God Bless America!

Today, June 6, is "D-Day". The 68th anniversary of the Allied Powers' landing at Normandy. Tom Hanks' seminal portrayal of Capt. John Miller in "Saving Private Ryan" showed the world what is, perhaps, the most brutal and gory portrayal of war those of us who've never experienced it will ever know...and know this, seeing a man trying to hold his guts in his torso on film is a bit closer than I ever really wanted to see it. I thank God I wasn't there, or for that matter, any other place where men are actively trying to take my life by any means necessary. We should all take a moment to pray for an eternal end to war, and strive to live in peace.

That said, I'm gonna shift gears here for a bit. A while back, I wrote a letter to the pastor of a church I attended in a few times, asking his opinion on certain matters. I must say, I was rather shocked by his response.

Prior to my other half finding this church a few miles down the road from her home, we had been attending a different church in another city. One Sunday, a preacher in that church gave a sermon about Paul the Apostle and his dealings with certain congregations of the early church, this sermon specifically being on the subject of Galatians.

I have always been what most would label as "anti-authority", and reading Chapter 5 of Galatians kinda stuck out with me. If you've never read it, and you're of the libertarian bent, I'd highly suggest you do so.

Anyhow, I wrote the preacher after attending a dinner/gaming night with some of the other "young adults" from the church. During a discussion, one of our group had asked the preacher about the use of violent force in self-defense, from a "Christian perspective".

I learned that the preacher was raised as, according to him, a "defenseless pacifist" who was taught to take the whole "turn the other cheek" thing quite literally. He explained that his views had changed, and he saw no problem with someone using violent and potentially lethal force in situations such as the protection of others or even in cases of home invasion.

It was also around this time that my study of anarchist philosophy was really gaining ground, as well as a revisitation of the Judeo-Christian bible in accordance with my own beliefs as a follower of Christ.

So there I was, writing him this letter. It was no secret that he was not a huge fan of government, especially since the election of the Socialist in Chief. If I didn't know any better, I'd even wager that he might be a closeted member of the John Birch Society...not that such a thing would, in any way whatsoever, be a bad thing!

My questions, essentially, revolved around questions of scale and costume. If it was acceptable to defend ones' life from murder or property from theft when threatened by Tyrone Q. Crackhead, how does one excuse the act of taxation? I reminded him, of course, that taxation is what pays for both government warfare and government welfare...which we were in total agreement as being very bad things.

I also reminded him that resistance to involuntary taxation invariably ended in imprisonment, and that resistance to such imprisonment invariably ended in the use of force by government...which invariably ends in death, if a person resists hard enough.

So I asked him...at what point do "we the people" start to fight back?

He responded with what I've found to be almost stereotypical of those who support the state, especially those who hold a belief in the Christian faith. It almost always ends up going back to Romans 13, and sadly, his personal response was no different. The "submit to your leaders in government", "submit to those who hold you in slavery", etc.

Then I was hit by the "Without government, we would not have the order that God demands of society", which is also something I've heard countless times before.

My response to this, "Do you make a habit of raping, robbing, stealing, or killing? Do you refrain from such activities because government says you can't, or because you know these activities are morally wrong? If you don't do these things simply because you know they are morally wrong, why do you need government?".

If written words could make a sound, his response to these questions would have been a deafening silence.

Today, while viewing all the D-Day art and posts on the internets that occasionally weren't even trying to not look like pro-war propaganda, I came across a photo captioned "God Bless America".

For some reason, it brought me back to the discussion I had with the preacher. If we are to "submit to our rulers", "obey the law", "pay our taxes", etc because it is necessary to preserve some supposed order required by God, how can we honestly ask God to bless a nation born of violent revolution against these very ideals?

Snitches belong in ditches...

So here's my story. Years ago (about 18 years and a few months, if you wanna get technical), I was walked out of my English I class by a high school assistant principle. From there, I was walked down to her office, where I was met by two of Angleton's Finest.

They told me they were going to "be nice", and walk me out to the parking lot before they cuffed me, so no one would see me in cuffs.

My crime was "Delivery of a Controlled Substance"...namely, four dosage units (aka "tabs" or "hits") of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, or "LSD". The real kicker was, it wasn't even real. It was pieces of an index card wrapped in tin foil, and I was selling them to a classmate for the bargain price of $6 a pop.

A classmate of mine had me convinced that it was an easy way to score some cash. Too young for a job, wanted some scratch. Wrong? Yeah, fuck it. Let's do it. Asked around. "Anyone looking to pick up some acid this weekend? It's this weak-ass whitewater stuff, but a few of 'em will get you off."

A kid in my English class said "Yeah, give me two of 'em." A day later, "Yeah...I'll take two more, I'll have the money tomorrow. We're going camping this weekend, we want to have a good time!".

I was a high school freshman. Never touched a drug in my life, other than a sip of champaign at my cousin's wedding when I was a kid...that I promptly spit out. Never smoked a cigarette, never drank a beer, never did a bong hit. At the time, I wouldn't know what weed looked like if it was rolled up and sitting in front of me.

I was too young for a job, and I got $10 a week for lunch money. Back in the mid-90s, a $20 bill in your pocket when you had no money meant that you could now afford a Dr Pepper in the morning...for a month!

So I sold this kid these little squares of "acid", and got myself pinched for it. Along the way, I learned quite a bit about how the "system" works.

The cops intentionally hauled me off on a Friday, knowing that I would spend the entire weekend in Juvee before anyone could sign off on letting me out.
On numerous occasions, both during and after my weekend stint in Juvee (to this day, my longest period of incarceration, I might add!), I was repeatedly interrogated in the absence of my father...which was and still is nine kinds of illegal.
Both of the plain-clothes narcs who hauled me off were well-versed in the "Good Cop / Bad Cop" routine, with one of them literally threatening to have me raped by what I now know to be a completely fictitious "prison gang" comprised of 7' tall black guys with 13" penises...for the next 40 years.
Both officers, in no uncertain terms, explained that they were fully aware that the "acid" was nothing more than a .25" square of an index card wrapped in tin foil...and that my method of transporting this "dope" would have likely sent me on the trip of my life, had it been real while I was sweating my ass off in gym class...but if I didn't sign the confession, they were going to fake the lab reports and have me certified to stand trial as an adult, where I'd face this roving band of ass-bandits and pray for death when I got convicted and sent to prison. If I signed the confession, they were going to recommend a year of probation.

