Archive for February, 2013

Obama Threatens Bob Woodward

Posted by Troy on 28th February 2013 in Political

Bob Woodward had the gall to voice his disapproval of Obama’s handling of the sequestration.  Bob Woodward was sure to shield Obama as he begged for relieve from this.  Ya know, I shall  hope that I will be famous one day, just so I can get threats from the President and have fun smacking around opponents on TV and such.  Here’s what my reply would have been:

Oh no!!!!!  The big bad President is gonna make me sorry!  Oh nooooo!  What are you gonna do, put me on your kill list?  Drone me?  ooooo, I’s so scaaaaared!

Big talk from a nobody, I know, but they only have the power over you that you give me.  Laughing right in their face is the best defense, and feels so much better than quivering in your shoes?  Besides, if you’re living your life right, you can go on any day.  Because…really, you really could…

Long Live the Constitution!

Sequestration – A work of fiction

Posted by Troy on 27th February 2013 in Political

People have wanted to know why I haven’t commented on sequestration.  Here is the real reason:  It’s a lie.

Did you notice we “Went over the fiscal cliff?”

Nothing happened.

They are talking about cutting 2% of a trillion dollar budget.  Hell, if this is the only way we can agree to cut the debt, lets do it every year.

This is just political bullshit.  It doesn’t matter at all.  Obama is trying to demonize the Republicans in an attempt to gain total control in 2014 (and God help us if that happens).  That’s why the Left is pushing all kind of stuff with great names.  I am sure they will have the “Save Our Kids” act and the “Violence Against Women” (a real thing that undermines State’s sovereignty).  That way in 2014 they can say “Why did vote against saving kids’ lives and stopping violence against women, and the voters will be so out of touch they won’t know that “Save Our Kids” is an outright gun ban and the “Violence Against Women” act destroys states rights and turns several legal aspects on its head.

Here’s a tip: when anyone in the government is demanding immediate action or we will face total destruction: it is a trap.  If this was the case, it would get done, and Obama wouldn’t have had the time to play golf with Tiger.

That’s why I haven’t talked about sequestration.

Long Live the Constitution!

Are Nuclear Bombs Covered by the Second Amendment?

Posted by Troy on 26th February 2013 in Political

In variably, some moron Leftist will throw this question out during a debate, smug in the knowledge that they have won the debate by this catch 22 argument.  Amazingly, everyone on my side of the debate seems to be unable to answer this question correctly.  Here goes the typical transaction:

Crazy Leftist:  Are nuclear bombs covered by the Second Amendment?

Normal Person:  Of course not!  Don’t be asinine.

Crazy Leftist:  Well, you say that we need to defend ourselves against the government.  That’s the reason for the Second Amendment, right?  Soooo, why not?

Normal Person:  I”m not going to dignify that with a response.  If you can’t tell the difference between a gun and a nuke, you’re an idiot.

Now we can carry this argument out further, but it’s just variations of “hypocrite” and “idiot.”  So here is the official responses to this question:

1 – Oh?  You know a lot of people who are trying to buy nukes?  Last time I checked, those things are kinda on the pricey side.  So, this seems like a non-issue.

The response to this would be either “But hypothetically” or they would bring up rocket launchers and the like.  So, let’s move on to the real answer!

2 – Nuclear weapons and other heavy arms represents a clear and present danger to national security by a couple of means.  A man with an AR-15 or even a fully automatic M-16 can only do so much damage to himself or to his community either by accident or on purpose.  However, a man with a nuclear bomb can cause massive destruction.  It can destroy entire cities.  Even lessor explosives are capable of destroying public institutions such as military bases or power plants or a host of other soft targets.  An AR-15 accidentally going off might be bad.  A nuclear weapon going off is a catastrophe with far reaching implications.  Also, a populace possessing small arms is a deterrent to foreign powers.  Urban fighting is the bloodiest fighting, and doing so in a city the size of New York City if everyone had a gun would be literally impossible, even for a large, dedicated army.  However, should someone have the funds and desire necessary to purchase a nuclear bomb, they instantly become an appealing target for foreign powers.  Without the protective measures available to the government, a spy could detonate the bomb and also cause such mayhem.  The same could be said of RPG’s and other explosives which could be stolen and then used to shoot down planes.

