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.


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:

Friday, March 17, 2017

Be verrry verrry Quiet! The Russians are Listening.

OMG!  The Russians are hacking and wiretapping and bugging the USA!  What will become of US!

They have never done this before (or have they?)

It was almost 75 years ago when the Russians pulled off one of the most amazing and bold spying capers the world has ever uncovered.  They made a gift of an ingenious covert listening device to the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union.

The spying equipment was actually delivered by a group of Soviet Boy Scouts - Really - I'm not making this up!

The Ambassador placed the gadget on prominent display inside the US Embassy, where it remained to eavesdrop on the goings on for seven long years.  

Speak Directly into the Eagle, comrade.

What follows  is the amazing true story of spying with nothing much more than haywire, and tinfoil.  Imagine what can be done today with today's modern technology found in everything from televisions, to microwave ovens.
The man leaned over his creation, carefully assembling the tiny pieces. This was the hardest part, placing a thin silver plated diaphragm over the internal chamber. The diaphragm had to be strong enough to support itself, yet flexible enough to be affected by the slightest sound. One false move, and the device would be ruined. To fail meant a return to the road work detail, quite possibly a death sentence. Finally, the job was done. The man leaned back to admire his work.

The man was Lev Sergeyevich Termen, better known in the western world as Léon Theremin. You know Theremin for the musical instrument which bears his name. In the spy business though, he is known as the creator of one of the most successful clandestine listening devices ever used against the American government.


Theremin, the man, was a scientist by training. Theremin, the instrument, uses the player’s hand proximity to a pair of antennas to generate electronic sound. As a young student, Theremin was an aspiring physicist. World War One saw him enter military engineering school for radio operations. After the war, he worked on experiments as diverse as a device to measure the dielectric constant of gases and hypnosis. Léon even did work in Ivan Pavlov’s lab.

In 1920, while working on his dielectric measurement device, Theremin noticed that an audio oscillator changed frequency when he moved his hand near the circuit. The Theremin was born. In November of 1920 Léon gave his first public concert with the instrument. He began touring with it in the late 1920’s and in 1928, he brought the Theremin to the United States. He set up a lab in New York and worked with RCA to produce the instrument. 

Theremin and his musical Instrument
Theremin’s personal life during this period was less successful than his professional endeavors. His wife, Katia, had come to America with him and studied medicine at a school about 35 miles from the City. For much of this time, Léon and Katia lived apart, seeing each other only a couple of times a week. While at school, Katia became associated with a fascist organization. The Russian Consulate caught wind of this and summarily divorced Léon from Katia. They couldn’t risk their rising star being associated with the Nazis.

Theremin eventually remarried, this time to Lavinia Williams, a ballerina. Lavinia was African-American and the couple faced ridicule in American social circles due to their mixed race. However, the Soviet Consulate did not have a problem with their relationship. In 1938, with the Nazi threat growing stronger, Theremin returned to Russia. He expected to send for his wife a few weeks after his arrival. Unfortunately, that wasn’t to be the case. Léon and Lavinia never saw each other again.

Upon arrival in Leningrad, Theremin was imprisoned, suspected of crimes against the state. He found himself working in a laboratory for the state department. This was not an unusual situation. Aircraft designer Andrei Tupolev and missile designer Sergei Korolyov were two of many others who faced a similar fate.

It was during this time as a prisoner that Theremin designed his listening device. 

Passive microphone / transmitter listening device

Placing the bug

The date was August 4, 1945. The european war was over, and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was only two days away. A group of 10 to 15 year old boys from the Young Pioneer Organization of the Soviet Union arrived at the US embassy carrying a hand carved great seal of the United States of America. They presented the seal to W. Averell Harriman, the US ambassador to the Soviet Union. The seal was given as a gesture of friendship between the US and Soviet Union. Harriman hung the plaque in the study of his residence, Spaso House. Unbeknownst to Harriman, the seal contained Theremin’s sophisticated listening device. The device, later known as “The Thing”, would not be discovered until 1952 — roughly seven years later. 

Theremin's device inside of the Great Seal


The discovery of the great seal listening device is an interesting one

British broadcasters reported hearing American voices on the their radios in the vicinity of the American embassy. No Americans were transmitting though, which meant there had to be a bug. Numerous sweeps were performed, all of which turned up nothing. Joseph Bezjian had a hunch though. He stayed at the embassy pretending to be a house guest. His equipment was shipped in separately, disguised from Russian eyes. Powering up his equipment, Bezjian began a sweep of the building. With his receiver tuned to 1.6 GHz, he heard the bug’s audio, and quickly isolated the source in the great seal. Close inspection of the carving found it had been hollowed out, and a strange device placed behind the eagle’s beak. No batteries or wires were evident, and the device was not powered through the nail which had been hanging the seal. Bezjian removed the device from the great seal and was so cautious the he slept with it under his pillow that night for safe keeping. The next day he sent it back to Washington for analysis. 