I got extremely lucky. I didn't get *completely* railroaded by the system. I did a year of Juvee probation, and got released after keeping my nose clean and riding my bicycle to the outskirts of town every month for the meeting with my PO and making my $15/month probation fee payment. Aside from certain fed.gov entities being allowed to see such records, it's now like it never happened.

The classmate who ratted me out told me, very bluntly, "I was just in it for the $50 CrimeStoppers reward."

For years, I was bitter, to the point where I vowed to myself that I would beat this motherless fuck into the ground with the first blunt metal object I could find. Now, I know better. He was just a stupid kid, like we all were at the age of 15, told that he was "making a difference".

If you were to sit a kid down and explain that if you snitch on someone in such a manner, that there will be very real repercussions to your actions, he'd likely have a change of heart. If that kid knows that there exists a chance that another kid, before he's old enough to get a learner's permit and start driving, may become a convicted felon, he'd change his mind if he truly understood. If he knew that such a felony conviction would keep a man from ever getting a real job, getting government financial aid for college, being allowed to vote, being allowed to own a gun, or any of the other things felons are denied, he might not want to be a snitch.

On the other hand, if you pump a kid's head full of bullshit like "You're helping out your community and doing the right thing...here's $50 for your efforts!", you're gonna get a kid who wants to rat off his own mother.

Moral of the story...if you're alive and awake in this day and age, and don't know what snitching on someone that has harmed no one else will do to you, you're a fucking retard. If you know, and do it anyway, I sincerely hope someone puts a bullet in your head...and does it soon.

If you're old enough to truly understand and know better, and still willing to fuck up someone else's life, you deserve no better than what you're willing to do to others.

How to defend your home, Texas-style...

1) Get a gun.

Duh. You need a gun to adequately protect your home. Your dog will bark. ADT will call the cops, and they will show up in 7-15 minutes. Meanwhile, there's an intruder in your home.

So what do you get? For the homeowner on a budget, you have two options. Cheap handgun, or pump shotgun. I personally think every man of "fighting age" (18-38 years old) should have a shotgun, handgun, and field rifle...and they should be purchased in that order.

A lot of people look at the 12ga and think it's unusable for home defense, especially when it may be used by a woman. Nonsense! The 12ga is actually the best home defense weapon available. It projects a lot of metal downrange, with almost zero over-penetration danger. Standard birdshot will remove a person's leg at close range, and the recoil from such a load is next to nothing.

A shotgun is also very suitable for use in homes where small children are present. While all firearms should be stored where not accessible by children, a pump shotgun is perhaps the most difficult for a child to fire. On top of having the heft not typically handleable by a 40lb kid you also have the mechanics of racking the slide and kicking off the safety.

While "tactical" models are available, people on a budget should get a standard "duck hunter" model and take a hacksaw to the barrel...for no other reason than the fact that they're generally cheaper. It is completely legal to saw off the barrel of a shotgun, provided it is at least 18" long from breech face to end of the muzzle. If you go from the part where it mates with the receiver and measure those 18", you're more than good in the eyes of the law. You should be able to purchase a name-brand shotgun for under $300, including the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500. I recommend the Mossberg, because it has a tang safety instead of the cross-bolt of the Remington, but that's a personal preference.

If you must get a pistol, DO NOT get a revolver unless you are an experienced shooter. No, they do not "jam" like an auto pistol has been known to do. You are, however, limited to six rounds. A 9mm of equivalent weight of a standard-size .38 will give you 15 rounds...and the ability to reload quickly. The importance of this will be discussed in detail later.

When buying a pistol, buy SIMPLE. I have owned pistols ranging from .22LR target models to a .45 M1911. I recommend a Smith & Wesson Sigma 9mm, because it works. There are more than $10k worth of firearms in my safe. The Sigma is between my mattress and box springs.

2) Shoot to kill.

If you shoot and kill an intruder in the state of Texas, it's generally understood that it's going to be chalked up to "armed homeowner protects his family and property, shoots and kills criminal"...and that's going to be the end of it in the newspapers.

More than likely, unless it's a prior felon with a history of raping kids and setting live squirrels on fire for sexual gratification, you're going to be heavily questioned by the police.

The law in Texas states that you can cap an intruder who has aggressed upon the home. However, if the intruder lives, he can make claims that he knew you, he was invited in, etc. There is also the probability that he may sue you in civil court, turning things into a costly legal battle.

A dead man, on the other hand, can make no such claims.

In addition to the legal aspects of the situation, there is also the self-preservation angle. It is considered a fundamental law of gun safety, that you do not point a firearm at anything you do not wish to see utterly destroyed. This is why you never, even jokingly, point a firearm at anyone. PERIOD. You just don't do it.

Do not (I can't repeat this enough...DO NOT) pull a piece on anyone, in any circumstance, without the very specific intention of putting this person in a very non-alive state. If someone breaks into your home, and you choose to protect your home with a gun, you start pulling the trigger. You should not be stopping until your firearm is empty.

It's long-since been a joke amongst gun owners, regarding the old anti-gun adage that people are more likely to die by their own gun than shoot a bad guy with it. If this is going to be the case with you, let it be because you ran out of ammo and you were beaten to death with your pistol. In other words, do not stop shooting at your assailant. If he's twitching, he's moving...and if he's moving, he's a threat to you.

Repeat after me, kids. "I was in fear for my life. He kept moving, so I kept shooting." Stay at least three feet away from your assailant, for two reasons. First, there is absolutely no way a wounded assailant can harm you, when he is out of harm's reach. Second, there is no danger of anyone spotting "powder burns" on the clothing or flesh of your home invader, and claiming that you have "executed" him.

Keep shooting until you're empty. Then call 911. If he's still moving after you've called 911, reload and keep shooting. This is why you don't buy a revolver for your first pistol.

