Truth Justice and the American Way?

The leftist media including the leftist at politifact miss the mark yet again!

Does it matter what the source?  Nixon a champion of progressives was run out on a rail based on an anonymous source named after a porno movie. “Deep Throat”  Remember that Nixon was drummed out of office for covering up a break in that he had no knowledge of at the time, he found out about it after the fact and covered up for his so called allies.  He deleted less then 20 minutes of tape and covered for his friends as opposed to 30K plus emails, and the left wing media pounced on it with a feeding frenzy with out looking into the source.  Jump ahead about 50 years and they now commit ad hominem and attack the source without looking into the facts.  Politifact’s headlines read:

Hillary Clinton blames high-up Russians for WikiLeaks releases

Our ruling

Clinton said, “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”

We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election.

We rate Clinton’s statement True.

While it may be true that the Russians were behind the so called leaks, but given the fact that the intelligence agencies are under the control of the democrat party and Barack Obama we may never know the truth.  The real question is why has not the leftist media ruled on the leaks themselves.  The leaks show massive corruption on the part of the Clinton’s and the democrat party.  Instead of an ad hominem attack on the source, should they not look into the allegations themselves and rule on those facts?  Or does the left wing media only look into the facts when it suits their agenda?  I along with most honest American’s want to know if that which was leaked by Wikileaks was true, we don’t care where the leak came from, but we do care if the allegations are true, for if they are they show a threat to our country that far exceeds that of a foreign country (even Russia) that is a greater threat to our country and our freedom.  She would be the leader of our country and not an outside influence leaking the truth.  So come on “Politifact”  Check the facts, are the allegations made by  Wikileaks true or not?  Your lack of reporting one that speaks volumes.  Far louder then the claims made by Wikileaks,  Remember it was those same agencies that claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  You have lost all credibility when you bash those agencies in that instance and deny it in another.  So man up and give us the real facts!



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fact Checking the Last Presidential Debate (a Libertarian Perspective)

The liberal bias of the so called fact checkers is blatant and obvious and time for people to do a little fact checking of their own.

On the second amendment.  Donald Trump.

“We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments. But the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now.”


Hillary Clinton.

Chris Wallace said

“Secretary Clinton, you said last year — and let me quote, The Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment. And now in fact, in the 2008 Heller case, the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms but a right that is reasonably limited. Those were the words of the judge Antonin Scalia who wrote the decision. What’s wrong with that?

Hillary Clinton said.

“You mentioned the Heller decision and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment. “


No Heller had nothing to do with children, nothing!  Washington DC had a total ban on handguns unless you had a permit and refused to issue permits, and even if you could obtain one it would have to be kept in a non functioning state rendering it useless for self defense purposes.

“District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. ”

Townhall did an excellent piece on the subject.

On the Supreme court.



“Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, welcome. Let’s get right to it. The first topic is the Supreme Court. We — you both talk briefly about the court in the last debate, but I want to drill down on this because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely — or possibly – two or three appointments which means that you will in effect determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century. First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Is — do the founders words mean what they say, or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances? In this segment, Secretary Clinton, you go first. You have two minutes. ”

“Thank you very much, Chris. And thank you UNLV for hosting us. You know, at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system. I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United — we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace. That we stand up and basically say — the Supreme Court should represent all of us. ” 

“We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments. But the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it’s absolutely important that we uphold because of the fact that it is under such trauma. I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint– and I’ve named 20 of them. The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they are people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted. And I believe that’s very, very important. I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear It’s all about the Constitution of — and so important — the Constitution, the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint. ”


Hillary avoided the question all together, she engaged in the appeal to emotion fallacy. But her words were telling.  She said “But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United — we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace. That we stand up and basically say — the Supreme Court should represent all of us. “.  It is not the role of the supreme court to represent anybody, nor is it the role of the supreme court to inflict one groups morals or to pick winners or losers.  It is the role of the court to ensure all “FEDERAL LAWS” conform to the constitution.  PERIOD!  Where Trump got it right, ““We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments.“, and that’s where he should have stopped.  It is not the role of the courts to decide national morals or dictate what the states must or can’t allow unless it’s specified by the constitution per the 10th amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is a fact that was even admitted to by then Senator Obama.