Theory of Operation

The great seal bug quickly became known as “The Thing”. It was a passive resonant cavity device, containing no batteries or other power source. It consisted of an antenna and a small cylinder. One side of the cylinder was solid. The other side consisted of a very thin diaphragm, obviously some sort of microphone. Passive resonant cavities had been explored before, both in the US and abroad, but this is the first time we know of that was used for clandestine purposes. In his book Spycatcher, British operative Peter Wright claims that the US came to him for help determining how the device worked. However he is not mentioned in other accounts of Theremin’s bug.

Regardless of who figured out the device, the method of operation is devilishly simple. The Soviets would sit outside the embassy, either in another building or in a van. From this remote location they would aim a radio transmitter at the great seal. The bug inside would receive this signal and transmit voices in the room on a second, higher frequency. It did all of this with no standard internal components. No resistors, no tubes, no traditional capacitors, or the like. There were capacitive properties to the mechanism. For instance, a capacitor is formed between the diaphragm and the tuning peg of the device.

Receive tuning (if it can be called such) was achieved by the precisely cut antenna. The RF carrier transmitted by the Russians would be received at the antenna and travel into the body of the device which was a resonant cavity. That resonant chamber was capacatively coupled to the thin conductive diaphragm which formed the microphone.

Sound waves would cause the diaphragm to move, which would vary the capacitance between the body and diaphragm, forming a condenser microphone. It is important to note that the bug didn’t transmit and receive on the same frequency. According to Peter Wright, the excitation frequency used by the Russians was actually 800 MHz. The cavity would resonate at a multiple of this base frequency, producing the 1.6 GHz output seen by Bezjian.

While bugs of this type have fallen out of favor, the idea of “illuminating” a device with an external transmitter lives on.  Resonant cavities have found common use as well. Every microwave oven or radar system with a magnetron uses one. 

Henry Cabot Lodge Spilling the Beans on them pesky Russkies

A Political Pawn

The great seal bug disappeared for a number of years. The Russians knew we had caught them, and moved on to other espionage devices. It finally reappeared in 1960 at the United Nations. During the Gary Powers U2 incident, Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. presented the seal as concrete proof that Russia was spying on the Americans.

A replica of the great seal is on display at the NSA National Cryptologic Museum.


Theremin and Robert Moog

Léon Theremin was released from his camp in 1947. He married Maria Guschina. This time the state did not intervene, and the pair had two children. In 1964, Theremin became a professor at the Moscow Conservatory. He lost his job after an article published in the New York times was read by the assistant director of the conservatory. The assistant director stated “Electricity is not good for music; electricity is to be used for electrocution” before throwing Theremin and his instruments out of the establishment. Through the 1970’s, Theremin worked in Moscow University’s Department of Acoustics. While there he built a polyphonic version of his instrument. Stored in a back room, the instrument was looted for parts by students and professors. Meanwhile, Theremin’s instrument was returning to vogue in the western world. Electronic music was hot, spawned by instruments such as the MiniMoog, and the Arp Kitten.

Theremin finally visited the United States in 1992, reuniting with old friends. He performed in a concert at Stanford and was interviewed by Robert Moog, who considered him to be a hero of the electronic music world. After filling in many of the blanks of his story, Theremin asked Moog and co-interviewer Olivia Mattis to be responsible when writing up their story. “But if you write that I have said something; against the Soviet government and that I have said that it is better to work elsewhere, then I shall have difficulties back home [ironic laughter]”. Even then at the twilight of his life, with the fall of the Soviet Union underway, Theremin was still looking over his shoulder, worried about what the government might do if he offended them.

Theremin passed away in 1993. The unlikely master of this spy-gadget was 97 years old.

Always remember to forget the friends that proved untrue, but never forget to remember those that have stuck by you

Irish saying from 1934

In case you may be coming in after the latest rapid-fire "Smear Donald Trump" news cycle, the loony left is now saying some Nigerian poet wrote this ditty in 2001 and it was co-opted by President Trump.

This has got to be the most onerous example of fake news I've seen to date - however I am confident there will be many many more to come post-haste.