Enjoy shooting people down with this argument.

Long Live the Constitution!

HR 347 – No Free Speech Zones

Posted by Troy on 25th February 2013 in Political

In 2012, Congress passed a law that grants the Secret Service the ability to declare “No Free Speech Zones” at any location they are present.  Since the President can assign the Secret Service to any location at any time, this effectively grants him the ability to shut down any speech he doesn’t approve.  This is explicitly intended to curb protests where the President is speaking.  Basically, at any point, the Secret Service can nullify your freedom of speech and arrest you on felony charges, throwing you in jail for up to a year.  For what?  For speaking your mind?  For saying something that offends the delicate sensibilities of the President?  This is draconian.  This is the infringement of speech merely on basis on content.  I have a feeling that Secret Service will not be arresting supporters.  Just a hunch.  So far, this law has not been abused.  To my knowledge, it has not been enforced.  However, this is a bad law.  Whenever a right can be overturned arbitrarily without due process of law, it is no longer a right.  You now have the privilege of speech.  They are also wanting to make the right to own a gun a privilege that you have to own a license and qualify to have.  Quartering of troops is passe and we don’t see it anymore.  We have had our protection from unlawful search and seizure and our right to trial taken away by the Patriot Act and Obama’s kill list.  What’s left exactly?  When are you going to stand up and say enough?

Long Live the Constitution!

The Lie: Socialism, Social Justice, Safety Net, and Income Inequality

Posted by Troy on 24th February 2013 in Writing

We are told that we need to have the Safety Net in place and that we need to look at Income Inequality and the unfairness of it all.  This is equated to morality.  In fact, the Godless on the Left would dare invoke Jesus Christ to promote their Socialist ideas and dress it up in the name of Social Justice.

Do not be fooled.  Jesus preached charity and generosity…but he also said that he who does not work shall not eat.

In this modern age, we have televisions, telephones, cell phones, cars, refrigerators, and a whole host of other things which are not necessary to life.  Jesus may wish for us to feed the poor, but I doubt he would command us to buy them cell phones.  In fact, he would probably chastise those who asked another to buy them cell phones.  I would even argue that he would view the voting of politicians that would seek to take from one group to give to another as a form of legalized theft.  Under no circumstance is Socialism in line with Christianity.  The “charity” of government confiscation and redistribution has nothing to do with real charity and has all the effects of destroying charity in the hearts of their populace.  If you don’t believe me, look at the rate of charitable givings from Europeans, those closest to our culture.  It’s pitiful.

Socialism is merely a design of divide and conquer.  Should you have the nerve and resilience to actually read the Communist Manifesto, you can see that all it amounts to is the typical brainwashing technique of demonizing.  It is the preaching of the superiority of the working class.  It is the proclamation that somehow the rich became rich by oppressing the much more numerous poor and tricking them into this schematic.  Every society in history has been more or less triangular.  There is a reason for this.  The superior rise to the top.  This is a mix of genetics, training, character, drive, skill, and a host of everything else (but mostly drive).  As these exceptional individuals rise, they raise others with them.  Imagine that there is a string attached to the middle of a thin rectangle representing the population as a whole.  As that string is pulled, a triangle forms.  As the triangle goes higher and higher, the base of the triangle becomes smaller and smaller.  The higher the ultra-wealthy is in a country, the more middle class you have and the less poor you have.  This is why America enjoyed prosperity like no other country has ever seen before.  This is only the case where free enterprise exists.  You see, when the ultra-rich are created using political power, no one is raised up with them.  This is because the rich in those countries are not made by the sweat of the brow or by genius of thought.  It is formed by confiscation of others, reducing all it touches.  Likewise, those attempts that strive to bring down the ultra-rich out of some sense of “social justice” only accomplish to lower others as well, broadening the base of that triangle and driving more and more people into poverty.  This effect is two fold in the case of socialism as rewarding those who do not work only encourages others not to work as well.  As Benjamin Franklin said, if you make poverty easy, you will have a lot more of it.