3) Practice with your weapon.

More importantly, don't be a dumbass when you practice. You're not hunting ducks, nor are you getting ready to audition for Annie Oakley's Traveling Road Show. You play how you practice, so practice accordingly.

First order of business is spending $50 on shells for your weapon and getting acquainted with how to use it, how it's going to act when it goes "bang", how you're going to react to it, etc.

When you get home from that first day at the range, you need to sketch out the floor plan of your home. It doesn't need to be a professional-grade blueprint, just a sketch showing walls and doorways. Take a good look at that sketch, and find out where the longest clear line of sight in your home happens to be. That "line of sight" is the distance where you can stand in one place, and get a clear view to another place.

On a 2500sqft home, you're looking at a structure that's 50 foot by 50 foot. Even if this structure were a perfect square, and you were able to get a clear line of sight to the opposite corner, you're still looking at 70ft. In all likelihood, your maximum line of sight is going to be closer to 40ft.

If possible, don't waste your time on a gun range that offers pistol shooting at 25 yards. That's 75 feet. Find someone who has some land in a non-incorporated (read: RURAL) area. Set up five targets each, at ranges of 5, 10, and 15 yards. That's 15 targets. Have a friend call out specific targets, and practice emptying a magazine into each one.

And yes, this works with a shotgun or pistol. Most importantly, practice. And then, practice some more...

About that International MaxxPro

Surely, you've seen the photos of the International MaxxPro Mine-Resistant Armored Personnel ("MRAP") vehicles recently acquired by the Department of Homeland Security. They are painted black, and have the words "POLICE / RESCUE" stenciled on the side.

They look like this:


One thing you'll want to keep in mind about these vehicles. They are not tanks. Say it with me, class...THEY ARE NOT TANKS. They are "armored personnel carriers". They are designed to protect the occupants from battle-rifle fire, as well as explosions from mines and IEDs. The operative phrase here is "protect the occupants".

If you'll notice, this vehicle is essentially nothing more than a very heavy-duty SUV with an armored cabin. Its exploitable weakness is the fact that armor is an afterthought.

Remember, there are certain conditions which must exist for an automobile to run and drive, just as there are certain conditions which must exist for a human being to continue living.

First and foremost, the MaxxPro is a truck manufactured by the International Harvester corporation. At the end of the day, it is a truck. Abandon all of the aforementioned info about the cabin being well-armored, and try to follow along.

If one looks closely near the front wheels, one will notice the leaf springs of the front suspension. Standard fare for a heavy-duty truck with a solid front axle, especially those which carry a large amount of weight such as that of an APC.

One may also remember that the MaxxPro utilizes the MaxxForce 10 I-6 TurboDiesel engine. It, like most other modern turbodiesel engines, relies upon a great deal of electronics. Electronics rely upon wiring, which in turn relies upon some form of plastic insulation. 400F inside the engine compartment will stop this vehicle in its tracks.

An internal-combustion engine relies upon four specific elements in order to function. They are fuel, air, ignition, and compression. A diesel engine, such as the MaxxForce 10, gets its ignition as a result of its compression. When the fuel-air mixture is compressed to an extreme degree, the fuel reaches its "auto ignition" temperature. This temperature is roughly 600F. When diesel fuel reaches this temperature, it will automatically ignite in the absence of any other ignition source. If diesel fuel is heated to this temperature prior to compression, it will ignite when mixed with oxygen during the intake stroke of the engine. Heating diesel fuel beyond 600F prior to the compression stroke will stop the MaxxPro in its tracks.

Above and beyond engine or chassis damage, you also have the human element. The MaxxPro is armored in steel. It is intended to be resistant to explosions, and to withstand the massive amount of pressure typically associated with such explosions. In order to do such things, vehicles such as the MaxxPro must be both armored and fairly-well sealed. In order to seal a vehicle in this manner, an air intake/exhaust port system must be utilized. If such ports were to be compromised, the vehicle's crew would be stopped in its tracks. Smoke inhalation is an extreme hazard, which is also something to think about before fielding one of these vehicles on the streets of America.

Questions for a history professor...

So, after another discussion with the resident local history professor who happens to currently be studying "African American History", I have a few questions to ask.

1) If affirmative action programs put more emphasis on race than they place upon credentials, education, experience, skill-set, and employment history, how can you honestly say these programs are not racist?

2) If you tell a black man that he is more likely to get a job than his white co-applicant with a better resume, merely because he is black and his resume does not matter, what incentive does this man have to better his skillset so that he may become a more productive employee?

3) If racism is not a "collectivist" idea (meaning, of course, that all people of a certain skin tone are somehow inferior and should be subservient to those of a different skin tone, based solely upon their skin tone), what specifically is racism?

4) If my neighbors get together and decide to pay one specific neighbor to wear a specific suit while he robs another specific neighbor of 1/3 of everything in his home (and do so by popular vote), for the purposes of redistributing everything robbed from that neighbor to the rest of the neighborhood, how is this somehow different than involuntary income taxation, aside from the scale of it?

5) What gives you a moral right to enforce a "social contract" upon those who disagree with it?

More liberal class-baiting...

The following was reprinted from AddictingInfo.org, one of those "we're on this side, your side sucks, but we don't know why...we just know you're on the other side, and your side sucks" websites, about why "your side is wrong".

Well, I suppose I'm not a good "conservative", because I spot the bullshit and call it out. The initial article was written by John Hawkins, entitled "20 Obvious Truths That Will Shock Liberals". This is the italic print. The standard print is from the AddictingInfo.org rebuttal. The bold print is my response to the bullshit.

1) The Founding Fathers were generally religious, gun-toting small government fanatics who were so far to the Right that they’d make Ann Coulter look like Jimmy Carter. That’s nice. They also thought leeches could cure illness. Does that mean we should stop advancing medicine or building on their ideas for a better future? I’ll keep this mind the next time some gibbering buffoon demands that “original intent” be the only guide for interpreting the Constitution. The original intent of the Founders was that slavery was just fine, black people counted as only 3/5 of a man and women couldn’t vote at all. Let’s get back to basics!! Warning: you might find that women and African-Americans have some objections.