To advocate anything else is in and of itself a violation of the Constitution.  Hillary implying that the courts got it wrong in “Citizens United”  Is flat out wrong, I wrote about it on another blog.   If anything a politician promising to do anything “for you or give you anything” should be considered a bribe.


This is a fact that is ignored by the modern left, who promises more and more free stuff at the expense of the economy and the national debt and of course a class of people that the modern left demonizes.  Again Hillary’s words not mine.

“And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.”

No Mrs Clinton, the supreme court needs to stand on the Constitution, and stand for the rights of the individual, not a class, gender or race.  Period!



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

First Presidential Debate, What the Fact Checkers aren’t checking.

As a (l)ibertarian I have no love for either candidate but the so called fact checkers aren’t checking anything, they are just showing their leftist bias.  I think the funniest shot was on the so called equal pay scheme.

Really Hillary?  No one deserves equal pay unless they do equal work.  Why is that such a hard concept to understand?  Of course equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963.  So this is just more of the modern left’s victim class warfare. And the myth that women are payed less has been debunked more times then I care to mention.

Give Women Unfair Advantages, Or Else

But is equal pay for equal work fair enough for the feminist? Of course not. Many would go further and claim that society as a whole should financially reward women’s personal preferences just as much as men’s by giving equal pay for unequal work. Maybe women are inclined to make different choices than men, but that just means our culture must be re-engineered so women can follow their inclinations without any financial sacrifice. To do any less would be to undervalue women’s choices in comparison to men’s.

The second one is the Trickle down lie that the left has been perpetrating for decades. Except there never was such a thing as “Trickle Down Economics”  Never!

Real economist like Steven Horwitz and Thomas Sowell totally debunked the myth.

Steven Horwitz writes.

“The problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Critics of the market should take up the challenge of finding an economist who argues something like “giving things to group A is a good idea because they will then trickle down to group B.” I submit they will fail in finding one because such a person does not exist. Plus, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the whole argument is silly: why not just give whatever the things are to group B directly and eliminate the middleman? . . .

General Prosperity

Government doesn’t “give” us tax refunds; it simply refrains from taking more of what we created.What the critics will find, if they choose to look, is many economists who argue that allowing everyone to pursue all the opportunities they can in the marketplace, with the minimal level of taxation and regulation, will create generalized prosperity. The value of cutting taxes is not just cutting them for higher income groups, but for everyone. Letting everyone keep more of the value they create through exchange means that everyone has more incentive to create such value in the first place, whether it’s through the ownership of capital or finding new uses for one’s labor.”

And Thomas Sowell writes,

“While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little, tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the “trickle-down” lie is 100 percent lie. It should win the contest both because of its purity — no contaminating speck of truth — and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given. . . . Let’s do something completely unexpected: Let’s stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we “give” something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place. . . .One of the things that provoke the Left into bringing out the “trickle-down” bogeyman is any suggestion that there are limits to how high they can push tax rates on people with high incomes, without causing repercussions that hurt the economy as a whole.”

What you see is the typical leftist “victim class” mentality.  Create groups of victims and promise them free stuff at someone else’s expense.  So how’s that trickle down government working out for you?  The government eats a lager and larger piece of the pie and what do we have for it?  Again I’m no fan of Trumps but he is right about one thing.  We are twenty trillion dollars in debt and have nothing to show for it.  Nothing!  Our infrastructure is crumbling and the best the left can do is attempt to bribe voters with the promise of yet more free stuff?

Would anyone here call JFK a “Trickle down nut?”  From his speech in 1962.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The Government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances–two essential parts of our first step in tax revision which amounted to a 10 percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth $2.5 billion. . . . In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

And taxes are only part of the equation. When Kennedy made that speech most of the regulatory agencies that exist today did not exist then, and the few that did, did not have the power and scope that they have today.  The cost of the regulations on American business is higher then all of the economies of the world save nine.  From CEI.

After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world. . . . Compiling reports of compliance costs from various government agencies and outside sources, author Clyde Wayne Crews found that the “regulation tax” imposed on the economy now tops $1.86 trillion.
By comparison, Canada’s entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India’s is $1.84 trillion.

