In April of 1865, a Democrat walked up behind President Abraham Lincoln as the president was enjoying a play and shot him in the back of the head.
I find it amazing that nobody ever asks the question: "How did this guy just walk up to the President of the United States of America and shoot him in the head?" Where was his security? Why wasn't John Wilkes Booth stopped long before he got anywhere near Lincoln?
And the operative word in that last sentence is, "Why?"
In today's world, we tend to see the President as a kind of King. Someone who is surrounded by an entourage and multiple layers of heavily armed security. But that's not how it always was.
At one time in our country's history, the federal government was so inconsequential to the lives of most Americans that nobody would bother assassinating the President. What would be the point? To stop him from signing a treaty or imposing a tariff? Because things like that were the only things that the Federal government was allowed to do back then.
John Wilkes Booth walked up behind Abraham Lincoln and assassinated him because he (Lincoln) had pissed off southern Democrat slaveholders. Not for some grand political statement. He did it because he was pissed off and because he could.
There was no security detail because, until then, it was thought to be unnecessary. The Federal government wasn't something that the vast majority of people ever thought about, because the Federal government had almost zero impact on their lives.
There was no fence around the White House. Families used to picnic on the front lawn. There are stories of people parking their carriages under the White House portico to get out of the rain. A person could walk up to the front door and ask to see the President to petition him on some matter.
Compare that to today: the Federal government has gotten so huge and powerful that State governments are the ones viewed as inconsequential. The states are routinely trampled by the Federal government and rarely fight back because they know that it would be pointless - and that they'd lose the money that the Federal government stole from them and then bribes them with if they were to fight back.
Think about that: compare the fact that no one gave a single shit about the Federal government 150 years ago to the fact that they now control every aspect of your life. From what light bulbs you can use, to what toilet you can use, to regulating the puddle in your back yard.
America isn't dying. America died, slowly, with every regulation and law that has been passed by the Federal government for the past 100 years. It is now America in name only. A shuffling zombie looking for taxes and power instead of brains.
Friday, June 23, 2017
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
How Many Poor, Black Families Would That Money Help?
Obamas purchase D.C. house for $8.1 million, new report says
Former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle have purchased the home they’ve been renting in Washington, D.C. for $8.1 million, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”
- Barack Obama
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Race War? I'm Your Huckleberry
There are many, many blacks and members of the Left who are outright calling for a race war nowadays. These people are mentally ill and delusional.
To begin with, there are 300 million legally owned guns in this country. The vast, vast majority of them are owned by white guys (and gals) who actually know how to use them.
Shooting is a skill. It takes a lot of practice to become even halfway decent at it. One of the shooting ranges that I go to is on the fringes of North Minneapolis, which is Representative Keith Ellison's Congressional district. In other words, it's an overwhelmingly black part of town. And yet, I have never seen a black person shooting there. Or at any other range, for that matter. In other words, the vast majority of the black thugs who want this race war don't even know how to use their firearms.
And their firearms consist mostly of crappy, cheap handguns that are ineffective beyond about 15 yards. And that's if you know how to shoot (see above). I can shoot a 3-inch group with my SIG SAUER P320 from 15 yards. Not great, but it will do. Meanwhile, with their lack of training and shitty hardware, these black thugs couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside.
Add to that the fact that with my "worst" rifle I can hit a deer at 300 yards, and their 10 yard "range of death" seems pretty insignificant. And, again, even the few who do have rifles don't know how to use them because they've never practiced. North Minneapolis is a ghetto shithole and there really aren't any wide open spaces to practice your marksmanship.
Of course, not all white people are proficient with firearms. The Leftists especially are terrified of the very thought of guns. But many, many of us are - and we're teaching others to be proficient, too. I gave my daughter her first pistol when she passed her gun safety course at 12 years old. A Ruger Mark III Target in stainless steel with a bull barrel and rosewood grips. It is truly a thing of beauty and, with more practice, she'll be out-shooting me before long.
But even if you only count us gun "enthusiasts" who own the vast majority of those 300 million guns, the math just doesn't add up for the blacks who want a race war.