 Here is a more appropriate rendition:
Always remember to forget the FAKE NEWS that proved untrue, but never forget to remember there are few that have not lied to you

This particular bit is so easy to dissemble that only liberal-progressive mental midgets could possibly fall for it.

A cursory review of just about any search engine will reveal that this poem, proverb, saying, witticism, blessing, or whatever you'd like to call it, has been circulating for nearly 100 years.  It has been written in many books, printed in many newspapers, magazines, greeting cards, trinkets, placards, and other sundry publications.  It is most frequently attributed as being of Irish origin.

Is it any surprise that the crux of this biscuit is a claim from a Nigerian that he wrote it?  I wonder if that is the same Nigerian that just sent me an email advising that I am the recipient of 5 million USD and all I need to do is send him a 10-percent finders fee?

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Does anyone at CNN know how a cellphone works?

Russians "wiretapping"  Hillary Clinton's tin-can-telephone.

CNN wants us to believe that the term "wiretapping" only applies to land-line telephones.

In a literal sense, in order to have actual "wiretapping" a wire is needed. If we are to swallow what the maroons in the Media are peddling, that means cellphones, tablets, wi-fi, cannot be "wiretapped".

Furthermore, they seem to believe that telegrams are are cutting-edge communications technology

Geez Louise!

Here is a direct quote from CNN:
 "Wiretapping is a narrowly defined surveillance activity that involves tapping into "a telephone or telegram wire in order to get information,"

Did you see that?  TELEGRAM - They actually said TELEGRAM.

How many of those CNN reporters do you think are fluent in Morse Code?

Monday, March 13, 2017

When Children Were Subjects, Not Royalty

I recently asked a married couple who have three kids, none of whom are yet teens, “Who are the most important people in your family?”

Like all good moms and dads of this brave new millennium, they answered, “Our kids!”

“Why?” I then asked. “What is it about your kids that gives them that status?” And like all good moms and dads of this brave new millennium, they couldn’t answer the question other than to fumble with appeals to emotion.

So, I answered the question for them: “There is no reasonable thing that gives your children that status.”

I went on to point out that many if not most of the problems they’re having with their kids — typical stuff, these days — are the result of treating their children as if they, their marriage, and their family exist because of the kids when it is, in fact, the other way around. Their kids exist because of them and their marriage and thrive because they have created a stable family.

Furthermore, without them, their kids wouldn’t eat well, have the nice clothing they wear, live in the nice home in which they live, enjoy the great vacations they enjoy, and so on. Instead of lives that are relatively carefree (despite the drama to the contrary that they occasionally manufacture), their children would be living lives full of worry and want.

This issue is really the heart of the matter. People my age know it’s the heart of the matter because when we were kids it was clear to us that our parents were the most important people in our families. And that, right there, is why we respected our parents and that, right there, is why we looked up to adults in general. Yes, Virginia, once upon a time in the United States of America, children were second-class citizens, to their advantage.

It was also clear to us — I speak, of course, in general terms, albeit accurate — that our parents’ marriages were more important to them than their relationships with us. Therefore, we did not sleep in their beds or interrupt their conversations. The family meal, at home, was regarded as more important than after-school activities. Mom and Dad talked more — a lot more — with one another than they talked with you. For lack of pedestals, we emancipated earlier and much more successfully than have children since.

The most important person in an army is the general. The most important person in a corporation is the CEO. The most important person in a classroom is the teacher. And the most important person in a family are the parents.

The most important thing about children is the need to prepare them properly for responsible citizenship. The primary objective should not be raising a straight-A student who excels at three sports, earns a spot on the Olympic swim team, goes to an A-list university and becomes a prominent brain surgeon. The primary objective is to raise a child such that community and culture are strengthened.

“Our child is the most important person in our family” is the first step toward raising a child who feels entitled.

You don’t want that. Unbeknownst to your child, he doesn’t need that. And neither does America.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Great Britain does indeed still have a castle doctrine in practice, but it only comes in play if you own an actual castle

Our social fabric is dependent upon the policeman or the member of the armed services who has sworn an oath to the Constitution to defend us. Their very oaths imply the threat of gun violence. We may sleep secure in our bed at night or feel we can walk our streets in complete security. When we do so, it’s because some hard men and women watch silently and protect. Are we reduced to the place where we consider these men and woman morally bankrupt in comparison to the cubicle worker or the hairdresser who refuses to own a weapon? Is a mother who would defend her child morally inferior by definition?