As for “small government?” Pure ignorance. They had laws dictating what kind of public behavior was acceptable and what size barrel could be used to transport food stuffs. Small government? Don’t make me laugh.

I guess I'm not truly a "conservative", as none of this stuff truly applies to me. It's more class-warfare gibberish used to divide the population, instead of bringing back that "common sense" that is becoming ever-so rare lately. Regardless, the constitution has lost its meaning to me. The more I realize what that document truly is, I find myself questioning the document I once swore upon my life to protect.

Then again, when I hear liberals speak of how I'm somehow bound to the constitution, even though they like to sit and bitch about how horrible it is toward women, black people, and other minorities, I can't help but wonder if they've ever actually read the various amendments in their entirety.

With regard to complaints about government statutes dictating public behaviors and government-enforced business standardizations, you will find that nothing of the sort is found in the constitution. It is, however, found all over the place where people think it's a good idea to allow a majority to have the authority to dictate rules and regulations over the entirety, including the minority who does not agree. You're worried about "women and African-Americans" objecting to it...but what about the individual, who truly is the smallest minority?

2) The greatest evil this country has ever committed isn’t slavery; it’s killing more than 50 million innocent children via abortion. Tell that to a slave. But, in reality, abortion is a very complicated issue. Far more complicated than the bumper sticker mentality of your typical conservative can process. I’ll help conservative make their case, though. All a conservative has to do to convince me that they truly consider abortion to be the murder of a human being is explain to me why they do not have a funeral for miscarriages and demand a death certificate be issued.

Good luck with that.

Again, I guess I'm not that much of a "conservative", as I believe one must be consciously self-aware in order to be truly alive.

As a born-again Anarchist, I find it somewhat humerous that people will bitch and moan about a particular flavor of slavery that existed more than a hundred years before they were born, but don't seem to mind when government adds ketchup and calls it "income tax".

I know I've been over this before, but I'll repeat it. If my income is a result of my labor, and you claim to own a portion of my income, you are also claiming a portion of my labor. If my labor is derived from my physical body, you are by extention laying claim to a portion of my body.

Slavery? Involuntary servitude? I don't give a damn what fancy five-dollar name you give it, but don't pretend it's not slavery just because we aren't being branded by our owners (with branding irons, anyway...last I checked, we still get issued our personalized number) or sold to the highest bidder.

3) Conservatives are much more compassionate than liberals and all you have to do to prove it is look at all the studies showing that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals do. Only a conservative can equate money to compassion. You’re pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-gay, anti-universal healthcare, anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid, anti-Social Security but you give some money to a church that might use it to feed the homeless but could just as easily use it (and millions more) to deny gay couples the right to marry. Therefor, YOU are more compassionate than a liberal who wants an end to war and poverty.

hah…ahahah…ahahahahahha…bwahahahahahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

(the author must take a break to catch his breath)

I'm anti-death penalty and anti-war. I'm against forcing anyone to pay for services they either do not consent to paying for, or are not personally receiving. And I truly don't give a rat's ass if you like dicks that don't belong to you. If people would stop demanding that the state provide a permission slip before they could marry, it wouldn't be an issue.

BTW, your great "Liberal Leader" who promised you hope and change is one of the most militaristic presidents of our lifetime. How many new nations has he bombed? How many troops are still in Iraq, even after he declared that "we got them out"? How many troops are in Afghanistan? Why is YouTube showing an ad for the United States Marine Corps, where armed grunts are being depicted as talking to Ugandan villagers? Last I checked, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Did I miss something here? Oh, wait...Bush didn't send those troops to AfriComm, Obama did.

4) When the Founding Fathers were actually around, there were official state religions and the Bible was used as a textbook in schools. The so-called “wall of separation between church and state” has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with liberal hostility to Christianity. Ah, the old “America is a religious country” bit. And to a conservative, that can only mean “Christian.” Here’s a fun fact about the Founders: to them, religious did not mean “Christian,” a very subtle nuance that seems to escape conservatives even when they read quotes from Jefferson like “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law” or from the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1797 that states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen (Muslims); and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

That is directly from the mouths of the people who created the country. It literally cannot be stated more clearly than that.

I do not want government telling me how to worship my God, any more than I want my pastor telling me how to run my finances. I guess this makes me, once again, a "bad conservative"...or, as I see it, a proper anarchist.

5) The biggest problem with our economy today is Barack Obama. His demonization of successful people, his driving up gas prices, his regulatory overload and threats to increase taxes have terrified businesses into hunkering down, refusing to spend money, and declining to hire new people. Replacing him would do more than any government policy to spur economic growth. Funny how American gas prices have mirrored the fluctuations of the world market precisely. I guess President Obama controls the entire oil market single-handedly. It’s also amazing, how, despite the fact that we’re supposed to “drill, moron, drill,” the United States is now a net oil exporter. That’s right, we sell more oil than we take in but gas prices are still going up. I have yet to meet a conservative that can honestly explain why that is. As for refusing to spend money, why is it that no conservative can ever tell me WHAT corporations should spend the money on? Hire more people to do…what? Fill demand? They’re already filling what demand there is. More employees won’t fill it any better. Despite this, the unemployment rate has steadily (if slowly) declined under Obama as opposed to skyrocketing under the conservative policies that the right pretends didn’t cause the crash in the first place.

The problem with our economy is not Obama, but rather, the policies he selects. Our economy will not grow with his policies in effect, nor will it grow with any other statist in control of the economy. The economy is best left to its own devices, rather than interdiction by government.

That said, it is painfully obvious that the uber-liberal author of this treatise on class-warfare has no clue of how economics (or, for that matter, the gasoline industry) works...so please allow me to explain some shit for him and anyone else who may read this.