Black males are 6% of the population. Those of fighting age are, maybe, 4%, probably less.
White males are about 35% of the population. Those of fighting age are - being charitable to the blacks - maybe 25%.
So, assuming that the population of The United States is 350 million, let's do the math.
Blacks:
350^6 x .04 = 14 million
Whites:
350^6 x .25 = 87.5 million
And, yet, these delusional morons think that they have a chance of winning a race war with a 6.25 to 1 disadvantage. Factor in all of the things that I wrote about above about preparedness and hardware, and you see just how insane this is.
But wait! I had a black guy tell me the other night that it wouldn't be just the gangbangers out there fighting. The military is largely black and, therefore, combat trained. Yeah? Have you ever noticed while watching news footage or documentaries or YouTube videos of actual combat, that there are almost zero black people doing the actual fighting? Most people probably haven't noticed it before, but seriously: watch some videos. Black people are almost never in combat positions. They are, for whatever reason, almost always in support roles behind the lines. So, at best, they have basic training. Big whoop. My weapons training and the bar fights I got into when I was younger make me much more deadly than anyone with basic training.
In addition, these black "warriors" seem to think that they'll be fighting Phil from the Accounting Department. The reality is that they'll be fighting the cowboys, the "rednecks", the bikers, the hunters and the just-plain-pissed-off suburbanites (I would fit into the suburbanite and biker categories, though I have no affiliation). Which is hilarious, because if there is anything that immediately terrifies a black man, it's a biker. Black guys may mouth off to a cop, but they will rarely offend a white guy in black leather with a bike.
The thing is, I keep hearing about some impending civil war. The Left against the Right. It would be a war in the sense that the first Iraq war was a "war". It was over in a week. The Iraqis were out-manned, out-classed, out-trained and we had vastly better hardware.
The Left, racists that they are, will send out their blacks as cannon fodder. And they would be wiped out. After that, the "war" would be over. The Left's reserve forces* - the only ones who aren't complete pussies - are the Anarchist crowd. And these spoiled, little rich kids are even less prepared than the blacks. They act tough when they know that nothing serious is going to happen to them, but they certainly won't take a bullet - or even a severe beating - for their "cause".
That would leave the Academics, the Hollywood set, the Broadway theater folks, the journalists, the rich elitists and your basic "Pajama Boy" to keep up the fight.
*I've left the Hispanics out of this because I believe that they wouldn't be fighting on behalf of the Left, wittingly or unwittingly, like the blacks would be. The Hispanic population would either stay out of it or, seeing which way the wind was blowing, actually become the "enemy of my enemy". Hispanics and blacks have their own racial animus.
To begin with, there are 300 million legally owned guns in this country. The vast, vast majority of them are owned by white guys (and gals) who actually know how to use them.
Shooting is a skill. It takes a lot of practice to become even halfway decent at it. One of the shooting ranges that I go to is on the fringes of North Minneapolis, which is Representative Keith Ellison's Congressional district. In other words, it's an overwhelmingly black part of town. And yet, I have never seen a black person shooting there. Or at any other range, for that matter. In other words, the vast majority of the black thugs who want this race war don't even know how to use their firearms.
And their firearms consist mostly of crappy, cheap handguns that are ineffective beyond about 15 yards. And that's if you know how to shoot (see above). I can shoot a 3-inch group with my SIG SAUER P320 from 15 yards. Not great, but it will do. Meanwhile, with their lack of training and shitty hardware, these black thugs couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside.
Add to that the fact that with my "worst" rifle I can hit a deer at 300 yards, and their 10 yard "range of death" seems pretty insignificant. And, again, even the few who do have rifles don't know how to use them because they've never practiced. North Minneapolis is a ghetto shithole and there really aren't any wide open spaces to practice your marksmanship.
Of course, not all white people are proficient with firearms. The Leftists especially are terrified of the very thought of guns. But many, many of us are - and we're teaching others to be proficient, too. I gave my daughter her first pistol when she passed her gun safety course at 12 years old. A Ruger Mark III Target in stainless steel with a bull barrel and rosewood grips. It is truly a thing of beauty and, with more practice, she'll be out-shooting me before long.