The problem, Crews notes, is that the combined cost of this “tax” never shows up anywhere in the federal budget — or any other official report — even though it is now bigger than individual and corporate income taxes combined.”

Far more people see the real problem “Big Government” then support either Clinton or Trump yet neither want’s to attack the real problem.

“WASHINGTON, D.C. — When asked to choose among big government, big labor and big business, Americans overwhelmingly name big government as the biggest threat to the country in the future. The 69% choosing big government is down slightly from a high of 72% in 2013, the last time Gallup asked the question, but is still one of the highest percentages choosing big government in Gallup’s 50-year trend.”

It’s time we take our country back and quit listening to the promise of all the free stuff in exchange for votes.  They use to call that a bribe!

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State, Presidential Debate | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Progressive Libertarian aka a Liberal Pretending Not to be.

I make no excuses for my fight in the name of liberty, I am and always have been a Goldwater (l)ibertarian.

Freedom is not a form of populism (democracy) where the majority gets to impose it’s will on the minority.  It is the right of the individual to “pursue their happiness” without government interference. Even the right to be a total asshole. But more on that latter. Everyone who knows me knows I am very active in the freedom movement, trying to restore the “Constitutional Republic” we once were.  So in one of facebooks political forms  (Free For All Partisan Brawl) I posted the following Democrats push Obamacare ‘public option’ after two thirds of health co-ops fail, with the comment that the modern left was doubling down on stupid. Of course I was bombarded with the typical leftist crap about how I hated minorities and poor people blah blah blah.  I was shocked when a so called libertarian chimed in saying I was indoctrinated and didn’t have a clue.  He was pushing “medicare for all” of course I assumed he was one of those “Libertarian Socialist” To which he said absolutely not, he was not a socialist.  He also believes in the welfare state, but he believes that it should be run by the private sector through “government grants”. His words:

This is why I’ve identified myself as a “progressive libertarian”. I believe in free markets, free and open government, and free society. Social welfare should be provided through a free market, and government should secure access to that market through direct subsidy. Programs like food stamps, tuition vouchers, Medicare and even Section 8 housing aren’t “socialism”, they’re simply good ideas (in principle)

A Progressive Libertarian believes that, in order to preserve and secure individual rights, government has an obligation to assist people directly–to respond to disasters, to minimize pollution, to prevent starvation and homelessness, to guarantee our health, education and general welfare.”

On his personal web page he writes:

I am not an anarchist, and I most certainly believe that democratic government is better than serfdom.

 In this sense, I am also a progressive.  In order for markets to be truly “free”, they must be secured.  Civil protection, infrastructure and social welfare are primary considerations of government spending.
To finance government, a debt-free currency controlled by Congress alone would free our nation from the current plutocracy.  And while I support a “tax shift” away from labor and toward land, pollution and severance taxes, I would demand that any income tax be Simple and Fair.
We don’t need less government, we need better government!

I pointed out the fallacies of his arguments. that the only way to achieve those goals was in fact limited government found in the founders “constitutional republic” and asked who these angels were that were going to create this imaginary “better government”. I pointed to Milton Friedman taking down Donahue with his “greed comments”

He immediately dismissed Milton as an extreamist “neoliberal who promoted state capitalism”  Ignoring the fact that we got to where we are because of  “crony capitalism” and that subsidizing private welfare would end up the same corruption as the so called subsidies would go to political allies just as the corporate subsidies and regulations do.  In a sense in one of his writings he admits as much.

“Let’s get real here. There are powerful, political forces that run our government. These can be viewed as pro-Corporation and pro-Bureaucracy. The final result of right-wing discourse is to support state capitalism. The final result of left-wing discourse is to support state bureaucracy. We need a third option, and it’s not going to come from “conservatism”.

To the common television viewer, the word “progressive” implies policies that would help average, everyday people… that a good government is one that “cares” about you. The final result, however, is to garner public support and acceptance of more bureaucracy.