The police aren’t always there. An old farmer in the remote Scot border country, a place with centuries of violent history, said once, “The police are thirty minutes away. In that thirty minutes, I am the only law.” This same farmer’s daughter, also a lawyer, explains, “Great Britain does indeed still have a castle doctrine in practice, but it only comes in play if you own an actual castle.”

Gun violence, any violence, is an amoral term. Before a violent act is judged as right or wrong, our legal tradition demands the circumstances be examined. If we say all violence is wrong, we’re accepting that an individual has no right to live and breathe, if someone, anyone, decides it’s time for him to die. If the individual has no right to physically contest anyone’s decision to end his life, then this individual can be said to be a creature of no rights. He only enjoys those privileges either the state or the more violent-prone individuals he encounters should choose to bestow in the moment. And, the state or individual who bestows these privileges can reclaim them at the whim of their choosing.

To say that the world would be better off if all citizens were disarmed is a sophisticated abstraction. The problem with any abstract concept is that all of us can’t grasp them. There are certain mathematical concepts I may never understand, but while I’m on the concept of mathematics, for those who proudly state they’ve lived their whole lives and never needed a gun, I’m in complete agreement. I agree you can never really need a gun but once when you don’t have it. A person has a right to decide he doesn’t want a gun, but when he takes it upon himself to make that same decision for me is there anything left I can decide for myself that is truly beyond his touch?

If the world is a better place without guns, the first thing I’d have to acknowledge would be that this better world would be a place without me. Without my guns, I would have starved, been killed by wild animals, or human predators. Is it so wrong that I’m glad to be alive? Can you not see the difficulty of such an abstraction for a person who lived when he might not have because he had a gun and knew how to use it?

found at:

Sunday, February 12, 2017

The City of Spokane says the Sheriff can't have a gun.

The pinnacle of lunacy in the arena of gun-free-zones

Here is a barf-inducing bit of gun-grabbing liberal bullshit.  The duly-elected Sheriff of Spokane County Washington was barred from entering the Spokane Arena – owned and operated by the City of Spokane – because he was on duty and carrying a gun.

No Guns for You!              

Really – I’m not kidding.  The local super-liberal “newspaper” reported on it yesterday:

For your viewing pleaeure, here is a direct quote from that story:

The no-weapons rule enacted at the Spokane Arena a few months ago snagged an unintended victim Saturday night – Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich.

Knezovich arrived at the arena for the Spokane law enforcement vs. Tri-Cities law enforcement charity event before the Spokane Chiefs hockey game when he was forced to disarm himself before going inside.

“They disarmed me at the door and I’m on duty,” he said. “I had to go put my gun in the car.”

Knezovich said he didn’t have time to argue because he had to get inside, though he plans to follow up with arena officials. “It was just a new level of insanity,” he said. “On-duty police officers do not get disarmed.”

Kevin Twohig, executive director of the Public Facilities District that operates the arena, said he couldn’t comment on the incident because he did not know what had happened. In general, on-duty officers in uniform are allowed to keep their guns, but officers not in uniform are not, he said.

“If they’re not in uniform how would we know they’re on duty?” he said.

Knezovich said he was wearing a suit with a badge on the lapel. The security staff recognized him and were apologetic, he said.  “This is atrocious.  Every year I go there. Every year I’ve been armed.”

Mind you, he is the Sheriff – not a deputy.  And he was on duty.  And he was wearing his badge.  And he was recognized by the Arena Employee that barred him from entry.

The Spokane County Sheriff’s department is a good-sized organization with hundreds and hundreds of sworn deputies, not to mention another gazillion administrative employees.  Ozzie Knezovich is probably the most recognizable person in the Spokane metro area.

In the State of Washington, the state constitution is crystal clear on the matter of keeping and bearing firearms.  Additionally, state law also prempts any City, town, county or other municipality from the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state.  ( )

Going even further, state law specifically exempts those possessing a valid concealed pistol license, or law enforcement personnel from portions of the state law that regulates firearms in publicly operated arenas and stadiums. 

However, since Washington State has been invaded by mush-for-brains liberals for the past few decades, it seems as though the law is no longer the law. The law, or policy, - or whatever the knuckleheads that run Spokane choose to call it - is clearly illegal and unconstitutional on a state level, not to mention a violation of the United States Constitution.

I myself have been barred from entry to this very same city-owned arena unless I was first disarmed after being forced to be wanded, patted down, and scanned by a full-body metal detector.