But even if you only count us gun "enthusiasts" who own the vast majority of those 300 million guns, the math just doesn't add up for the blacks who want a race war.
Black males are 6% of the population. Those of fighting age are, maybe, 4%, probably less.
White males are about 35% of the population. Those of fighting age are - being charitable to the blacks - maybe 25%.
So, assuming that the population of The United States is 350 million, let's do the math.
Blacks:
350^6 x .04 = 14 million
Whites:
350^6 x .25 = 87.5 million
And, yet, these delusional morons think that they have a chance of winning a race war with a 6.25 to 1 disadvantage. Factor in all of the things that I wrote about above about preparedness and hardware, and you see just how insane this is.
But wait! I had a black guy tell me the other night that it wouldn't be just the gangbangers out there fighting. The military is largely black and, therefore, combat trained. Yeah? Have you ever noticed while watching news footage or documentaries or YouTube videos of actual combat, that there are almost zero black people doing the actual fighting? Most people probably haven't noticed it before, but seriously: watch some videos. Black people are almost never in combat positions. They are, for whatever reason, almost always in support roles behind the lines. So, at best, they have basic training. Big whoop. My weapons training and the bar fights I got into when I was younger make me much more deadly than anyone with basic training.
In addition, these black "warriors" seem to think that they'll be fighting Phil from the Accounting Department. The reality is that they'll be fighting the cowboys, the "rednecks", the bikers, the hunters and the just-plain-pissed-off suburbanites (I would fit into the suburbanite and biker categories, though I have no affiliation). Which is hilarious, because if there is anything that immediately terrifies a black man, it's a biker. Black guys may mouth off to a cop, but they will rarely offend a white guy in black leather with a bike.
The thing is, I keep hearing about some impending civil war. The Left against the Right. It would be a war in the sense that the first Iraq war was a "war". It was over in a week. The Iraqis were out-manned, out-classed, out-trained and we had vastly better hardware.
The Left, racists that they are, will send out their blacks as cannon fodder. And they would be wiped out. After that, the "war" would be over. The Left's reserve forces* - the only ones who aren't complete pussies - are the Anarchist crowd. And these spoiled, little rich kids are even less prepared than the blacks. They act tough when they know that nothing serious is going to happen to them, but they certainly won't take a bullet - or even a severe beating - for their "cause".
That would leave the Academics, the Hollywood set, the Broadway theater folks, the journalists, the rich elitists and your basic "Pajama Boy" to keep up the fight.
*I've left the Hispanics out of this because I believe that they wouldn't be fighting on behalf of the Left, wittingly or unwittingly, like the blacks would be. The Hispanic population would either stay out of it or, seeing which way the wind was blowing, actually become the "enemy of my enemy". Hispanics and blacks have their own racial animus.
Friday, May 26, 2017
What's the Difference?
Most serial killers are white males.
When someone points this out, I, as a white male, don't get offended. I don't set my hair on fire and hysterically accuse the person who pointed it out of thinking that all white males are serial killers. Neither do any of the other white males that I know. That would be silly.
Most terrorists are Muslims.
When someone points this out, Muslims and their Leftist allies set their hair on fire and hysterically accuse the person who pointed it out of believing that all Muslims are terrorists.
The difference? I don't have any desire to be seen as a "victim" so that I can leverage that into a political agenda.
Muslims and their Leftist apologists know that "most terrorists are Muslim" is a true statement. But it's really hard to demonize their political opponents if they admit that they know that.
In other words, they are lying sacks of dog shit.
When someone points this out, I, as a white male, don't get offended. I don't set my hair on fire and hysterically accuse the person who pointed it out of thinking that all white males are serial killers. Neither do any of the other white males that I know. That would be silly.
Most terrorists are Muslims.
When someone points this out, Muslims and their Leftist allies set their hair on fire and hysterically accuse the person who pointed it out of believing that all Muslims are terrorists.
The difference? I don't have any desire to be seen as a "victim" so that I can leverage that into a political agenda.