Social Justice is just another name for coveting.  It is the denial of immutable laws of right and wrong and serves to allow for theft by conscience.  If a man runs a stop sign and hits a small child, that man is responsible.  He should be the one to pay the costs for the child’s treatment.  It doesn’t matter if the man is a father of five and lives in poverty and the child’s parents are millionaires.  That being said, I am sure that Jesus would look kindly upon those parents if they allowed the other man to go free and covered the costs themselves, but this is an act of charity.  The other is an act of law.  Laws are about justice.  Charity can only be given by those who are in the position to grant it.  It cannot be taken by force from another.  Laws are only useful if they are consistent.  If they are not, then we are not a nation of laws but go groveling before every magistrate begging for their favor.  It’s a type of tyranny.  It is the tyranny of arbitration.

The Tenth Commandment is thou shalt not covet.  When you are concerned about income inequality, you are coveting.  You are justifying your legal theft, and why?  Because someone has it better than you.  You want what they have.  Check out Envy with Jack Black and Ben Stiller.  The middle class in America live better than at least 90% of the world’s population.  Even our poor lives better than the vast majority of the world.  I think we all want to ensure that people have food and shelter, but there are limits.  It is one thing to advocate some sort of homeless shelter which is more like a barracks and soup kitchens.  It is far different to advocate food stamps which can be used on sodas and processed foods and low income housing projects which gets more credits if it is made with niceties like hardwood floors, solar power, or other nifty things.  This is no longer charity.  This is legalized theft due to coveting while justified by the erroneous argument that it is charity.

This leads me to the safety net.  Yes, we all want a safety net to be there.  We would all like to know that we have a few weeks to find a different job if we lose our job.  However, this is a safety net, not a Sterns and Fosters mattress.  It should be terribly uncomfortable so that people would be motivated to find something better.  I can agree with a little while to find a job.  Six weeks maximum.  After that, the benefits should continue to decrease, even if it means that you are forced out of your house and you end up living elsewhere.  These apartments and food subsidies should be only what is required to preserve life and no more.  The food should be nourishing but tasteless.  The living quarters should be cramped without any way to watch television or other source of personal entertainment.  I would argue that all electrical devices should be hard wired so that there are no power outlets where someone can hook up televisions and computers etc.  If the safety net was structured in this format, no one would stay on assistance any longer than absolutely necessary.

And there you have it.  Socialism on moral grounds is a lie.

Long Live the Constitution!

My Retort to Ann Coulter on Libertarians

Posted by Troy on 22nd February 2013 in Political

I could go for some cheap shots, but I will deal with the actual issues.  Recently, Ann Coulter went on Stossel and mocked Libertarians.  I feel the need to respond to her.

1 – She endorses wars that are in our interest and proposes supporting insurgents.  My retort to this is: “Yeah, that’s always worked well for us.”  The sad fact of the matter is that every time we try to help insurgents, the forces we help take over and then hate us and work against us.  Need I remind people that we put Saddam into power and the current regime in Iran?  That was us.  How did it work out for us?  George Washington warned us to avoid unnecessary wars.   A better option would be for us to use our economic power and choose to buy products from a country.  Query, what would happen to China if we stopped buying goods from them?  We could get the same products from other countries.  They offer nothing to us that we can’t get elsewhere?  We’d destroy them.  Of course, now they can fight back due to having so much of our debt.  See what I mean?