But there’s a downside to bureaucracy, in both form and function. How many regulators go off to private jobs in the industries they were supposed to regulate? MMS? Dept. of Interior? We’ve all heard the stories. We call it “corruption”. And this corruption is implicit. State bureaucracy and state capitalism are two sides of the same coin. They both claim to care about you, but in the end they only care about themselves.

Well thank you Vernon L. Etzel for proving Milton’s point.

But again you are wrong. The limited government crafted by the founders forbade the government from creating a “state capitalist” society (fascism) and as usual you are wrong.  That was the progressive “third way” crafted by socialist.

When I told him that I was and am a Goldwater (l)ibertarian he immediately started with the racism comments, as Goldwater opposed the “public accommodations” portion of the civil rights act on constitutional grounds.  Goldwater was right and those who passed it were wrong.  The Jim Crow laws violated the same constitution that the public accommodations portion of the civil rights act.  Namely freedom of association (first amendment). And regulatory taking of private property for public use (fifth amendment). Further I stated that forcing anyone to work for someone else against their will was and is involuntary servitude (slavery). I don’t think in today’s America that there would be very many people who would patronize a business that was blatantly racist. And that’s not the point.  The point is that the whole idea of the constitutional republic was to protect the minority faction from the tyranny of the majority.  The bill of rights was not written to protect a populist view.  It was to protect the minority from the majority.  It protects individual rights, even the right to be a total asshole. Case and point. I defend this total POS’s right to freedom of speech and would defend it to the death. But if he were a businessman in the restaurant business I would not step foot nor give him any of my business.

So why would any rational black person demand David Duke prepare them a meal knowing he hates their guts?  Why do gays demand christian bakers or photographers demand the government force them to work for them. The founders fought for freedom from government force.  It’s as simple as that.  From the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Read those words, pursuit of Happiness, free from government force.  Not forced acceptance,  you’re free to pursue happiness.  That’s no guarantee you will achieve it or that it will be accepted by society. That’s up to the individual to decide, not the government, at least not in a free society.  Not to mention that the whole concept of “protected class” flies in the face of equal protection and smacks of Orwellianism, from animal farm:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

In the case above King Samir Shabazz called on blacks to kill some crackers. He is obviously a racist. But if he was a white racist intimidating voters with a club, he would have been jailed. Either you believe in equal protection under the law.  Or you don’t believe in equality. Protected class is not equality. It grants the protected group more rights. Not to mention we have seen the regulatory taking lifted to a new level in the modern progressive era. We see smokers treated with the same Jim Crow type laws and progressive Eric Holder boasting about how the same tactics ought to be used against gun owners.

Is that freedom?

Now the same fascist/progressives call on jailing “global warming deniers”

I could go on for hours on how the modern left and especially the “progressives” of all stripes are anti-freedom. But the final straw with pseudo-libertarian Vernon L. Etzel was when he made the claim that the founders were “progressive libertarians” who believed in democracy. I of course laughed. and said there was nothing progressive about them and cited Benjamin Franklin’s take down of the welfare state. With which he shot back then why did Jefferson and Madison call their party the Democrat Republican party. I quickly pointed out that Jefferson would be abhorred by the progressive taxes and the sin taxes in the name of social engineering. He also was ardently against any form of double taxation. And no where in either the Declaration of Independence or the constitution were the words democracy even uttered.  As a matter of fact most of the founders including Madison were against democracy as it was the “tyranny of the majority” and stated the only cure against such tyranny was in republicanism as he wrote in federalist 10. 

I was immediately blocked.  How tolerant of him and how typical for a progressive.

Posted in Libertarian | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Modern Left, an Attack on Freedom

Today a fellow Patriot posted on her facebook wall.

Sent to me FROM A BLOGGER FRIEND. I told him to publish it:

Irish Rogue’s take on 2A:

Gun ownersAnother shooting has happened in Orlando, and with that the gun control debate has re-ignited. I’ve heard many debates for and against gun control and it has compelled me to give my little weigh-in on the subject.

Today I’m going to fixate on what I call the “context” debate. The context debate tends to focus on the guns of the time, the single shot, undependable, difficult-to-aim musket. For starters, the musket of 1789 was considered just as deadly by the people of the time as the AR-15 is considered today. The men who wrote the Bill of Rights wrote the 2nd Amendment thinking about the deadliest weapon in the world. Considering the fact that there will always be “The deadliest weapon in the world”, then technically the 2nd Amendment is timeless.