Muslims and their Leftist apologists know that "most terrorists are Muslim" is a true statement. But it's really hard to demonize their political opponents if they admit that they know that.
In other words, they are lying sacks of dog shit.
Thursday, May 04, 2017
Refilling the Swamp
So, Trump and the Republicans have "repealed" Obamacare...while leaving some of the largest and worst aspects of it intact.
They have passed a budget that doesn't include money for building the border wall, doesn't defund Planned Parenthood, gives money to sanctuary cities, doesn't cut back federal government agencies, adds an additional $5 billion to Democrat plans...I could go on, but it's just so fucking depressing.
And Trump is celebrating the deal. The Republican establishment - the very people who attacked Trump during the campaign - are celebrating the deal. And the Democrats are positively fucking giddy over the deal.
I wish that I could say that I'm surprised, but I'm not. I predicted this long ago. I said that if Trump were elected nothing would really change. And it hasn't. Other than getting Gorsuch appoint to the SCOTUS, he's talked a lot, but done fuck all.
Hillary and her gang, who have fucking obviously committed thousands of felonies will skate. As will Lois Lerner of the IRS for political targeting of opponents and scores of other obviously corrupt Democrats. These are people who have committed crimes that are absolutely fucking indefensible in the true meaning of the word.
Trump has complete control of the Justice Department and, yet, he doesn't even consider using these people as an example to scare the shit out of anyone else who, in the future, may contemplate similar actions. It would be a "YUGE" deterrent to future politicians and bureaucrats, but Trump does nothing.
I hate to toot my own horn, but I honestly couldn't have predicted this any better than I did:
They have passed a budget that doesn't include money for building the border wall, doesn't defund Planned Parenthood, gives money to sanctuary cities, doesn't cut back federal government agencies, adds an additional $5 billion to Democrat plans...I could go on, but it's just so fucking depressing.
And Trump is celebrating the deal. The Republican establishment - the very people who attacked Trump during the campaign - are celebrating the deal. And the Democrats are positively fucking giddy over the deal.
I wish that I could say that I'm surprised, but I'm not. I predicted this long ago. I said that if Trump were elected nothing would really change. And it hasn't. Other than getting Gorsuch appoint to the SCOTUS, he's talked a lot, but done fuck all.
Hillary and her gang, who have fucking obviously committed thousands of felonies will skate. As will Lois Lerner of the IRS for political targeting of opponents and scores of other obviously corrupt Democrats. These are people who have committed crimes that are absolutely fucking indefensible in the true meaning of the word.
Trump has complete control of the Justice Department and, yet, he doesn't even consider using these people as an example to scare the shit out of anyone else who, in the future, may contemplate similar actions. It would be a "YUGE" deterrent to future politicians and bureaucrats, but Trump does nothing.
I hate to toot my own horn, but I honestly couldn't have predicted this any better than I did:
When/if Trump gets to Washington, it will be like the scene in Braveheart where the Irish are on the battlefield, sprinting towards each other, screaming their scariest battle cries and then, suddenly, stop and embrace each other.
Friday, April 28, 2017
Leftists Can't Think
The Left believes that evolution is an indisputable fact.
The Left believes that homosexuality being a genetic trait is an indisputable fact.
So, if homosexuals can't pass down their best genetic traits to their offspring - because they have very, very few of them - why hasn't homosexuality disappeared due to "natural selection"?
Only insane people can hold two polar-opposite beliefs like that in their minds at once.
Sunday, April 09, 2017
Trump Supporters: Puddles
So President Trump launches some missiles at Syria in retaliation for a chemical attack on civilians, and his supporters light their hair on fire, shrieking, "We elected him because he promised not to get involved in other countries' wars!".
Where to start.
First of all, I run hot and cold on Trump. He has done some great things already in the few months that he's been in office. Appointing Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS being the best example. However, he does seem to be swayed by the Leftists in his midst, his son-in-law in particular. Truthfully, I still don't trust the guy to be the Conservative that he ran as during the campaign. I voted for him, but it was reluctantly.