A) Not all oil is the same. No, it's not like the difference between buying Shell or Mobile off the rack at AutoZone, you retard. Petroleum is a naturally-occurring fossil fuel, and it is a complex molecule...NOT AN ELEMENT. Also, it should be noted that it has different characteristics based upon what may be in it, which is why there are different types of raw petroleum traded in the oil markets. A great deal of them do have proper uses, but are not economically viable for refinement into gasoline. Compare it to paint, and assume that red paint is more expensive than white paint...because it is more scarce, and there is a higher demand for it. Producing more paint overall means nothing, if the majority of what you produce is white paint. Supply and demand proves that you've flooded the market with white paint and reduced its cost per gallon, but you've done fuckall to remedy the high cost of in-demand red paint. Does it make sense now?

B) No "conservative", or anyone else for that matter, can tell you what a corporation should spend its money on...aside from those who make financial decisions for that particular corporation. This is why government intervention is bad for corporations. Again, hypothetical...but let's pretend we're running a burger joint. What you need is a new ventilation system for your kitchen. Government has stated that what you *really* need are new special "green" light fixtures, to do your part to reduce your carbon footprint. How can you improve your business by installing new vent hoods, when you've spent your money on new light bulbs?

C) More taxation equates to less money going into the business. Believe it or not, people in this country really do have to actually work for a living. In addition to sales taxes, businesses also pay income taxes. Yes, just like every individual with a tax liability pays taxes, corporations also have to pay them. These taxes are offset by deductions for the overhead they pay, but their revenues are taxed.

When you take away a corporation's money and spend it on things that do not go back into their business, that's less money that goes into building their business. That's less fundage available to upgrade to that new computer network that helps it run more efficiently. That's less money that goes to the purchase of new tools so the employees can work more efficiently. That's less money that is able to be given to employees as compensation for their labor, which further adds to the economy by putting more money into the local economy.

D) Unemployment has not "declined" under Obama. The criteria for which unemployment is defined has merely been altered, for the purposes of showing a lower number...but thanks for playing. What, you didn't think anyone would notice?

6) Not only are conservatives more patriotic than liberals, but most American liberals “love” America in about the same way that a wife-beater loves his wife. In 2008, a black man was elected to the White House in a fair and open election. It was not a suspiciously close vote that required the conservative Supreme Court to stop a recount and give the election to the Republican candidate. The Democratic Party won a super majority in the Senate (but only for eight months) and a large majority in the House. What did the “patriotic” right do? Immediately started to scream that it wasn’t fair and it wasn’t right and they wanted their country back. The GOP (ab)used the filibuster more than any other time in history, death threats against the president spiked and right-wing militias dramatically increased in numbers, along with foiled plots to start a revolution. Right Wing politicians started talking about secession and “second amendment remedies” and Rush Limbaugh stated, publicly and repeatedly, that he hoped Obama would fail.

If THAT’S what a conservative considers “patriotism,” they’re delusional. Patriotism is more than wearing a lapel pin. It’s more than polishing your gun and swearing to shoot the first federal agent that steps foot on your land. It’s more than wrapping yourself in the flag while screaming “I hate that nigger!” at Fox News. It’s more than being against something. You have to stand for something besides your own petty little needs. Conservatives have forgotten this, if they ever knew it the first place.

First off, what do "right-wing militias" have to do with conservatism, liberalism, or even PATRIOTISM? Oh, is it the fact that so-called "right-wing militias" are the reason why a black man was elected to the White House in a fair and open election, instead of everyone singing "God Save the Queen" before our baseball games?

Second, what data is the claim of the "dramatic increase" in "rightwing militias? Is it the "Intelligence Report" from the Southern Poverty Law Center, who has placed a great deal of my peaceful freedom-loving friends on their watchlists, and refuse to be interviewed by the people it places on these watchlists? You know, the same people who stop my friends at the door and demand that they turn off all recording devices before agreeing to an interview?

You're right, patriotism is more than cleaning a gun or putting a bumpersticker on your car. It's the knowledge of why you keep your gun clean, and the acknowledgment of the principle behind shooting intruders...be they federal agents, or anyone else. It's understanding WHY things are done, and WHY they are right, as opposed to simply doing them because some "social normality" says you should.

7) Out of every 100 cries of “Racism” you hear these days, 99 are motivated by nothing other than politics. That would be because they are directed at Republican politicians and pundits passing around racist emails, calling President Obama a skinny little crackhead or man-child and demanding to see his “real” birth certificate because being born to an American mother and a Kenyan father magically makes you “not American” despite several past (white) presidents having a foreign national as a parent. When the Right stops using the Southern Strategy of racial resentment that they have flat out stated that are using, we’ll stop calling them racist.

As a "southerner", I disapprove of the use of the term "Southern Strategy" with regard to so-called "racial resentment". I don't disapprove of the president because he's black. I disapprove of the president for the same reason I disapprove of all forms of statism, and further disapprove of the idea that I'm "racist" for not agreeing with it.

I'll also take this opportunity to point out the fact that president is a known and admitted abuser of cocaine, having snorted "a little blow, when we could afford it" while attending college. Even though it was not actual crack rock, it is not uncommon for someone to refer to a cocaine abuser as a "crackhead".

As for his birth certificate, it may or may not be legit. Injecting my professional expert opinion here (and yes, like it or not, I REALLY AM qualified to refer to it as my "expert professional opinion, as I have both formal training and professional experience in the matter), Obama's press team is either trying to pull a fast one on us...or he has the most incompetent PR people in the history of the White House. After downloading the digital copy of the file straight from the White House web site, it was completely obvious that it was not a legit original scan of the original document. It had been altered. To what degree, I do not know, because I have not seen the original...but anyone with half a clue will tell you that a scanner does not typically scan in .pdf format and does not layer in such a manner. Take that as you will, but it's not original.

8) Anyone paying income taxes is certainly paying his “fair share” — and then some — compared to the people who pay nothing. When the rich paid a 90% marginal tax rate, the rich still got richer but the economy boomed. The less the rich paid, the richer they got but the worse the economy did. So let me ask you this: How is it “fair” when the rich take the most from the economy but give less, as a percentage of their profits, than the rest of us back to that economy?

Once again, the author is showing signs of his complete ignorance of economics. I'm not surprised, as most Keynsians don't seem to get it.