But those are the technicalities. That debate is exhausting and futile, it’s a rabbit’s hole. We can argue about the number of rounds in a magazine, automatic, semi-automatic, and caliber until the end of days. We can ban all guns, and a lunatic with murder on his mind will still figure out how to get a gun and murder.
Music comes from musicians, the instrument is just that, an instrument. Murder comes from murderers, the gun is simply the instrument. The debate must be focused on the murderer, not the instrument, the murderer will always find a way to murder, especially if we continue focusing on the instruments.

Now…back to the context debate. Let’s go back to 1789. The United States is still incredibly young, it still has that “New Country” smell, which is a mixture of blood, sweat, tears and gunpowder. The United States was born out of revolution, and guns were the contractions of the labor that resulted in that birth.
The founders were smartly aware of the dangers of an oppressive government, they were smartly aware of what can happen when a government becomes too oppressive, they understood that simply promising to not be oppressive was not enough for anyone, especially for a people who were still licking their wounds and building their new lives, so the Founders backed up that promise with an agreement known as the 2nd Amendment.

When I read the 2nd Amendment, this is what I am reading, “We revolted against an oppressive government, guns were required for this revolution. Now you are trusting us to form a government that will not oppress, that will respect your newly found freedom, and to respect it until the end of time. We promise to never take away your guns. We promise we will never take away your ability to overthrow us, to have another revolution if that’s what we deserve.”

The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate show of respect for our fellow citizens and our country. For that reason, I will always oppose anyone who threatens to weaken the 2nd Amendment, or any of our first ten Amendments for that matter.

“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”

-Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to James Madison, 1787

It’s sad that this blogger is afraid to speak his or her mind because they live in the “People’s Republic of Madison”  The blogger is correct though, in fact it probably should be the first amendment as it is the amendment that protects the constitution and all of the other amendments. But let’s put the second amendment in proper perspective.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For that we need a little historical perspective.

From the debates on the ratification of the Constitution.

Guns founding fathers“Mr. George Mason. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member [Volume 4, Page 567] has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. “

Indeed that was the case. During the Revolutionary War it was local militia’s that kept the enemies at bay until the Regulars (Army) could get there.  They were armed citizens (armed with their own weapons and ammunition).

Here’s George Washington speaking on how the over use of militias was effecting the food supplies.

“The frequent calls upon the militia have interrupted the cultivation of the Land, and of course have lessened the quantity of its produce, occasioned a scarcity, and enhanced the prices. In an army so unstable as ours, order and economy have been impracticable. No person, who has been a close observer of the progress of our affairs, can doubt that our currency has depreciated without comparison more rapidly from the system of short enlistments, than it would have done otherwise.”

Again militia’s were armed local people as can be seen by this extensive list of militias who fought in the Revolutionary war.  If the leftist were correct in saying that they meant the National Guard there would have only been 13 militias.  That was not the case. As a matter of fact throughout history our people have always been responsible for their own defense. Even local law enforcement relied on Posses to help keep the peace.

Posse Comitatus

[Latin, Power of the county.] Referred at Common Law to all males over the age of fifteen on whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder.

This can be clearly shown by when the James Gang tried to rob a bank in Northfield, Minnesota.

“The citizens of Northfield ran to surround the bank and mercilessly shot down the robbers as they tried to escape. A 19-year-old medical student killed one gang member, Clell Miller, while the owner of the Northfield hardware store mortally wounded Bill Chadwell, peppering his body with bullets from a rapid-firing Remington repeater rifle. Jesse’s brother, Frank, was hit in the leg, while their criminal partners–Jim, Cole, and Bob Younger–were also badly wounded.”

It was not until the progressive era that the government should take care of us and that they and only they had the wisdom how to do it best.  But what’s even funnier is the fact that at every turn the so called liberals bash the police force and depict them as racist murders out of one side of their mouth while out of the other they make the claim that only the police should be armed.  But this hypocrisy shows up in all of their policies but I digress.