Just for chuckles, here is a link to the state law:

Oh yes – did I mention that the City of Spokane Washington is a Sanctuary City as codified by the Spokane Municipal code?

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Spokane: Sanctuary City Extraordinaire - I'm Moving.

Really - I'm not just bloviating like Hollywood snowflakes.  I've already bought a house outside of the city limits and can't wait to stop paying taxes to the maroons running the city of Spokane.

The most recent blatant exhibition of wasting the Taxpayer's hard earned dollars is this bit of lunacy:

Fearing Trump campaign promise, Spokane City Council votes 7-0 against religious registry

I'd write a synopsis, however I might upchuck on the keyboard.  I urge you to click on the link above and keep your barf-bag nearby.

Of course the local bubble-headed bleached blonde newscasters were all over the story with video of granola-munching tie-dyed and wild-eyed loons testifying at a long and drawn-out city council meeting.

They did get one thing right:  "Opponents accused Stuckart  (Spokane City Council President and leftest of the lefties) of grandstanding for political purposes and making a boogeyman out of President Donald Trump."

This comes only a few days after the elected overseers of Spokane declared that my soon-to-be-former city is not a sanctuary city.  In that vein, consider this:

Spokane Municipal Code Section 03.10.050 Immigrant Status Information:

Unless required by law or court order, no Spokane City officer or employee shall inquire into the immigration status of any person, or engage in activities designed to ascertain the immigration status of any person.

Spokane Police Department officers shall have reasonable suspicion to believe a person has been previously deported from the United States, is again present in the United States, and is committed or has committed a felony criminal-law violation before inquiring into the immigration status of an individual.

The Spokane Police Department shall not investigate, arrest, or detain an individual based solely on immigration status.

The Spokane Police Department shall maintain policies consistent with this section.

In essence, what this means is it is illegal for the police to even check on the immigration status of anyone, unless they find out if they have been previously deported and are in the act of committing a felony. However, since they are prohibited from looking into anyone's immigration status, that very thing is not possible . . . go figure.

Monday, January 30, 2017

No New Regs For You! (Unless you eliminate 2 Old regs first)

How many times have you heard this bit of political wisdom from your friends and neighbors. No new laws can be written unless two old laws are eliminated first.

The terms "wishful thinking" and "pie-in-the-sky" immediately come to mind. If the boneheads in Washington DC ever did something like this is would blow most folks minds.

Minds: Prepare to be blown!

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday aiming to do just that.

President Trump on Monday signed an executive order that would require agencies to revoke two regulations for every new rule they want to issue.

With the order, Trump followed through on repeated campaign promises to cut rules that he said hold back the economy.

How Were the "Muslim Ban" Countries Selected?

The answer is simple; Obama did it.

President Trump has come under fire for making good on a campaign promise and signing an executive order temporarily halting immigration or re-entries from several Middle Eastern countries where ISIS is known to operate, or that are known to be state sponsors of terrorism. Those countries include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya.

Earlier this week, left-wing outlets reported the restricted nations do not include those in which the Trump organization has ties, implying that countries like Saudi Arabia were omitted due to their business dealings with Trump.

There's just one problem with this line of reasoning: the Trump Administration did not choose which countries would be restricted.

As a matter of fact, if you read the executive order, the only nation mentioned by name is Syria. All nations affected by the executive order are referred to as "countries of concern", a list of six nations named in a 2016 law signed by President Obama concerning immigration Visas.

The Department of Homeland Security listed those nations in a press release in February of 2016:

The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.

Last month, the United States began implementing changes under the Act. The three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals.

So, did Donald Trump somehow influence the Department of Homeland Security to not include nations he did business with from the list...before he was even president?

Of course not. This was just another left-wing smear. The left was silent when President Obama banned Iraqi refugees for six months in 2011 due to concerns that the program was being used by terrorists to infiltrate the United States

It's also worth noting that there is no "Muslim ban", despite left-wing efforts to frame it as such.

The words "Muslim" or "Islamic" do not appear once in the executive order signed by President Trump. The order restricts entry from specific nations, and not on the basis of faith. This has been done by multiple presidents in the past, including Jimmy Carter in 1980, who invalidated the Visas of Iranians during the Iran Hostage Crisis.

Found at Hannity .com

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Oil and Steel: Obama Slammed on the Brakes, Trump is Greasing the Skids!

President Trump signed executive orders today to revive the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, which had been stalled by the Obama administration and snowflake environmental groups.