Remember that crash you accused "the right" of causing earlier? Economics 101 (reality-based, not fairy-land dream-world based economics) dictates that prior to a "crash", there must be a "bubble". The economy cannot crash without artificial inflation of the economy...which is, interestingly enough, exactly what happened shortly after we've ever had a 90% marginal tax rate. The most notable would be the "Great Depression".

What you Keynsians still fail to remember, however, is that the notion of income taxation was not created by poor people in need of a helping hand. It was created by the wealthiest members of society, who not only drafted income taxation legislation for the purposes of profiting from it via the central bank known as the "Federal Reserve" (if you recall, this privately-owned bank that controls our money had its authority signed into law during the same congressional session as the income tax). The income tax was created by bankers (ordinary "industry capitalists" are nothing compared to these folks!), and the legislation was written with loopholes that benefited their wealthy friends. Every time we have a tax law written, the same holds true. It is not written or enacted by the poor, but by the wealthy who utilize it to skim off the middle class while exempting themselves.

9) You don’t have a “right” to anything that other people have to pay to provide for you. Then you do not have the right to police protection, a fire department or even a 911 emergency line. You do not have the right to clean air or safe food. You do not have the right to a military to protect you from foreign invasion. You do not have the right to a single thing that is government-run. Oh? What’s that? You pay taxes so you deserve all of those things?

Exactly, you stupid bastard. If everyone else was not chipping in, i.e. “paying to provide for you,” you would not be able to afford all that nifty stuff. It’s called “socialism” and only very stupid people think they are completely self-sufficient.

Our fire department is voluntary and community-based, as it should be. You really don't want to get into that conversation, you'll get pwned.

The police do not "protect" me. They do not ride in my back seat. The majority of their budget is spent hiding from us behind bridge embankments and landscaping, in hopes that they may catch us violating some random traffic ordinance whose violation has harmed no one but may generate revenue for their department. Aside from that, they arrive on the scene of the crime to take reports and cart off bodies.

911 does not protect me. 1911 does. Yes, you hippie liberal, you'll likely have to look that one up. I'll give you a hint, his name is John Moses Browning.

Even though we've had a standing army since the beginning of this nation (and again, even though our founding fathers warned us against it), they've yet to defend me against a foreign aggressor. Meanwhile, in my lifetime alone, they've been involved in overt and covert military conflicts on five of the planet's seven continents. So far, we haven't invaded Australia and it's too cold to fight on the South Pole.

I do have the right to clean air and water, but taxation does not guarantee such things. If you need a clue, look no further than 20 miles south of my driveway. You'll see Dow Chemical. More important, you'll realize that God gave us clean air and water, not government.

10) If we can ask people to present an ID to buy alcohol, drive a car, or get on an airplane, then asking them to present identification to vote is a no-brainer. Only a conservative could debase the right to vote by comparing it to getting drunk. Liberals hold their franchise to a higher standard, apparently. Tell me again how liberals are the ones that hate what America stands for?

Apparently, "liberals" don't drive to the polls, either.

As for me, I recognize the right to travel as being more important than choosing which flavor of authoritarian aggression to vote for, so I think the author is again showing his retardation.

11) There’s absolutely nothing that the government does smarter, better, or more efficiently than the private market with roughly equivalent resources. Except be held accountable to the people of the United States of America. The conservative push to privatize everything is the rush on Lemmings going over a cliff. It is a fact that terrifies conservatives that when you add a “for profit” motive to basic necessities like health care and military contractors, the inevitable result, proven again and again, is corruption, theft of taxpayers dollars on a grand scale and reduced service. As long as the bottom line is the true goal, we, the people are a secondary consideration. Unless, of course, you want to make the argument that a multinational corporation has the best interests of the consumer in mind.

Good luck with that, too.

"Universal Health Care" will still depend upon private venders, unless the endgame is to turn every industry into a government-owned entity. That's called "communism", dumbass! Turning health care into "government-funded health care" does nothing to solve the problem, unless it turns into "government-run manufacturing".

The same holds true with the arms industry. While armament manufacturers make a shitload of money from so-called "defense contracts" (btw, how would our military offer us any "protection" without a Hellfire missile or a Dillon Minigun mounted on a Bell Huey?), they are private-sector corporations. One of our leading manufacturers of armaments is General Electric, who also manufactures washing machines you can buy at Sears.

The key to resolving the waste issue is not with turning everything communist (ask a 1980s citizen of the Soviet Union if you have questions), but with eliminating the perceived need for pointless foreign wars...and the perceived need for our local police department to own a damned tank!

12) The biggest problem with education in this country is liberals. They fight vouchers, oppose merit pay, refuse to get rid of terrible teachers, and bend over backwards to keep poor kids trapped in failing schools. The Gordian Knot of education reform has so far eluded both liberals and conservatives. Guess what, though? No Child Left Behind was an abject failure. You know what else doesn’t work? Cutting school budgets in an attempt to “prove” public education doesn’t work. Vouchers haven’t provided better results but it HAS exacerbated the problem. Try again.

Government schools are, in fact, a sad joke. We all piss and moan about how teachers aren't paid enough, but our government schools would rather piss away money on football pads and big brick Taj Mahal high schools. Meanwhile, we have "standardized testing" (I'll clue you in here...this wasn't the invention of George W. Bush...I'm 33 years old, and in KINDERGARTEN we had to take the "California Achievement Test") that does nothing to educate a child.

Meanwhile, our public schools are full of "Zero Tolerance" policies against everything from bullying to plastic butterknives, and they spend more time explaining the importance of having armed uniformed cops and see-through backpacks than they do explaining the root cause of the second world war.

13) Fascism, socialism, and communism are all left-wing movements that have considerably more in common with modern liberalism than modern conservatism. Oh noes! Socialism! Communism! Fascism! Conservatives don’t know what these words mean so they lump them all together!! And they’re scary words!!! Communism is when the government controls the means of production and dictates what gets produced in what quantities. Mainstream liberals do not advocate this. Socialism (the american version, at least) is when everyone gets to enjoy the fruits of out collective labor. The interstate highway system is SOCIALISM. National monuments and parks are SOCIALISM. The public education system is SOCIALISM. Community colleges are SOCIALISM. The police and fire departments are SOCIALISM. Medicare is SOCIALISM. Social Security is SOCIALISM. My god! The word “social” is right there in the name!!!

Let me know how many of those SOCIALIST programs you’re willing to do without.

Fascism is a movement predicated on rabid nationalism (America is for REAL Americans), racism (White Power), isolationism (build the dang fence!), political violence (militias) and wars of aggression (Iraq). Now, which political movement does that sound like? Sure doesn’t sound like any liberals I’ve ever heard of!

The Interstate Highway System was not devised as a way to improve our way of life, it was used as a method to improve logistics for our military. Any true student of history knows this. It's why Hitler created the Autobahn. It's not exactly a new idea...the Roman empire is who originated the notion of paving roads through conquored territory for the usage of their military.

According to Karl Marx, "socialism" is merely a stepping stone to communism. Fascism, as defined by Mussolini, is when government and industry are in collusion to determine what is best for the general population. The Nazi and Neo-Nazi ideas of the "Master Race", lest we forget, was part of the National SOCIALIST Party of Nazi Germany.

What socialist programs am I willing to do without? Well, I suppose, all of them.

14) The Democratic Party was behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. It was also the party of Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, and Bull Connor. It has ALWAYS been a racist party. Even today, white liberals support Affirmative Action and racial set-asides because they still believe black Americans are too inferior to go up against whites on an even playing field. My god! You’re right! I Agree completely. The Dixiecrats were a bunch of racist scumbags. They did fight against equal rights for blacks. Those Democrats were terrible, vile racists!

Hey, did you know, that after the signing of the Civil Rights Act, all of those racist Democrats that we just agreed were absolute scum left the Democratic Party? Yeah, they became Republicans.

History didn’t stop after the 1960s.

Politics has always been about control. Government is a monopoly on force. Only a liar sees and denies it, and only an idiot cannot see it.

But since we want to play the post-1969 "who is a scumbag" game, let's look at Lon Horiuchi and his actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Let's look at Eric Holder during "Fast & Furious"/"Operation Gunwalker". Let's look at Rahm Emmanuel being willing to negate our God-given rights if we are merely suspected of a crime. Let's look at Obama signing a law that says we aren't allowed to protest, if it may somehow interfere with a government official. Let's look at the DC park police arresting my friends for moving their head in an unapproved manner at (of all places!) the Thomas Jefferson memorial.

But yeah, keep this rolling with the Left vs Right game, because that's really working.

15) A man with good morals who falls short and becomes a hypocrite is still a far better man than a liberal who can never be called a hypocrite because he has no morals at all. And what lack of morals is that? Do liberals commit more crimes? “Blue” states, by and large, have a lower crime rate than “Red” states. Do we get divorced more often? Again, Red states outstrip Blue. Do we get pregnant at a younger (unmarried) age? Sing with me now, “Red trumps Blue!” Do liberals threaten political violence on a regular basis the way conservatives do? Nope. Who commits the most hate crimes in the country? Liberals or conservatives? Who encourages unsafe sex, thus increasing the number of abortions and the transmission of STDs? Conservatives. Who cheer the death penalty knowing, for a fact, that innocent men get executed? Conservatives. Who wanted to continue the war in Iraq that saw tens of thousands of children killed by American bombs? Conservatives.

Seriously, you think conservatives are moral? Why? Because you’re Christian and everyone knows that all liberals hate Jesus? There are serial killers out there that display a healthier set of morals than the freak show that is the Fox News audience.

Again, this brings up the question of whether it's "Left vs. Right", or "Government vs. Us".

I see it this way. Christ preached non-aggression. Government, which is nothing more than majority-elected aggression, killed Christ for his opposition to government. Any questions?

16) The most dire threat to America’s future and prosperity in the last 150 years hasn’t been the Nazis, the Soviets, or Al-Qaeda;, it’s the spending and overreach of our own government. You mean the out of control spending of the Republicans? I agree! Reagan roughly tripled the deficit. Bush 42 actually tried to curb it and was punished by his own party for doing so. Clinton balanced it two years in a row and was on track to erase the national debt in a decade. Bush 44 sent the deficit into the unheard of territory of $1 trillion+ with his $700 billion tax cut, two wars and the Medicare Part D corporate giveaway. None of which were paid for or offset. We still have those tax cuts, one war (now a part of the budget like it should have been the whole time) and Medicare Part D. How is it Obama’s fault again that the deficit is outrageous?

Just as history didn’t stop in the 1960s, it also didn’t just start when Obama was sworn in. Almost 30 years of the conservative one-two punch of “cut taxes and deregulate” under the guise of “trickle down” have crushed the economy. But let’s blame the black guy!!

Aaaaaaand again, we have the "Left vs. Right" game being played. I will take the opportunity to say "SHAME ON YOU!" to the original author, for insinuating that Bush I was somehow less evil than Bush II. The guy was a total scumbag. The only thing keeping Junior from being worse than he was, is the fact that Junior is a retarded chimp. He was just too stupid to be able to utilize every opportunity to fuck over the common man. To his credit, he did his best!

To quote Bill Maher, it wasn't money trickling down. It was Reaganites pissing all over us. I agree, "Borrow and Spend" republicans are no better than "Tax and Spend" democrats. We don't need a simple decrease in government taxation, or a simple decrease in government regulation. We need a simple decrease in government, period. Cutting taxes without cutting spending does nothing. Cutting regulation without cutting spending does nothing. WE NEED TO STOP PISSING AWAY MONEY ON GOVERNMENT.

17) Greed isn’t someone wanting to keep more of what he earns; it’s people demanding a greater share of money that someone else earns. Greed isn’t when you want to secure the health and prosperity of others; greed is when you put your own self-interest above the good of the whole.

Conservatives have isolated themselves in a bubble of rhetoric in which no one is accountable to anyone else. That is not how a society works. It is not how human beings work. It’s not even how the Bible they claim to worship works. It is, however, how a child thinks. The right suffers from infantilism. They even throw temper tantrums when they don’t get their way in the form of the Tea Party and filibusters. Time to grow up, kiddies.

If I earn it, it doesn't belong to you. Piss off, if you think it does. Wanna bring the bible into it? How about "Thou Shalt Not Steal"? Christ did not demand that his followers should give up their belongings and live a life of poverty. He said it was what they should do. He never once suggested that they tax each other, or go around taking things from others who did not agree while distributing such property amongst the masses.

Here's a hint, read the books you want to quote. It might help. In the meantime, stop stealing from people. Even if you aren't Christian, it's still wrong.

18) Most of the time in American politics, the liberal “victim” is really a bad guy who is absolutely delighted by the opportunity to pretend to be “offended.” Interesting hypothesis. Of course, you must mean that “a bad guy” is someone who has been insulted, belittled or discriminated against because of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. They sure are “bad guys” for taking offense! The nerve of them, wanting to be treated with respect!

On the other hand, conservatives thrive on being offended when they’re told they can’t insult, belittle or discriminate against others because of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Only a conservative could feel oppressed because they can’t inflict their hate on others.

A) If being "insulted, belittled, or discriminated against" makes you a "victim", you need to grow a pair and stop being such a poon. You don't have any right to not have your feelings hurt.

B) You really do have the right to voice an opinion, even if it "insults, belittles, or discriminates" against someone else. Preventing someone from voicing an opinion is, in reality, a violation of the right of free expression....even if it "insults, belittles, or discriminates" against someone else.

Get over it.

19) Jesus Christ was not a conservative, a liberal, or a politician. He was also not a capitalist or a socialist. Still, you can say this: Jesus drew sharp lines about what’s right and wrong, he wasn’t tolerant of what the Bible categorizes as sinful behavior, and there’s absolutely no question that he would adamantly oppose abortion and gay marriage. Really? Please cite, chapter and verse, where Jesus says he is against gay marriage and abortion. While you’re struggling to find a verse you can creatively interpret to mean “protect the unborn” and “persecute fags,” here’s a few verses that clarify Jesus’ stance on capitalism as practiced by the 1%:

”Matthew 19: 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

“Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

I think it’s quite clear what Jesus thought about the mindless acquisition and hoarding of wealth that is THE defining characteristic of American capitalism.

The "there's no question he would adamantly oppose abortion and gay marriage" statement is opinion. It also happens to be an opinion I don't share.

That said, the idea of greed being the root of all evil is not exactly a recent idea. I am against greed personally, but I have no right to tell another man what he may or may not own...unless, of course, I'm signing the ticket. Likewise, you have no right to determine what another man may or may not own, unless you're signing the ticket. Kinda funny how that works, huh?

To declare that "mindless acquisition and hoarding of wealth" is a "defining statement of American capitalism", is just plain stupid. What, do you think that greed is somehow limited only to capitalists? Please explain how the Inner Party members of the Soviet Union lived like kings while the genpop stood on the bread lines.

20) When you demand that other people fund your sexual escapades by buying your contraception, your sex life becomes their business. Ok, make you a deal. We’ll stop pestering insurance companies about contraception when you stop making laws against homosexuals. Think you can do that? Think you can stop making other people’s sex lives your business? No? What a shock. Conservatives are hypocrites. I never would have guessed.

Well, here's the deal, retards. Insurance companies are not government entities. At the present time (thank you, Sweet Baby Jesus, Obamacare is not in effect and government does not *completely* run our health care system), medical coverage is a private-sector institution. You are not forced to purchase insurance. You do so AT WILL. You must sign a contract to buy it. Before signing a contract, you are given a statement of what your policy covers. You do not own birth control pills. You do not own the insurance company, you are its' customer. Laws against gay people getting a permission slip from government to get married are completely irrelevant to the conversation. If you don't own stock in the company (something else you've long-since had the opportunity to do), you have no right to say what that company may or may not sell you.

Beware the flying monkeys, part deux...

So an online acquaintance of mine posted a photo to his facebook wall this evening, captioned "SNITCHES...get stitches". It was one of those pictures done up in the style of the motivational poster you'd see on the walls of your high school guidance counselor's waiting room.

It was taken decades ago, I'm guessing in the 1970s due to the grainy black & white of the photo (as well as the body styling of the police car), and featured a small child talking to a cop in a patrol car parked on the curb. Meanwhile, on the other side of the street, there stands another child facing the car. He is concealing a pistol behind his back.

The photo is meant as humor, and the situation is likely harmless and innocent...one child waiting on the side of the street with a cap pistol, standing at "parade rest" with the toy gun behind his back, while his playmate speaks with a neighborhood cop about God knows what that may have been as simple as "How's your father? Is he coming over to the house to watch the Super Bowl?".

Given the current public image of police officers, as well as the greatly-publicized "Stop Snitching" campaign popular amongst a growing demographic of today's society, the photo takes on a whole new meaning with respect to its caption and social commentary.

In case you're wondering, this is the photo.


We all had a good laugh at the photo, but I did bring up a very serious question. If the resulting action against the target of such "snitching" would be police aggression (say, for instance, your neighbor rats you out because you have a reefer plant growing in the back yard and the cops come over and arrest you for it), it is generally understood that the act of snitching in and of itself is considered aggression because the snitch is reasonably aware of what he's doing and what the result will be.

Followers of the NAP, who do not necessarily follow the doctrine of defenseless non-violence, typically consider it proper to defend or retaliate against an aggressor in order to prevent aggression from occurring again. For instance, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to not only prevent it from happening, but also beat the burglar's ass to teach him a lesson. You were not the aggressor, you were aggressed upon.

If aggression by police would not exist without the participation of the snitch, is the snitch not guilty of aggression? If the snitch is guilty of aggression, is he not deserving of any retaliation based upon whatever actions may come of his interaction with the police?

Let me put it this way. The State has a law in place that makes it illegal to beat the shit out of a snitch, and it's almost on par with the punishment for beating the shit out of the cop. That should be a dead giveaway...