Snowcialism: You Didn’t Shovel That!

Even when you did.  Apparently, the Washington DC Police Chief doesn’t want people who dig out parking spots to reserve them.

lanier

She admonishes not the poacher who swings his car into the spot vacated by the person who put in the effort to get out and go to work, but instead scolds the shoveler.  How dare you, despite the sweat equity you put into clearing all the plow residue from a parking space, feel any slight entitlement to reap the benefits of your work?

If there is ever a microcosm of the entire political philosophy of the Marxist clowns who run that benighted crap-hole of a city, and the even bigger Marxists living there who are supposed to run our country, this is it.  In other cities, particularly northern ones, being a poacher will earn universal contempt.  It can also be a leading cause of sudden tire deflation.  And an occasional skull thumping.  I have also seen nice cars packed to the gills with snow, presumably courtesy of the person who sweated and cussed and hacked at ice to clear the space now poached.  A more helpful and realistic message from ol’ Chief Lanier would have been something like this:

@DCPoliceDept Chief Lanier: Though someone can’t technically “save” a parking space they just busted a nut shoveling, it would be wise not to be a d*ckhead by poaching the space.  And if you do, don’t be surprised if someone dents their snow shovel on your head.  #LazyPoachingBastard  #ShovelYourOwnDamnedSpace

But when lazy poaching bastards who let other people do the work for them are a key constituency, I spose you aren’t so inclined.

 

H/T

The Lovely DB

 

How Obama Gun Control Works

barack-obama-0-800

Barack Obama made great theater out of his weepy press conference to declare he was closing the non-existent “gun show loophole” and other sundry evil means by which law-abiding citizens may acquire firearms.  His executive orders, he tells us, will “save lives”, Second Amendment rights and separation of powers be damned.

a-new-book-explains-how-el-chapo-became-the-worlds-most-successful-drug-lord

It would seem that the loophole our aspiring Imperator did NOT close was the one where a firearm, or two thousand firearms, is purchased with taxpayer money, transported at taxpayer expense, and sold to known criminals.  You know, the Fast and Furious loophole.  The loophole that is the reason that for the leader of the Sinaola drug cartel, the murderous Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, came to be in possession of a .50 caliber rifle, and undoubtedly more firearms, courtesy of the Obama Justice Department.

mexico_drug

mexican_drug_war__39447

That’s right.  While Obama was crying his crocodile tears, the guns his Attorney General had authorized be allowed to “walk” into the hands of Mexican gangs on both sides of our borders, continue to kill Mexican citizens.  Hundreds of Mexican men, women, and children have been brutally slain by these violent criminals, with bullets from the barrels of Fast and Furious guns.  A US Border Patrol Agent has also died by the hand of a Drug Cartel criminal using a Fast and Furious weapon.  I have little doubt that other American citizens have lost their lives to criminals armed with guns provided them by the Obama Administration through Fast and Furious, whether we hear about them or not (which we won’t).

holder (2)

What was the purpose of this deadly and entirely illegal gun-walking operation run by the Obama Justice Department?  Why, it was provide fodder for the gun-control zealots to make their pitch for the disarmament of the law-abiding in the United States.  That’s right.  So that the case could be made for yet-stricter gun laws further infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  “Sensible” gun laws.  You know, like the Emergency Decrees after the Reichstag Fire.  Sensible.  Oh, and Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder?  Never HEARD of Fast and Furious, as he did his best Lois Lerner/Hillary Clinton under oath.  He has, of course, been replaced by his female doppelganger in Lois Lynch, in a job that seems to have but three qualifications:  melanin content, contempt for the Constitution, and a desire to disarm the American populace.  The ones that aren’t “her people”, anyway.

358301_img650x420_img650x420_crop

ISIS-hanging-Hawija

Who else has the Obama Administration been considerate enough to provide guns to, courtesy of the American People’s wallets?  Right.  You guessed it.  Islamic extremists and terrorists.  Murderous animals differing from those in San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Little Rock, and Boston (or Paris, or Mali, or Burkina Faso) only in geographic location.  Terrorist groups who have murdered thousands of Christians (and Muslims) across the Middle East.  Sworn enemies of the United States bent on the destruction of all they encounter in the name of their violent cult disguised as a religion.  The very religion that Barack Obama pledged to stand with.