“We’re going to put a lot of … steel workers back to work,” Trump said. “We’ll build our own pipelines, we will build our own pipes.”

He signed other orders related to pipeline construction, including one expediting the environmental permitting process for infrastructure projects and one directing the Commerce Department to maximize the use of U.S. steel.

The moves on the pipelines had been widely expected, as Trump last year blasted his predecessor for effectively blocking the projects.

Republican allies hailed Tuesday’s orders, with House Speaker Paul Ryan saying in a statement, “It’s about time.”

North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer said: “Today’s executive orders affirm President Trump’s respect for the rule of law and his support for responsible infrastructure development, energy production and job creation.”

Former President Obama (remember him?) stopped the Keystone XL pipeline in 2015, declaring it would have undercut his legacy of destroying the American economy, while pretending to protect the environment.

The moves come as Trump makes the economy and jobs the centerpiece of his administration’s first week in office.

The pipelines were among the few issues that put the Obama administration at odds with labor unions, some of whom have voiced hope the Trump administration can work with them to promote job creation. Trump said Tuesday during his meeting with auto industry bosses that he considers himself an environmentalist, but called current regulations "out of control."

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Arm Yourself And Go In Peace.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people interact exclusively through reason, and persuasion; force is not required as a method of social interaction. The one thing that removes force from the equation is personal restraint by civilized and rational people.

When uncivilized people lacking personal restraint introduce themselves upon civilized society, methods other than reason and persuasion are often needed to counter the use of force by amoral barbarians.

As paradoxical as it may seem; a civilized person armed with a weapon of violence may be the only way to prevent the promulgation of violence and mayhem by the uncivilized. When a person is ready, willing, and able to defend themselves against violence with the threat of violence, peace and equity can prevail. Even an uncivilized barbarian must then bend to reason and persuasion as a matter of self preservation.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 200-pound rapist, a senior citizen on equal footing with a teenage gangbanger, and one gay man on equal footing with a carload of drunken rednecks. A gun can balance the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a civilized pacifist and an uncivilized aggressor.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Jullian Assange: Heel, Hero, Heel, Hero . . .

Depending on WHEN you ask, Julian Assange is either a Hero or a Heel.
Depending on WHO you ask, Jullian Assange is either a Heel or a Hero.

A very interesting facet to this topic is that material disseminated by Assange has rarely, if ever, been found to be anything but authentic.

Go Figure

TURD: Trump Unacceptance & Resistance Disorder

Do You Know Someone Suffering From Trump Unacceptance & Resistance Disorder (TURD)?

TURD is a pattern of pathologically dissociative and psychotic behavior, first observed in the late hours of November 8th 2016, and increasing in severity with passing time.

Sufferers of TURD often exhibit pronounced cognitive dissonance, sudden bouts of rage, rioting and uncontrollable crying.

People with TURD are characterized by a persistent unwillingness to accept that Donald Trump is going to Make America Great Again.

TURD Is caused by the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America. For many, both in America and worldwide, this was a shocking and unexpected outcome; their preferred news sources having failed to inform them that the alternative candidate was a criminal parasite in such ill health she got chucked into the back of a van like a kidnap victim.

Research is ongoing, but TURD appears to correlate closely with the following environmental and behavioral factors:
  • Membership in the Democratic Party
  • Identifying as a feminist
  • Currently enrolled in college, and/or possession of a Liberal Arts college degree
  • Living in a densely populated metropolitan area
  • Massive government insured student debt 
  • Spotty or non-existent work history

Patients with TURD are very resistant to treatment, and dangerous in large groups. Any possibility of treatment requires that they be separated from their hive-mind support apparatus; they cannot begin the process of accepting reality in the presence of encouragement towards delusion and irrationality. Separation may require the assistance of law enforcement.

If you have a friend or loved one suffering from TURD, urge them to seek treatment. Together we can flush this scourge.

Monday, January 9, 2017

Only Six Places in the USA Ban Guns At Airports

Yep.  that headline is correct.  Only six states allow the banning of guns by licensed gun owners at airports.

Guess what?  The Ft. Lauderdale Airport is one of those places.  Estaban Santiago chose that Gun Free Zone airport as his target of opportunity.

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

A Fudd's Delight

What is a Fudd, you ask?

Fudd is a derogatory term given to those that favor gun control, as long as it only controls the guns of others.
A "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so called "non sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.

If a Fudd had one of these mallard-sucking Rowenta Vacuums, he would probably turn in his shotgun, and then insist that nobody else needs a shotgun to hunt ducks either.