What amuses me about these missile strikes on Syria, is how quickly his supporters turned on him. Their "support" is a mile wide and an inch deep. Shallow. And, unfortunately, it kind of confirms what the MSM has been saying about them: they really ain't all that bright. If they could think about the situation for a second, they'd calm the fuck down. They reacted just like the outrage-mobs of the Left: no thought given, just instant outrage because he did something that they didn't like. And, of course, the conspiracy theories came out immediately - again, just like Leftist snowflakes.
If his "supporters" were capable of any strategic thinking at all, they would understand that the missile strikes served a few purposes.
1) Putting the world on notice that chemical weapons are not to be used.
2) Putting the world on notice that any action that threatens America - directly or indirectly - will be met with swift action. Trump hit Syria within 72 hours of the chemical weapons attack. That is extremely fast in the political world.
3) But, most importantly, it puts the world on notice that the policies of the pussy Obama administration are null and void. There's a new sherrif in town, to use a cliche, and we won't be dithering about and hemming and hawing and wringing our hands for months before we issue empty threats about "red lines" and then never actually do anything.
The New York Times asks, "After the Airstrikes on Syria, Now What?". To which my reply would be, "How about - nothing?". Of course, the article is the usual NYT's Leftist, anti-Trump drivel, but it is the important question. The problem is, Trump's supporters, Like the NYT, seems to think that the missile strikes may be the first step towards a full-scale invasion of Syria and/or Iran. For both the Leftists and many of Trump's supporters, they just couldn't wait to set their hair on fire and leap into the pool of sweet, sweet outrage. It's very sad that the same people who brought some hope, however small, to this country by electing Trump now can't wait to burn it all down over what is, in reality, a very trivial matter that won't be remembered in a month or two.
Trump didn't promise to never use military force, but his followers seem to think that is what he campaigned on. He promised that he wouldn't be indulging in nation building and going to war over things that weren't in our nation's interest. I don't see how launching some missiles to send a message invalidates that position. But, then, I tend to think before I react.
UPDATE: The administration seems to be validating the fact that this was a one-time thing and that their policy in Syria hasn't changed at all.
Also, this explains the points that I made above: To Kill a Chicken to Scare Monkeys.
Where to start.
First of all, I run hot and cold on Trump. He has done some great things already in the few months that he's been in office. Appointing Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS being the best example. However, he does seem to be swayed by the Leftists in his midst, his son-in-law in particular. Truthfully, I still don't trust the guy to be the Conservative that he ran as during the campaign. I voted for him, but it was reluctantly.
What amuses me about these missile strikes on Syria, is how quickly his supporters turned on him. Their "support" is a mile wide and an inch deep. Shallow. And, unfortunately, it kind of confirms what the MSM has been saying about them: they really ain't all that bright. If they could think about the situation for a second, they'd calm the fuck down. They reacted just like the outrage-mobs of the Left: no thought given, just instant outrage because he did something that they didn't like. And, of course, the conspiracy theories came out immediately - again, just like Leftist snowflakes.
If his "supporters" were capable of any strategic thinking at all, they would understand that the missile strikes served a few purposes.
1) Putting the world on notice that chemical weapons are not to be used.
2) Putting the world on notice that any action that threatens America - directly or indirectly - will be met with swift action. Trump hit Syria within 72 hours of the chemical weapons attack. That is extremely fast in the political world.
3) But, most importantly, it puts the world on notice that the policies of the pussy Obama administration are null and void. There's a new sherrif in town, to use a cliche, and we won't be dithering about and hemming and hawing and wringing our hands for months before we issue empty threats about "red lines" and then never actually do anything.
The New York Times asks, "After the Airstrikes on Syria, Now What?". To which my reply would be, "How about - nothing?". Of course, the article is the usual NYT's Leftist, anti-Trump drivel, but it is the important question. The problem is, Trump's supporters, Like the NYT, seems to think that the missile strikes may be the first step towards a full-scale invasion of Syria and/or Iran. For both the Leftists and many of Trump's supporters, they just couldn't wait to set their hair on fire and leap into the pool of sweet, sweet outrage. It's very sad that the same people who brought some hope, however small, to this country by electing Trump now can't wait to burn it all down over what is, in reality, a very trivial matter that won't be remembered in a month or two.