Guns-to-Terrorist-590-LI

It would appear that the Obama White House is perfectly willing to believe that the populace of Syria, or Libya, needed to be armed, to help them in their struggle against the tyranny of dictatorship.  Americans, in Obama’s view, deserve no such redress against tyranny, despite the Second Amendment, and the clarity of the Founding Fathers on the requirement for it.  In fact, Obama is so dead set against our gun rights that he is willing to sacrifice the lives of an American CBP agent and hundreds of innocent Mexicans living in a virtual war zone, to produce a propaganda campaign to brainwash the American people into giving up their last means of protection from the tyranny of men and women like himself who hold so tightly the levers of power.

Charles+Schumer+Michael+Bloomberg+NYC+Mayor+SNRKdqdW8zfl

To someone who understands what Obama is, and what he intends, his faux-anger at “gun violence” is positively Orwellian.  To someone who believes such displays to be sincere, I would love to ask that person if Obama managed to mention between sobs the men, women, and children of Oaxaca, or Tijuana, or La Laguna, or Cuidad Juarez, or Aleppo, or Ramadi…  If that person doesn’t understand the question, then they can’t understand that Obama and his ilk (Hillary, Bloomberg, et al.) wish to disarm us for THEIR protection, not ours, and certainly not the children of Sandy Hook.   That is what Obama gun control is for.  That Obama is perfectly willing to have guns bought and supplied by the American taxpayer deliberately placed in the hands of the most dangerous drug cartels in Mexico, but not law-abiding Americans?  Why, that is how Obama gun control works!  So, please, if you still think that the “gun control” of the far left somehow makes us safer, you have the intellectual curiosity of a pack mule.  And no, I don’t want to have a conversation about “sensible” gun laws with you.  Because you haven’t the sense to do so.  Go hang out with loudmouth half-wits like Whoopi Goldberg or some other liberal nincompoop.

 

 

 

 

 

Philly Cop Shot in Name of Islam. What To Do?

Philly

The suspect in the shooting (“attempted execution”) of a Philadelphia police officer declared that he shot the officer in Islam’s name.   (From the Police Commissioner: “According to him, police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.”) Somehow, the mayor of Philadelphia seems to disagree with the shooter.  Sorta like how Obama doesn’t think muhammedans shrieking their hatred and vengeance upon the infidel as they murder Christians by the thousands has anything to do with muhammedanism.

Be that as it may, the man used a stolen police gun, something the new Obama executive action surely would have prevented.  The police need to be armed, of course, so the real criminal here is obviously religion.  It is high time we recognize that religion kills more people than anything else.  And in order to keep our children safe, we need to have some serious curbs on just anyone having religion.   Schools should be God-free zones.  We need to stop the “extremists” who have hijacked the First Amendment to claim an individual right to faith.

Do you believe in God?  Then you are an extremist.  You should be listed in a federal database as a believer in God.  The place you attend church services should be legally liable for anyone of that faith who kills or harms another person.  That way, when people are no longer allowed to have religion and we are all thankfully safe, armed Federal authorities can come to your house and confiscate bibles, crucifixes, prayer books, rosary beads, and other religious paraphernalia that are dangers to themselves, their household, and their neighbors.

Such a plan, of course, is not unprecedented.  Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, replying to a questioner in Keene, NH who asked “[Regarding] churches…the Soviet Union managed to take away tens of thousands–even millions–of churches and houses of worship, and in one year they were all gone. Can we do that? And if we can’t, why can’t we?”

russiananti5pknetlewm

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Soviet example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

Common-sense religious laws.  Religion is responsible for more violence than any other single thing.  This outmoded idea that everyone has the right to have God in their lives, God telling them what to do instead of the dictates of the State, “makes no sense”, in the words of President Obama.  Maybe, if we can eliminate such dangerous religion in the hands of private citizens, we can avoid the tragedies like San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Umpqua, UC Merced, Paris, and elsewhere.  Let’s do it, for the children, so they can be safe from God and religious violence.  Like the ones in Kampuchea.

 

Howie Carr on the Obama Gun Grab

The irrepressible Howie Carr tells it like it is at the Boston Herald.

So who’s kidding whom here? Obama, Holder, Lynch et al. have zero interest in enforcing the existing gun statutes because they’re violated in large measure by illegal aliens, gangbangers, drive-by shooters, street muggers and fifth-generation welfare layabouts — in other words, the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. Do any of these Obama voters get their weapons at gun shows? If you’ve ever been to a gun show, you damn well know the answer to that question.

Anyone who thinks that the Obama Administration (or Hillary) believe for a second that there is a “gun-show loophole”, or that any of the measures they are proposing will reduce the ability of criminals and muhammedan terrorists to obtain and use guns, is too stupid or brainwashed to have much of a discussion with.  The point, of course, is to disarm the law-abiding populace, so that there will be no redress against tyranny.  Because at the heart of every far-left socialist-communist secular progressive is a tyrant eager to use the force of government compulsion to force compliance with their ideas of the Marxist paradise.

As bad as Obama is, Hillary is worse.  But there are far more people, law enforcement, National Guard members, Veterans, who believe in the Constitution, and are willing to defend it with their lives.

Howie is correct.  If you don’t own a gun, buy one.  And sufficient ammunition to gain proficiency, and then make yourself proficient in defense of your home and your family.

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.  -T. Paine

H/T Brian P.

It Was a Muslim That Burned Mosque in Houston

920x920

Something that was rather hushed in the mainstream media.  Breitbart has the story.

Using surveillance video from other area businesses to identify the arsonist, Gary Nathaniel Moore, 37, was arrested and charged with starting the Christmas Day fire that devastated a Houston, Texas mosque. Moore is a devout Muslim who attended this same mosque for years, praying up to five times a day every day of the week.

The mainstream leftist media becomes positively apoplectic in their spittle-flying harangues about the “Muslim backlash”, which never, ever materializes.  Yet, they abjectly refuse to acknowledge the islamist terrorism on US soil, such as has occurred at Fort Hood, Chattanooga, UC Merced, Umpqua Community College, San Bernadino, etc, and almost occurred at Austin, TX, Fort Dix, and other places.  Because they reflect and are beholden to the pro-Islamist stances of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

That a devout muhammedan is guilty of arson for burning his own mosque will somehow end up on the cutting room floor.   So the law-abiding, especially gun owners, will continue to be blamed not only for things they didn’t do, but for things that didn’t actually happen at all.  While muslim terrorists among the refugees will continue to stream unabated into our cities and towns.

Will a counterfeit passport made by ISIS count as voter ID?

 

 

President Ronald Reagan’s Christmas Message from 1981

Compare and contrast with today’s occupant of “the People’s House”.

This, given by a man who nine months before had been shot and seriously wounded by a would-be assassin.  Yet, his faith in America and her people, and in the blessings of God and liberty, remained so strong.   A man who had been wounded by a gunman, it might be noted, but who never called for disarmament of the law-abiding, or the infringement by the government against the People’s right to keep and bear arms as a last redress against the tyranny of that government.

Thirty-four years is a long time, it would seem.  I mourn the loss of that America, and the President who led it.

H/T MM

VADM Crowder, Retired GOFOs, Double Standards, and Cognitive Dissonance

Trotsky

In the November 2015 issue of USNI Proceedings magazine, retired VADM Douglas Crowder asserted that retired Flag and General Officers should refrain from engaging in the political process , “stay on the sidelines, and away from public endorsements” of candidates in a general election.  In his “Hear This”, Crowder seems to believe the genesis of such activity was Admiral William Crowe’s endorsement of Bill Clinton.  In reality, however, such activities on the part of retired Generals and Admirals, including their entry into the political process as national candidates, goes back to the founding of our Republic.   There has never been a Constitutional prohibition on retired GOFOs participating in the political process, up to and including using the titles of rank that they have earned in the expression of their views and opinions.

For some reason, we are suddenly hearing that such Constitutionally-protected free speech is now “dangerous”, that it could lead to a “politicization” of the Armed Forces.   General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the senior Officer on the active list, intimated such when he called that free speech “unhelpful”,  and later scolded retired GOFOs for exercising their rights.  Apparently he missed the irony of an active agent of the US Government engaging in behavior that has a “chilling effect” on free speech, conduct expressly forbidden as a violation of the very Constitution which Dempsey swore an oath to support and defend.  Indeed, Dempsey’s immoderate and despicable conduct illustrates the two things very wrong with VADM Crowder’s admonitions.  The first is that there is virtually no complaint or outcry when a GOFO goes on record, either in print or the visual media, expressing support for the far-left agenda.   As an example, the gay and lesbian retired GOFOs who openly advocated repeal of DADT were described as being “courageous”, some were even lauded at Obama’s State of the Union addresses.  So how is it that, when contrary to the agenda of the far-left, such political expression becomes dangerous?   It can’t be.  Unless there is a double standard when it comes to Constitutional liberties.  Heaven forfend.   And, here is where the cognitive dissonance begins.   In this month’s Proceedings, Navy Commander Michael Wisecup cautions us on such dangers of retired GOFOs:

“…think of the implications to our profession if a political party could endorse and groom select active-duty (O)fficers into greater positions of authority in order to advocate for their platform.”

Which brings us to the far more disturbing issue that is wrong with VADM Crowder’s (and CDR Wisecup’s) assertions.  They have little to do with the true danger, the increasing trend of active-duty Officers carrying the political water for their masters.  Warning of the dangers of the lawful free expression assiduously ignores damage being done by the increasingly-politicized GOFO ranks at the top of our Armed Forces under Barack Obama.  Advocate for political platforms?  Are you kidding me?  Such instances are impossible to miss.

  • Martin Dempsey’s admonition against lawful free expression was not limited to simply criticism of retired GOFOs who are private citizens.  No, General Dempsey, while in the execution of his duties as an active duty  Military Officer, admonished a PRIVATE CITIZEN to desist from lawful free expression that the General found disagreeable.  Dempsey should have been relieved of his duties.  Had he had such objections to retired GOFOs speaking out in support of the far-left agenda of his political master, he would have been relieved had he not kept his mouth shut.
  • Admiral Mike Mullen’s shameful charade in front of Congress, when he offered, unprompted, his personal views on repeal of DADT, and proceeded to inform the US Military that any disagreement with them would be considered lack of integrity.  Such arrogance and poor judgment also should have been met with censure, but instead Mullen was declared a hero for advancing the political agenda of the far left.  That he lost any remaining respect from many of those he was charged with leading mattered little to him.  Mullen did, however, admonish Army MajGen Mixon for advising his soldiers to utilize their Constitutional rights in addressing their Congressional representatives.
  • After the Islamist terrorist act at Fort Hood in 2009,  in which Maj Nidal Hasan screamed “Allahu Akbar!” while shooting 45 Americans, mostly service members, 13 of them fatally, Army Chief of Staff Casey never addressed how a known Islamist extremist might have been accessed into his Army, or how he managed to be promoted to Major.  Instead, in an act of pathetic political sycophancy, Casey hoped the Islamist terrorism (still called “workplace violence”) would not affect US Army diversity efforts.
  • Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, also pushed incessantly for the codified racial and sexual discrimination known as “diversity”, instead of ensuring the United States Navy was organized, trained, and equipped to fight a war at sea.  The Navy, following his tenure as CNO, is woefully unprepared for such an eventuality.  However, it seemed far more important to Roughead that the Navy “looked like America”, selecting and promoting its leaders on criteria other than merit and suitability.  Race and gender (and sexual preference) have replaced competence and performance.  The mess Roughead made will take a decade to clean up, if it even can be.
  • In the midst of a sabre-rattling North Korea, with its rapidly increasing ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons development, and a PLA Navy becoming ever more aggressive and capable, openly hostile to US interests and that of our allies in the Pacific Rim, COMUSPACOM Admiral Sam Locklear declared that the biggest security threat facing his forces was…….   global warming.
  • As part of the debacle of being relieved for cause as COMUSFOR-A, (ironically, because he and his Officers were highly critical of political leadership) Army General Stanley McChrystal let it be known he had voted for Barack Obama.  Revealing whom one voted for while speaking as an active duty Officer was once considered a serious taboo.  In fact, I don’t know if I can recall any senior Officer acknowledging such quite so publicly.  To the surprise of nobody, as soon as he retired, McCrystal went on to rail about his support for gun control and other leftist agenda items.  Nary a peep of protest from Dempsey.
  • Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff USMC General “Hoss” Cartwright openly described Constitutional limitations to the authority of the Defense Department as “obstacles” to mission accomplishment rather than necessary bulwarks for the preservation of individual liberties.  In what context?  To push Barack Obama’s July 2009 agenda to expand the authority of Government over the internet, specifically privately-owned networks and information infrastructure.

Advocating for political platforms, indeed.  Yes, it is sometimes a tricky course to navigate, to follow the orders of the President as Commander in Chief, without being an active agent in his advancing a domestic political agenda.  But that is why much is expected (or had been, at least) of the professionalism and judgment of senior Officers.  Admiral William Leahy, despite his personal bent toward Republican conservatism, was able to serve his President, New-Dealer Franklin Roosevelt, loyally and superbly throughout the Second World War.  As did Dwight Eisenhower, who would become the Republican nominee in 1952.   There seem to be an ever-shrinking number of GOFOs in the higher ranks of our military with the character and willingness to do so.

The increasing politicization of the senior leadership of the Armed Forces of the United States means such egregious political pandering and subversion of our Constitution will increase, not decrease.  Yet, people like VADM Crowder and CDR Wisecup seem to think it is the RETIRED GOFOs that pose the danger to seeing our Armed Forces become yet another government weapon to be used against political opposition instead of fighting and winning our nation’s wars against America’s enemies.   I find that quite concerning.  Once again, just like we are told after yet another act of Islamist terrorism that law-abiding Americans are to blame for exercising their Constitutional liberties under the Second Amendment, it is actually the GOFO retirees who are the problem, not the invertebrate political lap-dogs on active duty doing the bidding of the left, and that those retirees should refrain from exercising their Constitutional liberties under the First Amendment.    Each of those assertions requires the embracing of a dangerous double standard.   And each requires a generous helping of cognitive dissonance.  A disturbing trend, to be sure.

 

Food for Thought: Being Prepared

Some very sound advice from alte kamerad JPP over at the new place (intheoldcorps.com).

What do you carry? As in, what do you have with you on a consistent daily basis to help deal with emergencies at work or on the commute? In light of recent events, you might want to review your preparations.

In my opinion– and let’s leave guns off the list for now– you should have these things with you:

  • A tourniquet
  • An emergency battle dressing, sometimes called the “Israeli battle dressing”
  • A packet of gauze, better still gauze impregnated with a blood-stopper agent
  • Training in the use of the three items above
  • A good knife or a Leatherman, maybe both
  • A light, preferably a headlamp because that leaves your hands free, with fresh batteries
  • At least one way to start a fire
  • A way to charge your cell phone
  • A dust mask (might be a good idea getting out of a building)
  • A PLAN TO GET HOME OR TO AN INTERMEDIATE SAFE HAVEN

Gather those things, have them in your car, or somewhere handy.  And think.  Rehearse it in your head.  What would you do?  Where would you go?  Think it through.  With more and more reports of batches of cell phones being bought, and theft of large numbers of propane tanks, such thinking and rehearsing and equipping is more than prudent.  Despite B. Hussein’s incessant delusional rantings that violent muslim extremists don’t present a threat.

As for other things to carry?  More sound advice.

Regarding the gun, if your daily circumstances allow you to carry, you should. And with at least one extra magazine. If that’s a no-go (it’s a no-go in my work place), can you stash one nearby with your like-minded relative or co-worker?

Because those who tell you that the solution to radical islam is gun control, have armed guards 24/7, paid for by the very people they want to disarm.

San Bernadino Shooting

By now most of us have seen the news of the horrific events unfolding in San Bernadino, CA.  Up to three shooters, who witnesses say were dressed in body armor and tactical gear and carrying rifles, walked deliberately into a holiday party  and began killing and wounding.

There has been much confusion regarding events, understandably enough.  But police very early on described the shooters as being deliberate, “on a mission”, to use the exact verbiage.

Even as the event unfolded, there were calls for gun control from, among others, President Obama.  He called for measures to be taken to “make Americans safer”, whatever that might mean, but likely can be guessed at.  The CA Lt. Governor demanded additional restrictions on guns, in the already draconian California, claiming the day’s events were evidence of that need.

CNN, for their part, had on a series of “experts” who speculated, among other things, that there was no link whatever to Islamic terrorism or foreign terrorists.  Using exactly what for a basis, I cannot say.  One such analyst openly asked about the shooters being a “militia” attacking a federal facility, like Timothy McVeigh.

While scanning the news channels and internet feeds, I happened by Fox News, and Bill O’Reilly.  Normally not a fan, of either Fox or O’Reilly.  But he had on two counter-terrorism experts, Jim Hanson and Aaron Cohen, both of whom reported that a name had been circulated in relation to one of the suspects across the police channels in the vicinity of the scene.

The FBI Agent in Charge, in a press conference, danced around the idea of terrorism, saying he “isn’t willing to go down that road yet”.   The Sheriff is talking about planning, and other suspects involved.  No names of the suspects, though two are “confirmed” dead, one being a female.   No word as to whether she was a widow.

The name circulated by police and by news outlets?  A name assiduously avoided by the Chief and FBI agent at the press conference.   Though they did manage to mention “assault weapons” at least six times.

Farooq Saeed.

Had his name been Dennis Saunders, I do believe we would have known it already.  Quite some time ago.

All speculation, to be sure.  But we shall see, again, how close it is to events.  God’s mercy on the souls of the deceased, and the wounded, and those who love them.  And God’s mercy on this country of ours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pass the Gravy and… Get Off My Lawn!

Uncle Strick over at Free Beacon has some views to express to his pansy Marxist nephew on this day of thanks.

This kid, my nephew, will never admit to being a communist, it’s always this “moderate independent” crap. But his Facebook feed is full of Bernie Sandinista, if you know what I mean, and he recently tweeted some gibberish about riding the bus in Czechoslovakia and identifying as a “human being” instead of what he is, an American. He’s been a “student” at some Ivy League circle jerk for the better part of a decade. I think he’s 29, who the hell even cares? If he’s the future, this country’s digging its own grave and I’m glad I won’t be there when it finally kicks the bucket. When I was his age, I was flying Ranger battalions into Grenada in ’83. I spent Thanksgiving there, and believe me, we didn’t have any damn printouts. We had a war, son…

He’s gonna be all like “you’re just giving ISIS what they want.” I’ll come back at him with something like: “You know, you raise an interesting point there, Brayden. I’ll tell you what, why don’t you invite one of your ISIS pals around the house and we’ll see how much he likes it when I slash his guts out with the turkey knife. You think that’s what he wants? They want us to crush them? Tell me something, how did you feel when your Little League team got mercy-ruled by those country boys in the district finals? Is that what you wanted? Were you just phoning it in for the “participant” trophy?

…When’s the last time you got a blister on those hands? Don’t mention the time you tried eating the vegan hotdog at the WNBA game you made me take you to out of “fairness.” You didn’t even watch the game. You just tweeted about sexism on your iPad. You know, that little computer screen made by Apple, which last I checked was a corporation, Mr. Occupy.

I can understand how he feels.  My brother’s oldest, lovely girl that she is, hasn’t seen much of the world outside the upscale Boston suburb she resides in, or a fully-funded semester abroad in Italy.  So she is fairly convinced that all the progressive feminist bullsh*t she was taught in college is gospel truth.  Because as soon as the discussion involves facts, interest wanes.  Thankfully, her other uncle makes me look like a McGovern Democrat.  🙂

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!  I hope you are just as groggy and stuffed as I am!

 

H/T to Fran D!