2 – She claims that Libertarians try to suck up to Liberals by saying they want to legalize pot.  No.  That’s not it at all.  We just don’t believe that the government should be involved with this.  We spend billions of dollars fighting to get 10% of the drugs off the market.  These drugs fund gangs and cartels.  If it was legal, farmers in the South would be getting rich, not criminals.  You could tax it.  You could regulate it.  Also, no one that uses illegal drugs care if they are illegal.  I can prove that we would not turn into a nation of druggies.  You can get high sniffing glue.  We can all buy glue.  Do we all get high?  Same example with alcohol.  So the Libertarian argument is based on facts.  What is your argument based on exactly?  Also, what sense is it to send a user to jail for a year costing us $50,000+ a year?  Seriously.

3 – Gay marriage.  The federal government has no business in determining who can or cannot be married.  That is left up to the states.  I can prove that you agree that states and localities should be able to make this decision.  Do you think that a man should be able to marry his sister?  If you answer “Yes,” then all power to you, but you’ll probably say, “No.”  How is that different?  Because they would have offspring with health problems.  Well, so would diabetics, dwarves, and other people.  Do you really want to go into eugenics?  So finally, you end up with, “But I find it abhorrent.”  And there you go.  The communities you live in find it abhorrent, and thus illegal.  Of course, you could point out the ban of interracial marriages in the past (if there were any…don’t know that for sure), and I would have to agree, but over time, societies evolve, and these couples got the same credit as other couples.  My advice to gays wishing to marry?  Convince your communities that this is acceptable and do it at the state level.

4 – She wants to make divorce more difficult.  Why?  Because families are important.  Oh?  And forcing people to stay together is going to magically make them a good spouse or parent then?  This is the problem with her ilk.  They think they can legislate morality.  Forcing people to stay together doesn’t make that family a strong or a healthy family.  You need to improve your society to do that.

5 – I just want to deal with her premise about Socialism.  She has to show me one Libertarian that is pro-Socialism.  You can’t.  Libertarianism cannot exist with Socialism because Socialism demands high taxes and high control and high involvement with the government in your personal lives.  Libertarians will not agree to this.

Long Live the Constitution!

Snuff by Terry Pratchett

Posted by Troy on 22nd February 2013 in Entertainment

I’m a huge Pratchett fan.  Unfortunately, his last couple of books have disappointed me.  Snuff continues that tradition.  Past a couple of chuckles, there were no laughs in the book.  Usually, Pratchett lampoons some institution or describes something in real life.  What does he talk about?  Slavery.  We all pretty much agree on the evils of slavery.  It just didn’t accomplish anything.  The only point that it makes is that there must first be a crime before something can become a law and that something that is going on right now could change into a crime as you realize it is wrong.  Not the worst book I read, but I can’t recommend it.

Where the Republicans went wrong

Posted by Troy on 21st February 2013 in Current Events, Political

I’ve been thinking about why the Democrats have continued to beat Republicans despite the fact that the majority of their platform is contrary to the majority of Americans.  I think I finally figured out the answer.  It is because the Democratic party is the grab bag of passionate causes.

You want to help the environment?  Well, the Democrats will do that.

You want to ban guns/end gun violence?  Well, the Democrats will do that.

You want to women’s right?  The Democrats

Gay rights?  Democrats

Animal rights?  Democrats

Pornography?  Democrats

Legalized _______?  Democrats

Socialism?  Democrats

So forth so forth.  What do Republicans offer in exchange?  Low taxes?  Fiscal responsibility?  Personal responsibility?  Those aren’t sexy at all, are they?  There’s no “hot button” issue that the Republicans can lay claim to.  If you are for strong immigration control or traditional marriage, you get tarred and feathered as a racist or hate monger.  If you’re for a strong national defense, war monger.  If you’re against the Law of the Sea Treaty, fish monger.  So many mongers out there.  If you’re in for the whole bag, I guess you’re a mongrel monger.

