarence Thomas? You betcha. Was it the defeat of Robert Bork’s nomination? For sure.

But who cares about blame? Partisans rely on “he started it” arguments for almost everything they do, so trying to unravel who is exactly to blame is a pointless exercise. This ball has been rolling downhill for decades.

A reasonable person should wonder: “So what?” And they wouldn’t be wrong to think that all of this primate-house behavior in Washington doesn’t have much to do with real life or the real concerns of the people of the republic. Nuke or don’t nuke, the good people of Beech Bottom, W. Va. won’t be able to sense that much is different.

Buuuuttt…

We have often talked about how politics descends from culture, even though those of us in this world tend to believe it’s the other way around. If our politics are gross – and they surely are – they are still not the cause of the current cultural crisis in the United States, but rather its result.

Politicians are people too, and like most people, they will tend to do only the minimum that is required of them. That applies to standards of honor, patriotism, honesty and selflessness. We only get as good of a government as we demand.

The scoundrels and scallywags of previous generations would no doubt look upon their heirs in politics today and say “You kids have it made.” The amount of venal, dishonest, self-interested, shortsightedness that voters will tolerate today in the name of partisan victory would have made Teapot Dome but a teacup.

With today’s vote, the Senate takes another step toward undoing its original role as an upper chamber in the true sense of the term.

The Founders gave senators longer terms, a smaller chamber, equal representation among states and shielded them from direct election by voters in the hope that senators would elevate, restrict and refine the populist passions surging up from the House.

Starting with the Progressive Era change to elect senators directly, rather than by their states’ legislatures, we have gradually undone that vision.

The rule that was changed today, interestingly, was actually a rather belated attempt to restore some of the original function of the Senate, not part of the showroom model. Once, it took two-thirds of the Senate to advance legislation to a final vote and then it was the current three-fifths. And that won’t last long.

The threshold was lowered for lower court appointments and other presidential picks in 2013, now that includes the Supreme Court. One day, it will, assuredly, cover all legislation.

As one of that body’s most esteemed former members might have said, they are defining deviancy down…

The consequence of the current change, though, will be significant enough on its own. Resentments will deepen and chances for bipartisan cooperation will diminish. And the motivations that govern the selection of Supreme Court nominees will be radically altered.

Pity the poor judges who have spent decades of their lives meticulously avoiding the appearance of prejudice in all legal matters and avoiding ideological activism for the sake of remaining eligible for the Supreme Court.

The future belongs not to the Neil Gorsuches of the bench but to those individuals who are best able to stoke the strongest partisan sentiment when activist groups start militating for the – depending on who is president – farthest right or farthest left nominee possible.

The standard until today was to find a nominee who could attract bipartisan support and be viewed as broadly acceptable. Going forward, it will be all about a party’s base trying to force anxious moderates to accept the most hardline choice possible.

In time, that scorched-earth approach will make things worse at the court, too. It is helpful for the administration of justice when rank partisans try to appear otherwise. The phony politesse of judicial non-partisanship not only allows judges to reason together better but also gives an incentive for deference and decency.

By the time everybody has gotten to the court by having been the red-hot poker shoved up the backside of one party or the other by activist groups, those niceties will matter a great deal less. That change will be reflected in the conduct of the court, the predictability of its decisions on partisan lines and the esteem in which those decisions are held.

The Senate is getting to be more like the House, but so will the Supreme Court.

So, back to the good people of Beech Bottom, W. Va., and what this all has to do with them.

The Supreme Court is one of very few civic institutions that still counts for much with ordinary Americans. Respect for Congress, the presidency, organized religion, big business, education, the free press and just about everything other than the Easter Bunny, has tanked over the course of recent decades, but the high court has held on to much of its luster.

Polls consistently show that justices are in pretty rare air along with the two perennial favorites for public confidence: the military and small business.

That will change over time, and the court will descend that slippery slope down to where those folks without robes in the big building on the other side of 1st St., NE reside. It will take time, but the justices will be in the muck just like the members of Congress.

Perhaps you think this is fitting. After all, in many ways over the past two generations, the court has acted like a super legislature. If they are going to behave that way, maybe it’s good that justices live in the same partisan hellscape as their elected counterparts across the street.

What we lost today was another chunk of republican virtue. The aloof, apolitical, unelected Supreme Court is a key feature of our Framers’ plan, but the court is moving earthward at a faster pace now.

As it turns out, the expansion of direct democracy for Americans has been no picnic.

Once, voters only got to choose the members of the House, with the rest of their government chosen indirectly. Are we better off with a directly elected chief executive and Senate? Do you think they are more accountable? Do you think they are more responsible and diligent?

It is not a coincidence that the Supreme Court is more respected and that its members don’t seek the votes of their countrymen. Justices were supposed to meet the standards of an indirectly elected Senate and then place their duty strictly to the Constitution.

It is not hard to imagine the day when we will have both chambers of Congress directly elected, a president directly elected by a national popular vote and even elections for Supreme Court justices.

Proponents will argue that it will make these black-robed figures more accountable to the people. And ending lifetime appointments would be the next logical step since, after all, don’t we want these folks constantly pandering to the fickle demands of voters?

Whether they know it or not, ordinary Americans lost a little something today. It will take time for them to feel it, but they lost part of one of the remaining bulwarks against the tyranny of the mob.

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Teddy Roosevelt on Immigrants - When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.


The Immigration act of 1907 also barred these groups of wannabes:

All idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous; persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously; paupers; persons likely to become a public charge; professional beggars; persons afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease; persons not comprehended within any of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally or physically defective, such mental or physical defect being of a nature which may affect the ability of such alien to earn a living . . .



When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.



A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.


Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors" whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.


It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.

"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

"Blessed be Allah, it does!"

"Then you believe in polygamy?" asked Captain George Ellis.

"We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do," chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

"That settles it," said President Stump. "You won't do."

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Trump done in by Russian Dressing

White House press secretary Sean Spicer chided reporters on Tuesday for continuing to search for connections between President Trump and Russia.

“I’ve said it from the day that I got here, there is no connection,” a frustrated Spicer declared at Tuesday’s briefing.

“If the president puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that’s a Russian connection.”

Really this is not Fake News:  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/326155-spicer-if-trump-uses-russian-salad-dressing-somehow-thats-a-russian