Trump didn't promise to never use military force, but his followers seem to think that is what he campaigned on. He promised that he wouldn't be indulging in nation building and going to war over things that weren't in our nation's interest. I don't see how launching some missiles to send a message invalidates that position. But, then, I tend to think before I react.
UPDATE: The administration seems to be validating the fact that this was a one-time thing and that their policy in Syria hasn't changed at all.
Also, this explains the points that I made above: To Kill a Chicken to Scare Monkeys.
Saturday, April 08, 2017
You Can Take the Somali Out Of The 3rd World Shithole...
But you can't take the third world shithole out of the Somalis.
Although, now that I think about it, I work in Minneapolis and it is quickly becoming a third world shithole.
Democratic caucus melt down in bloody chaos
Although, now that I think about it, I work in Minneapolis and it is quickly becoming a third world shithole.
Wednesday, March 08, 2017
Questions for you Climatologists (rhymes with Scientologists):
What is the temperature of the earth supposed to be? Why? How do you know that?
Has the climate changed before? Will it change again? Did animals and humans survive (and thrive) during previous changes to the climate?
How many of these scientists rely on government and NGO grants from people who will profit from "climate change" for their paychecks? Is that not a huge potential conflict of interest? Would you believe a scientist who was paid by Exxon?
Why does every "solution" to "climate change" always - ALWAYS - involve turning over more of our money and power to those who crave money and power like a heroin addict craves a fix?
Why did the phrase "global warming" suddenly need to be changed to "climate change" once it was shown that the earth had stopped warming in 1996 and, indeed, still has continued to not warm?
Why do "environmentalists" defend their catechism with a zeal and fanaticism that even hardcore religious fundamentalists find creepy?
Whatever happened to "acid rain" and the hole in the ozone layer that was supposed to have killed us all by now?
How much of Mother Earth are we supposed to despoil with windmills and solar panels. How many dead birds are an acceptable sacrifice to your Gods? Why are strip mines ugly, but miles and miles of windmills and solar panels aren't?
Your cult has been predicting doom for 30 years or more. Why should we believe you when NOT ONE of your predictions have come true? None. Zero. Nada. Nichts. People laugh at doomsday preachers. We laugh at you.
Why do your High Priests (AlGore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Moore, etc.) all have "carbon footprints" the size of a good-sized town? It takes an amazing amount of faith for you to believe these people are sincere.
Why does your mascot-of-doom, the polar bear, seem to be thriving?
What percentage of "climate change" is "man-made"? If the "science is settled", you should have a number, right?
What percentage of "climate change" is "man-made"? If the "science is settled", you should have a number, right?
When will we know that our efforts to stop "climate change" have been successful? Or, like every other Leftist program, will it be a never-ending source of power and money for those who profit from it?
Oh Ye of the Church of the Everlasting Global warming, please answer these questions. If you can do so convincingly, perhaps I'll take you seriously. I won't be holding my breath.
Thursday, March 02, 2017
Remember: You Asked for This
If the Left succeeds in bringing down Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump's response should be simple: appoint Ted Cruz or Trey Gowdy.
If they take out Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary, appoint Ann Coulter!
In other words, anyone whom the Left does manage to take down should be replaced by someone even farther to the Right.
I'm betting the Democrats' fervor for taking Cabinet members out would cool down very, very quickly.
If they take out Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary, appoint Ann Coulter!
In other words, anyone whom the Left does manage to take down should be replaced by someone even farther to the Right.
I'm betting the Democrats' fervor for taking Cabinet members out would cool down very, very quickly.
Democrats Never Change
Just add some matching hoods, and they'll look just like their old friends in the KKK.
A Question
The Left believes that there is no such thing as objective reality. That people make their own reality.
So ask yourself this: Why would Leftists make up a reality filled with misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism and everything else that they hate?
Interesting question, that.
So ask yourself this: Why would Leftists make up a reality filled with misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism and everything else that they hate?
Interesting question, that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)