CorporationsThe real problem with the police forces is not that they are incapable. It is the fact that they are no longer there to “Protect and Serve” as apparent by the removal of that slogan from most police cars.  They are the collection arm of state and local governments and at the mercy of their handlers.  As was apparent during the “Black Lies Matters” protest where massive burning and looting took place and the police were told to stand down as the Politicians (the polices handlers) were afraid of the political fallout.  Of course Milton Friedman was talking about monetary greed in this piece but the concept still holds.


Any one that has followed me or read my blogs knows  that I’m no fan of Donald Trump and will not vote for him, but his supporters were attacked by a leftist mob while the government police force stood by and did nothing.

But this just reinforces the immoral words of Ronald Reagan.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Thankfully there are those in law enforcement who are willing to speak the truth.  And the truth is that in spite of leftist rhetoric, your defense is not only your responsibility, it is your right.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rebuttal Daily Kos “Socialism, fascism, and other philosophies conservatives don’t understand”

The leftist rag the KOS is usually wrong but on  this one they’re not even close.  The start out with the leftist version of the political spectrum. From the article.

“Fascism is usually placed on the far right within the traditional left/right political spectrum.”

The author obviously doesn’t have a clue about the origins of the political spectrum.

Historical origin of the terms

The terms “Right” and “Left” refer to political affiliations which originated early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime (“old order”). “The Right” thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while “The Left” implied support for republicanism, secularism, and civil liberties.[4] Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original “Left” represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class (with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist Gracchus Babeuf). Support for laissez-faire capitalism and free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left, because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy

 So actually it was totalitarianism on the right and and freedom on the left.  Of course the modern left has flipped sides on that one as the support a strong overbearing central government. A more correct depiction of the left right political spectrum would be this one.


The author got part of Fascism correct but only part.

Fascism: What is it? Think Mussolini—he is the poster child for what a fascist is. While he started out as a socialist, he did not stay one, denouncing socialism in December 1914. The formal definition of fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Well Mussolini never denounced socialism, he and a few other Syndicalist socialist were booted from the party for wanting to use WWI to further the cause of socialism.

Impassioned Socialist

In 1902, Benito Mussolini moved to Switzerland to promote socialism, and quickly gained a reputation for his magnetism and remarkable rhetorical talents. While engaging in political demonstrations, he caught the attention of Swiss authorities and was eventually expelled from the country. In 1904, Mussolini returned to Italy and continued promoting a socialist agenda. He was briefly imprisoned and, upon release, became editor of the organization’s newspaper, Avanti (meaning “Forward”), which gave him a larger megaphone and expanded his influence.

The Break with Socialism and Rise to Power

Mussolini initially condemned Italy’s entry into World War I, but soon saw the war as an opportunity for his country to become a great power. His change in attitude broke ties with fellow socialists, however, and he was expelled from the organization. He joined the Italian army in 1915 and fought on the front lines, reaching the rank of corporal before being wounded and discharged from the military.

After the war, Mussolini resumed his political activities, criticizing the Italian government for weakness at the Treaty of Versailles. He organized several right-wing groups into a single force and, in March 1919, formed the Fascist Party—the movement proclaimed opposition to social class discrimination and supported nationalist sentiments, hoping to raise Italy to levels of its great Roman past.

Sounds an awful lot like the roots of Progressivism. Like the progressive movement Mussolini blended Syndicalist (Socialism) with nationalism. As one of the early progressive’s Herbert David Croly.

“Croly was one of the founders of modern liberalism in the United States, especially through his books, essays, and a highly influential magazine founded in 1914, The New Republic. In his 1914 book Progressive Democracy,Croly rejected the thesis that the liberal tradition in the United States was inhospitable to anti-capitalist alternatives. He drew from the American past a history of resistance to capitalist wage relations that was fundamentally liberal, and he reclaimed an idea that Progressives had allowed to lapse – that working for wages was a lesser form of liberty. Increasingly skeptical of the capacity ofsocial welfare legislation to remedy social ills, Croly argued that America’s liberal promise could be redeemed only by syndicalist reforms involving workplace democracy.”

