Thursday, July 16, 2015

Obviously a Scandanavian Lutheran


Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez 
identified as gunman in 
Chattanooga shootings

Thursday, July 2, 2015

How We Are Ruled

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." 

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." 

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all." 

In his determination to uphold Obamacare at all costs -- even if it meant abandoning the rule of law -- the chief shyster of the United States resorted to imitating Humpty Dumpty's role in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass for the above-quoted 'legal precedent.'

In another incongruity, the trickster who wrote the fanciful Obamacare decision  subsequently had the gall to accuse some of his colleagues of resorting to a "magic trick" in reaching a decision with which he disagreed.



What we have is a cynical decision that establishes rule by raw political power.  The decision is neither lawful nor logical. It is based on a plain and simple lie -- that the word State in "established by the State" is ambiguous and requires interpretation.  The irrational and arbitrary machinations are those of shysters who have forfeited all claims to legitimacy, respect, and obedience.

The creepy thing about this is that the clowns running the show expect the American public that used to consist of steadfast and bold individuals to quietly accept such antics . . . and the fact that their assumption appears to be correct is even creepier.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Job Opening

Wanted in Saudi Arabia: Executioners

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Job seekers in Saudi Arabia who have a strong constitution and endorse strict Islamic law might consider new opportunities carrying out public beheadings and amputating the hands of convicted thieves.

The eight positions, as advertised on the website of the Ministry of Civil Service, require no specific skills or educational background for “carrying out the death sentence according to Islamic Shariah after it is ordered by a legal ruling.” But given the grisly nature of the job, a scarcity of qualified swordsmen in some regions of the country and a rise in the frequency of executions, candidates might face a heavy workload.

Excerpt from today's online
 New York Times edition


 

More on Highly Important Book

Irrespective of whether one agrees with the politics or proposals of Charles Murray, his new book, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, contains indisputable data about the degraded and corrupt state of the U.S. today and a cogent analysis of how and why we have reached this point and the reasons that our divisive and poisonously polarized legal and political processes cannot bring about a recovery from it.

Strongly recommend that everyone read this book no matter where they stand politically.  Cannot overstate that recommendation.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Highly Recommended Book

Individuals who appreciate liberty, want to understand its erosion, and are interested in a possible strategy for restoring it, should read Charles Murray’s book, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Ex Presidents Then and Now

When Harry Truman left the White House in 1953 he was far from secure financially.  Nevertheless, he rebuffed numerous lucrative speaking and corporate directorship offers, reportedly by saying:

You don't want me.  You want the office of the president, and that doesn't belong to me.  It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale.

Whether he ever used those exact words is debatable but he did express the sentiment in his 1960 book, Mr. Citizen:

I turned down all of those offers.  I knew that they were not interested in hiring Harry Truman, the person, but what they wanted to hire was the former President of the United States.  I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and the dignity of the office of the Presidency.

While comparing that example to the one currently being presented by Pay-the-Bill(s) Clinton, it should be noted that when Mr. Truman declined the numerous lucrative proposals that were presented to him he was under considerable financial pressures.  He left the presidency before any adequate pension was provided to former holders of the office.

 

Leader of Nothing and No One; Appeaser of Adversaries

Leaders of the Persian Gulf nations that still maintain friend relationships with the U.S. are declining to meet with America's president and that is a clear signal that the current holder of that office has debased it to the point that its holder no longer can in any meaningful sense be considered to be the leader of the free world.

Take heart though.  America's adversaries remain ready and even eager to meet with our president at every opportunity.  They know they can always extract some free or bargain goody from our great posturing orator, who has displaced the hapless Jimmie Carter as the most notable appeaser to appear on the world's stage since Neville Chamberlain.

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Insults - Classic and Classy

A member of Parliament to Disraeli: Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable disease. 
That depends, Sir, said Disraeli, whether I embrace your policies or your mistress. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
He had delusions of adequacy.     
     - Walter Kerr
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
     - Winston Churchill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.
     - Clarence Darrow   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.
     - William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway)
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I'll waste no time reading it.
     - Moses Hadas
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.
     - Mark Twain
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends.
     - Oscar Wilde
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend, if you have one.
     - George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill

Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second .... if there is one.
     - Winston Churchill, in response
---------------------------------------------------------------------------   

I feel so miserable without you; it's almost like having you here.
     - Stephen Bishop    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

He is a self-made man and worships his creator.
     - John Bright
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial.
     - Irvin S. Cobb
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others.
     - Samuel Johnson
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up.
     - Paul Keating
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to avoid being called a flirt, she always yielded easily.
     - Charles, Count Talleyrand     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
He loves nature in spite of what it did to him.
     - Forrest Tucker
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it?
     - Mark Twain
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork.
     - Mae West
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.
     - Oscar Wilde
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination.
     - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has Van Gogh's ear for music.
     - Billy Wilder
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But I'm afraid this wasn't it.
     - Groucho Marx

Saturday, May 9, 2015

Rights as Defined by Progressives


America's New Normal: Shabby, Shoddy, and Shifty

In the long gone nation in which I grew up, I learned that in tennis, for example, one must always call for one's opponents any opponent's shot that lands close enough to the line to be debatable.  That of course was in sports before sports were displaced by big money athletic competitions that have nothing about them that is sporting, let alone gracious or even civil.

With bushels of dollars at stake, it's not surprising that we now have football teams trying to steal each others signals and monkeying with equipment to secure advantages, baseball players and boxers taking performance enhancing drugs, educators  falsifying test scores of students the educators have failed to teach, journalice disseminating information they know to be false, and so on.  The list goes on and on.

So it's no wonder that we now have and widely admire the nation's first fully-integrated self-contained public crime family -- the shady and evasive team of Bill and Hillary. 

Jovial and friendly Bill is the public face, joshing between the dots as he brazenly challenges anyone to try to connect them with enough evidence to prove criminal wrong doing.  His good humor is based on confidence that the media will help ensure that he and Hillary will remain above the law that applies to lesser mortals.  He is trotted out whenever there is a need to charmingly distract attention from the obvious fact that here is nothing good natured or friendly about Hillary.  She clearly is a coldly calculating, mean spirited, grasping and self-aggrandizing shrew.  But Bill's diversionary efforts always work until the obvious corruption is old news and therefore not news at all.  As a couple they constantly hungrily feed their respective insatiable appetites -- empty suit Bill for public acceptance, approval, and adulation, and voracious Hillary for money and power.

Such shameless leadership does serve a couple of purposes.  In addition to serving as exemplars on whom pond scum can look down
such leaders provide fresh evidence of the accuracy of the adage that scum rises to the top of every rain barrel.

But with such examples at the top, how can we expect our young people not to lie, cheat, and steal at every opportunity?  And what about the future of our country with a government designed to function properly only with virtuous leaders selected and overseen by a virtuous citizenry?

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

We've Arrived

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.  
. . . Thomas Jefferson 

Statists Detest and Blame Free Speech

Following their inherent authoritarian instincts, statists are blaming the organizers of that free speech event in Texas for having incited the armed attack on the event by a pair of adherents to the "religion of peace."

Their views are in line with those of the University of California chancellor who said he stood four square behind free speech so long as its exercise didn't disturb or offend anyone.

Terrific.  Never mind that speech that doesn't disturb or offend anyone does not require any defense.

The fact is that a free society constantly requires disturbing and offensive speech.  A right . . . any right . . . that is not exercised atrophies and dies.  And that is a result that authoritarian statists would welcome.  It is easier to control a silent population, than a raucous and outspoken one.

The Texas event provided the kind of exercise that maintenance of freedom of speech requires . . . and it had the added benefit of having resulted in the deaths of two Jihadists.

It's a sad commentary on the state of our supposedly free press that its leading components often engaged in self censorship as they did when they were too afraid of inciting Mad Muslim attacks such as the one in Texas to republish Danish and French satirical materials that led to Jihadist attacks there.

Finally, a Truly Honest Conversation About Race . . . and Today's Real Racists


Monday, April 20, 2015

Why Does Economy Feels So Bad When the Numbers Are So Good?

Apart from the very real possibility that the numbers are rigged and bogus, the answer is that the numbers are meaningless.

Here is why:

Take the case of a young single person, earning, for example, $500 a week and say that his pay a few years later has gone up by 20% or $100 a week.  But if, in addition to paying more taxes on his $600 weekly earnings, he then has and is supporting a wife and three or four children, he obviously is worse, and not better off economically.

That, in a nutshell, is why growth in the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) is meaningless to most Americans.  Their individual shares of the GDP have been shrinking for decades and in recent years they have been and currently are shrinking faster than ever.

American citizens, on average, will be better off financially only if their after-tax shares of the nation's GDP increase -- in other words if dividing the nation's GDP by the number of citizens produces a higher net per capita (or per person) GDP.  That can happen only if the nation's GDP rises at a rate higher than the rate at which its population increases.

Even our inside-the-beltway dullards are awakening to the fact that the U.S. economy is growing too slowly.  But that dawning is unlikely to result in anything other than counterproductive actions.  Understanding this reality requires an understanding of the components of the GDP:

GDP = C + G + I + NX

where C is equal to all private consumption (consumer spending in the private economy), G is the sum of all government spending, I is the sum of all business spending on capital, and NX is all exports minus all imports.  

Decades of growth in government and government spending, and their recent explosive growth have resulted in severely eroding confidence and the curtailment of expanded private consumption.  This is necessarily so because government can only spend what it extracts from private individuals and businesses either through taxes or burdening them with debt.  In either case, the private sector is less willing and able to spend.

A future post will go into the details of the foregoing in greater deal but for now your not-at-all-humble blogger will offer only the following abreviated explanation of the above-stated conclusion that the government will not act in a way that would have a positive effect on the economy:  Anything the government does almost certainly will result in more government, more government action, and more government spending -- the equivalent of shackling weights to a drowning man -- rather than doing less and thus freeing the man to climb out of the swamp.



Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Obama's Singular Achievement

While degrading America's military strength to the point that it no longer is adequate to protect that nation's overseas interests or to counter international threats, the current administration, by adopting Jimmy Carter's policy of talking strongly while carrying a feather duster, has created something new in the history of our country:
America today is no longer
trusted by its friends,
feared by its enemies, or 
respected by anyone.

Congratulations and thank you Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry, and Mrs. Clinton!


Above-the-Law Judges Beneath Contempt


A panel of federal appeals court judges has again ruled that they and their fellow black robe wearers are above the law.  They have anointed themselves as a unique special class exempt from any legal consequences irrespective of how unlawful and reprehensible their official conduct or the harm it inflicts on less favored individuals.

A report on the most recent example of this self-serving  decision and some of its horrific precedents can be found here.

The argument for the exemption from accountability is that judges must be free to act as they deem best without having to fear any personal consequences.  That would be a fair socially benefit argument had the courts not eliminated similar exemptions from liability from others who in their professional capacities act for the benefit of society.

Consider as examples soldiers in combat, law enforcement officers, and physicians and surgeons.  In fact, individuals serving in those capacities have a better case for exemptions from personal legal liability for any transgressions.  Unlike judges, they have to decide how to act, and to implement their decisions on the spur of the moment and on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate information while under great stress in life-or-death situations.

Judges on the other hand have the luxurious benefit of being able to study, reflect on and consider, and decide on matters before them when they choose to do so. Furthermore, the judicial process gives them the obligation and power to demand that they be presented with accurate and complete information before making a decision.   

Bottom line is that the black robed folks are called honorable but they are not.  They make rules for lesser mortals but when it comes to themselves JUSTICE MEANS JUST US!


Tomorrow Is Dependence Day


Thursday, April 9, 2015

It's About Control: the Freedom Curbing Imperative

Following up on the preceding post, the harsh penalties imposed on those who deny goods or services to individuals and events as a matter of personal choice are not motivated by a desire to make the product or service available to the refused potential customer.  In America, alternate suppliers always are available to provide the desired product or service.

Instead, the penalties are draconian as a control measure.  They are to punish anyone who refuses to toe the current politically correct line . . . anyone who insists on exercising his or her rights as a free individual by refusing to meekly submit to the control of society's self righteous elitist overlords.

Freedom might be infectious.  It therefore cannot be tolerated and must be crushed.


Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Tolerance For Everything But Freedom

 Discrimination, notwithstanding the current mindless onslaught against it, is a bedrock of individual liberty.  It cannot be eliminated.  Every human -- and, in fact, every living thing  -- constantly practices discrimination.

We discriminate when we select foods and drinks to consume (and which to eschew) from a vast array of available choices, when we choose which books to read, which films, television program and plays to see, broadcast programs and music to hear, products to consume, and commercial establishments to patronize.

We discriminate when we choose friends and others with whom to associate as well as whom to date and wed. 

Few of us would find life worth living without the freedom to make these discriminatory choices, and especially the last of the above-listed associational examples.

The freedom of association -- to associate with individuals we choose -- also necessarily includes the freedom to not associate with those we prefer to avoid.

There was a time in the not too distant past that the freedom of not associating was protected by the posting in many commercial establishments of signs proclaiming:
We Reserve the Right
to Refuse Service
to Anyone
Society found it necessary to limit that right because its exercise often made it impossible for members of disfavored minorities to obtain housing, adequate education, and essential public accommodations and services such as rooms, food and drink, and transportation.  And the resulting limits on denials of those things have been laudatory . . . until recently.

Overbearing bureaucrats once again are demonstrating that even good ideas can be pushed to counterproductive and even destructive extremes.  

That, for example, is what has been taking place as public (though unelected) bodies operating as "equal rights" enforcers have been coming down on the proprietors of small bakeries and catering businesses for refusing to provide goods or services to homosexual nuptials.  Such refusals of business are hardly the equivalent of denying essential goods or services to a member of a racial or ethnic minority.  The desired wedding cake or catering service is not an essential of life and is almost always available from competing businesses and alternate sources.

Nonetheless noncompliance with the bureaucratic dictates and edicts have resulted in fines so draconian that they have caused the small businesses to fail or shut down.  In addition, the proprietors and their employees have been compelled to participate in sensitivity training sessions -- forced reeducation programs along the lines envisioned by George Orwell in 1984 and actually put into practice by Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao Tse-Tung in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia.

If the proprietor of a business (other than one dealing in the basic essentials of life) chooses, to forgo doing business with anyone, he or she should be left alone to do so.  The reason for making such a choice is not the business of anone else.  It can be based on individual conscience, religious beliefs, personal preference, just feeling cranky, any other reason, or even personal whim or no reason at all.  That's what the freedom of association, the freedom to discriminate, is all about.

In addition, there's that pesky prohibition of involuntary servitude enshrined in and protected by the Constitution's 13th Amendment. 

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

More Waffling By Our Tower of Jello

Our red-line setting but ignoring POTUS (which used to denote the President of the United States) is at it again.

After more than 18 months of repeated extensions (and numerous concessions to the ayatollahs) in negotiations with Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weapons, no agreement has been reached on even a framework for further negotiations.  Despite prior assurances that there would be no further extensions of the framework talks our POTUS is again extending what he previously represented to be a firm March 31 deadline.

Among the unresolved items, according to The Wall Street Journals, are such details as the pace at which sanctions against Iran would be removed, the scope of Iran's future nuclear work, and the ability of international inspectors to access Iran's nuclear and military sites.

Is it any wonder that there are among us an increasing number of folks who view the POTUS acronym as having come to denote a Piece of Totally Useless S _ _ t?

Stacking the Judicial Deck

Eleven U.S.Ninth  Circuit Court of Appeals judges are going to decide whether ordinary Californians are going to be able to carry guns to defend themselves.

The Circuit's current chief judge will be one the panel's members.  Its other 10 members supposedly will be chosen at random from the Circuits other 25 sitting judges not recusing themselves.

The joker in the panel is that the chief judge already has voted on the matter.  He was the dissenting vote in the 2--to -1 vote of the three-judge panel upholding the right of citizens to carry arms.  He also voted to require the rehearing of the case by the 11 judge panel that he obviously hopes will vindicate his prior votes in the case.

Thus the right-to-carry starts out with one nay vote.

Does anyone think this is fair?

Keep in mind that individuals who are supposed to be addressed as honorable rarely merit that appellation.  By and large they are not bound by the rules they impose on the rest of us.

Two interesting side points:

*  Any black-robed elitist judge who wishes to do so can get a permit to carry concealed weapons, and many of them do so.  Of course their lives are more important than ours.

*  On his first day as a judge, a former law partner of your not-at-all humble blogger who had been appointed and approved to take the bench was visited by a police officer carrying a large piece of luggage.  The bag contained a collection of firearms from which the newly seated judge was invited to select one or more (at no cost) with which he might wish to defend himself if there should be a perceived need to do so.  He was advised that the collection was made up of weapons that had been seized and confiscated from their owners who were deemed -- though usually not adjudicated -- to be ineligible to possess or carry them.

Those holding a position that carries with it the right to be addressed as honorable (as well as their cronies and supporters), celebrities (even those who have been convicted of felonies), and big political campaign donors constitute one class of citizens . . . and their well being is important and entitled to protection.

As for the rest of us . . . .  Oh well.


Jounalists' Anti-Gun Bias Beats Logic

Lamestream journalists again are demonstrating how their lockstep anti-gun bias leaves them curiously lacking the curiosity and strangely stripped  of the skepticism that used to be a foundation of the fourth estate.

Over the past month the traditional media outlets have been trumpeting the results of a couple of obscure polls that purported to reveal a record decline in the percentage of American homes in which the residents has firearms.

Never mind that the polls had been conducted by telephone and that gun owners might lie because of a reluctance to share information about their guns to a strange who called them.  And ignore the fact that the same outlets chose not to report better recognized polls that showed exactly opposite results.

But even a dim bulb journalouse might be expected to question what happened to all the guns that previously were kept in the nation's homes.  Did all those durable firearms somehow vaporize or otherwise disappear into the atmosphere?  And how did those media outlets reconcile their triumphant reporting with the fact that firearms sales reached record high levels in 2013 and 2014?

The nation's press lords appear not to care about the credibility that they sacrifice by churning out blatantly illogical reports to push their ideological views.