I think that’s why you are starting to see a rise in the interest of Libertarianism.   Liberty is something you can be passionate about.  While I’m extremely passionate about the Constitution, it’s hard to get the young people to be passionate about it…until they comprehend that it is the truest path to real Liberty.  If the Republicans are to have any future, they will have to embrace this part of of their constituency.  Only a Libertarian can carry a national election (such as Ron or Rand Paul).  They need to run Conservatives in the South and Libertarians elsewhere if they are to have a shot.

Many would claim that Libertarians can exist on both sides of the aisle.  These people are fooling themselves.  A Libertarian can pull people that typically vote Democrat or Republican, but a Libertarian must, by definition, hate nearly every part of the Democratic agenda.  The Democratic Party is by nature a big government party.  They are for higher taxes, taking a bigger and bigger portion of the overall economy.  In exchange for this, more goods and services will be offered for “free” to the public.  The price of these “free” products is never ending servitude to the party as they can always take it away from you.  Once you’ve become dependent on these “benefits,” it’s very hard to give them up.  As such, you’ve become a little more than a slave.

Long Live the Constitution!

Gun Genie

Posted by Troy on 19th February 2013 in Current Events, Political

Question:  A liberal woman who has been promoting the banning of all guns is in her bedroom, and a rapist has just kicked in the front door.  A Genie appears before her.  He offers her two choices:  a 12 gauge shotgun or a cell phone to call the police.    Which do you think she will choose?  Of course, a gun control proponent would say, “Of course under those circumstances she would want a gun!”  But the thing is…you never know when or if that moment is ever going to happen.  If it does, it’s too late to arm yourself (Check out the Boar and the Fox Aesop fable).

Rosanne Barr actually came out and promoted women using guns to defend themselves from rapists.  I have to somehow reconcile myself to the unthinkable…that I agree with Rosanne about something!  Guns are a great equalizer.  I personally don’t know why any woman wouldn’t choose to have a gun which would level the playing field between a woman and a possible rapist.

Meanwhile, Joe Salazar and other Colorado Democrats don’t believe that women can be trusted to use a gun judiciously.  They recommend whistles, the buddy system, pepper spray, or judo.  Anyone that encourages a 110 pound woman to learn judo as a defense against a 200 pound rapist is a moron.  A well trained martial artist may defeat a much larger opponent…unless that opponent is also a skilled fighter or just tougher than they are.  At any rate, fighting is survival.  It’s not a game.  It’s kill or be killed.  If the girl loses, she gets raped or worse.  It would be doubtful that someone would be able to devote the time necessary to become skilled anyway.  An hour a week isn’t going to cut it.  The scenario Joe believes in, that women are going to go around killing men who are just trying to flirt with them, is asinine.  This rates up there with people who were outraged that Zimmerman didn’t take the beating from Trayvon Martin for a while before merely assuming that Trayvon was trying to kill him.  If a man had you pinned on the ground beating you in the face, how long do you think it would take you to pull the trigger?

I wonder if a big man was trying to rape Joe, how long it would take him before he was willing to use deadly force.

Long Live the Constitution!

“We’re not going to come take your guns away.” Yeah, suuuuure

Posted by Troy on 18th February 2013 in Current Events, Political

New York tried to pass a measure which would allow them to confiscate “assault weapons” from law abiding citizens.

California tried to pass a law that would allow them to confiscate “assault weapons” from law abiding citizens.

Missouri tried to pass a law that would allow them to confiscate “assault weapons” from law abiding citizens.

Now Washington (state) has tried to pass a law that would give them the right to come into the house of someone who legally owns an “assault weapon” and see if it is being stored properly.  I have a feeling, if it isn’t, that confiscation would be an option.

All of these measures have been put forth by Democrats.

In each time, Democrats claim to be shocked and ignorant that these provisions are in these bills.

Obama promised that he wasn’t going to come take your guns away.

Yeah, suuuuuuure.

Long Live the Constitution!