As a matter of fact progressive Teddy Roosevelt gave a speech on this blending of syndicalist (socialism) and nationalism in his “New Nationalism” speech over 100 years ago.  As a matter of fact Mussolini’s actions were highly praised by the left in America.

Economist and Historian Thomas Sowell has written on the subject.

“It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a “socialist.” He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama’s point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous — something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the “greed” of the insurance companies.

The same principle, or lack of principle, applies to many other privately owned businesses. It is a very successful political ploy that can be adapted to all sorts of situations.One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely — and correctly — regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book “Liberal Fascism” cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s.Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.”

As a matter of fact fascism is socialism with the illusion of private ownership.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.”

No one could ever put it as eloquently as Ronald Reagan.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Gone Bomb Thrower

A colloquial term used to describe people who stir up trouble, whether because of a legitimate grievance or simply because they are trolling. Specifically this term is used when someone posts a single item that plays to peoples passions so much that in its wake a massive discussion occurs, and controversy can still linger years later.

We all have some so called liberal friends who constantly post on facebook from their favorite leftist propaganda sites, The Daily KOS, Thinkprogress,Beer Party etc etc etc.  Of course they ignore the fact that these post also appear on their friends timelines. Today is no different than any other.  Today I got online to a series of them.

Original TEA Party

This is not the first time that I have seen revisionist history from these leftist.  They all seem very light on real history and chuck full of progressive revisionist history. I have another friend that posted Thom Hartman’s revisionist version of the Boston Tea party, more on that later. Of course this leftist post was in reference to the riots taking place in Baltimore.  But in the same vein if you call the looters and rioters “Thugs” these leftist will invoke their revisionist dictionary and claim that Thug is the new “N” word.

thugNow onto the other revisionist history perpetrated by Thom Hartman and the left on the TEA party.

To start with let’s look at their revisionist definition of fascism.

And their revisionist version of the TEA Party

On the first video you see they conveniently redefine fascism claiming that it is the corporate takeover of industry when it is in fact the opposite. It is the government takeover of industry through taxation and regulation.  No one in their right mind would argue that corporations controlled  Benito Mussolini or Adoph Hitler.  They both took power engaging in the same “class warfare” and “Race Baiting” as their fascist predecessors.  If you attempted to follow leftist logic you would find yourself running in circles.

CorporationsBut then the Fascist movement was the blending of Syndicalism and Nationalism just like the progressive movement as I have written about earlier. But on to the revisionist history of the Boston TEA Party.  While it is true that they dumped the tea of the East India Tea company, he ignores what led up to that act. Namely the Stamp Act, the Townshend acts.  All of these acts of taxation were only imposed on the colonist and not on those in England.  This caused the colonist to become creative and smuggle the goods from other sources.  The British responded by repealing the tax but only if you bought from British companies. This ignores the fact that even though they were considered British subjects they had no representation in parliament which brought out the rallying cry “no taxation without representation.

And on that note here’s another of his posts from the same day.

Of course the so called liberals are all for silencing the likes of the Koch brothers. They don’t believe that those who’s pockets they intend to pick in order to continue their bribes should have a voice in politics.

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure. They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates.

BribeThey claim that the likes of the Koch Brothers are buying elections. I have not received any money from them.  Have you?  On the other hand the so called progressives promise more and more free goodies to those who would vote for them.  Now that’s what I would call buying elections. Of course when the Koch brothers donate to a hospital the lefties protest. When the Koch’s donate to the United Negro College fund the leftist’s heads explode.  But then the only thing the Koch Brothers are guilty of is believing in the “Classic Liberalism” of the founders.  They’re libertarians who believe in “free markets” and free people.  Not crony capitalism aka fascism.

Now the leftist bribes are obvious.

bribe money

But Hey, let’s not let a little thing like facts get in the way.  The path down the road to Fascism started with the first progressive era.

So ask yourself the question.  Which forms of governments engage in race baiting and class warfare in order to gain power, and how did that turn out.

To my liberal friends, yes as long as your propaganda posts appear on my wall, and as long as you spew your propaganda.  I will continue throwing those bombs.

“Specifically this term is used when someone posts a single item that plays to peoples passions so much that in its wake a massive discussion occurs, and controversy can still linger years later.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment